Different political and economic systems.

[Brett Nortj]

With variety of economic systems out there, there is a lot to choose from. Unfortunately, there is only examples of how it turned out for each country that tried it, and each country is different. This means that there is no way to tell if it is right for you country, as this would require a sample of the climates of customer trends, loan availability and history, opportunism and other factors too. Hell, it comes down to being so specific it is mind throbbing.

So, to simulate the economic system, the best the state can do is work it out on paper. Without marketing analysis, there would be only assets - yes observing the assets of the country is the onyly reliable information to work with, as this shows things in cement, not graphs of tendencies.

With that being said, some economic systems compliment some political systems.

[iNow]

What exactly do you wish to discuss?

No country is able to implement a system in its purest form. In practice, we're always experiencing some hybrid of systems and ideologies. They differ across sector, across time, and across other similar variables. 

Likewise, even with our own personal preferences, we tend to highlight the bits of each philosophy most congruent with our individual preferences, but also in parallel tend to ignore the bits that run counter to our individual preferences. In short, individuals tend to cherry pick and select the bits they like while ignoring the bits they don't. 

The best we can do is to find agreement on the desired outcome then negotiate on how to find that balance. Do we want all people to have access to food, shelter, healthcare, and security? Do we want all people to fend for themselves, returning to a bartering lifestyle with no system or foundation underlying society? The answer is always somewhere in between and the discussion is always about how best to balance our own preferences with the preferences of others around us.

That said... What exactly do YOU wish to discuss? Wasn't clear to me from your OP, which seemed more like a diary or journal entry better suited for a blog.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

The best we can do is to find agreement on the desired outcome then negotiate on how to find that balance.

I think the US is out of balance. We have too much private ownership involved in our publicly-owned operations, and that's given the wealthy too much power. But I'm starting to wonder if we need new words to define our basic needs as a modern society. Just claiming we need more "Socialism" to balance the "Capitalism" isn't going to reach the ears it needs to. 

I'd love to see the US develop a system together with the EU where any of the citizens could study in any of the universities. I'd love to see Medicare for all in the US, and I think it should be set up so later administrations who don't believe in healthcare for its citizens can't mess with it. I think some kind of basic universal income could be the third point of this different political and economic system.

In any case, people need to remember that they give up many freedoms when they agree to abide by a societies rules. They should get more out of it, and the system shouldn't be set up to prey on them, or keep them in their place with a foot on their throat. We need systems that educate, and keep people healthy, and value them for their potential contributions. More emphasis on public ownership without private profit will really help.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think the US is out of balance. We have too much private ownership involved in our publicly-owned operations, and that's given the wealthy too much power. But I'm starting to wonder if we need new words to define our basic needs as a modern society. Just claiming we need more "Socialism" to balance the "Capitalism" isn't going to reach the ears it needs to. 

I'd love to see the US develop a system together with the EU where any of the citizens could study in any of the universities. I'd love to see Medicare for all in the US, and I think it should be set up so later administrations who don't believe in healthcare for its citizens can't mess with it. I think some kind of basic universal income could be the third point of this different political and economic system.

In any case, people need to remember that they give up many freedoms when they agree to abide by a societies rules. They should get more out of it, and the system shouldn't be set up to prey on them, or keep them in their place with a foot on their throat. We need systems that educate, and keep people healthy, and value them for their potential contributions. More emphasis on public ownership without private profit will really help.

It seems that in the U.S. the only thing many people care about is the economy. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, environment, and etc are not things which currently matter. Rather anything which is argued to potentially have a positive impact on the economy is treated as the govt's priority. In my opinion govts don't exist to ensure private companies maximize profit. That is why corporations exist not govts. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

It seems that in the U.S. the only thing many people care about is the economy. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, environment, and etc are not things which currently matter. Rather anything which is argued to potentially have a positive impact on the economy is treated as the govt's priority. In my opinion govts don't exist to ensure private companies maximize profit. That is why corporations exist not govts. 

Exactly. A good government provides the framework to allow each type of ownership to do what it's intended to do. Focus on the economy benefits the already wealthy far more than anyone else. 

A big part of our problem is that most of the best solutions are fairly boring, and don't get air time against the outlandish things our leaders are doing. Medicare for All is a no-brainer, quick and simple (not easy, simple). It will scale nicely, and as long as we give them back their bulk purchasing power, Medicare will do well. Fixing existing bridges and other infrastructure problems is equally boring, nothing innovative, and doesn't attract attention from the electorate, until the bridges fall down, then private companies swoop in to provide the fix at triple overtime because our leaders let it get so bad. But there are many who think a wall between us and Mexico is more important than all those bridges and sanitation facilities and water treatment plants.

I'm very tired of the Republican party in this country. They're overrepresented, they're the only party that actively and willfully fails to do the job of certain agencies they don't approve of. They're ignorant of climate change, so they put morons in charge of the EPA. They don't care about OSHA, they don't care about FEMA, and the only thing they want to do with public education is turn it into an investment opportunity. They've destroyed the integrity of our media, they've continually put profit ahead of people's lives, and I hope the newer parts of the party (the Tea jerks and the White Supremacists and the Neocons) rot and fall off like the disease they are. 

That said, I don't want the Democrats to have all the power either. The wealthy manipulate the Dems as well, but we usually get better social focus. 

[Ten oz]

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That said, I don't want the Democrats to have all the power either. The wealthy manipulate the Dems as well, but we usually get better social focus. 

Democrats are not monolithic. Even when Obama had a Democratic congress for 2yrs he struggled to get his agenda pushed through. Looking back it is a travesty action wasn't taken on Immigration.  What Obama did get passed during that time both the left and right wings within the Democratic party failed to vigorously defend. Just look at the ACA. It is popular enough that Republican are afraid to repeal it yet Democrats never owned it allowing instead for it to just be labelled "Obamacare" and hung around Obama's neck alone. I think if Democrats had all the power for several years the party would splinter and we'd be back to 2 party rule only both parties would be sane. I rather see full democratic control where the majority evolved actually believe in govt than split control where one side exists purely to sabotage the other. 

The Republican party has done nothing for a decade other than just cry wolf. During Obama's years they screamed at the tops of their lungs about Obamacare, road around on their high horses about deficits and spending, gave their most heart felt commentary on folks being under employed, cried about the fidelity of law enforcement (blue lives matter you know), and never missed a chance to bring up black on black violence in Chicago. Today they give 2 sh*ts about any of it. They have no repeal and replace for Obamacare and don't bother talking about healthcare at all anymore, spending & deficits have skyrocketed, the same economy is being celebrated Great Gatsby style, Law Enforcement are now executors of witch hunts, and 75 people were shot this past weekend in Chicago and the GOP could careless. The GOP are totally disingenuous about everything. Debate with them isn't about competing views but rather an aggressive string of lies ad hominem lies desired to create much division as possible. Just a couple years ago Republicans insisted Obama was weak on Assad, weak on Putin, Weak on Kim Jung-un, and Islamic terror was the greatest challenge the world faced. Today they have empowered Assad, Putin, Jung-un, and are no longer that interested in Mid East terrorism (3 NATO troops were just killed in a suicide attack this past weekend). Everything Republicans say is just a distraction. It is like they are not a political party at all but rather a group of wealthy investment bankers masquerading as a political party so they can have tax cuts. They invent any position as needed so they can get in to power and get more tax cuts. 

As that applies to this thread Republicans in the U.S. are an example of what happens when economics are the primary focus of a govt rather than quality of life. Most Mid East theocracies like Qatar and Kuwait have great economies with high per capita incomes than does the U.S. but so what they are oppress theocracies. Simply being wealthy isn't proof a govt is functioning for everyone. 

[Brett Nortj]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Exactly. A good government provides the framework to allow each type of ownership to do what it's intended to do. Focus on the economy benefits the already wealthy far more than anyone else. 

A big part of our problem is that most of the best solutions are fairly boring, and don't get air time against the outlandish things our leaders are doing. Medicare for All is a no-brainer, quick and simple (not easy, simple). It will scale nicely, and as long as we give them back their bulk purchasing power, Medicare will do well. Fixing existing bridges and other infrastructure problems is equally boring, nothing innovative, and doesn't attract attention from the electorate, until the bridges fall down, then private companies swoop in to provide the fix at triple overtime because our leaders let it get so bad. But there are many who think a wall between us and Mexico is more important than all those bridges and sanitation facilities and water treatment plants.

I'm very tired of the Republican party in this country. They're overrepresented, they're the only party that actively and willfully fails to do the job of certain agencies they don't approve of. They're ignorant of climate change, so they put morons in charge of the EPA. They don't care about OSHA, they don't care about FEMA, and the only thing they want to do with public education is turn it into an investment opportunity. They've destroyed the integrity of our media, they've continually put profit ahead of people's lives, and I hope the newer parts of the party (the Tea jerks and the White Supremacists and the Neocons) rot and fall off like the disease they are. 

That said, I don't want the Democrats to have all the power either. The wealthy manipulate the Dems as well, but we usually get better social focus. 

When the economy grows, ability to buy grows, and, that is founded on the poor getting hired, as the middle class become wealthier, the they ascend and the poor take their place. Think of a pyramid, as the top gets broader, the bottom must grow to support the top, due to needs at the top, and, supply at the bottom.

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

When the economy grows, ability to buy grows, and, that is founded on the poor getting hired, as the middle class become wealthier, the they ascend and the poor take their place. Think of a pyramid, as the top gets broader, the bottom must grow to support the top, due to needs at the top, and, supply at the bottom.

Can you provide real life examples where this was the case? Adjusted for inflation average workers in the U.S. haven't had a pay increase in 40yrs meanwhile in China workers are making triple what they were just a decade ago. In Qatar all citizens receive a check from the govt as part of profit sharing on the oil. In Qatar the median income is great than it is in the U.S.. Despite the rapid wage growth in China or the high incomes of Qatar neither have equitable govts were the poor get ahead or all citizens enjoy equality. Economic success does not automatically equal freedom.

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, Brett Nortj said:

When the economy grows, ability to buy grows, and, that is founded on the poor getting hired, as the middle class become wealthier, the they ascend and the poor take their place. Think of a pyramid, as the top gets broader, the bottom must grow to support the top, due to needs at the top, and, supply at the bottom.

Admittedly my exposure is primarily in the US, but other than a few exceptions it has been my experience that if you start out poor you end up poor. Same for middle class and rich.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Admittedly my exposure is primarily in the US, but other than a few exceptions it has been my experience that if you start out poor you end up poor. Same for middle class and rich.

The importance of privilege:

https://www.boredpanda.com/lesson-about-privilege-awareness/

Quote

[As a teacher, I...] Place a trash can in the front of the room, and have my students take a piece of paper and crumble it into a ball.  I will ask them to try to shoot their paper ball in the trash can from where they are seated.  I will explain to them first that they as a class represent the country’s population, and that the trash can represents America’s upper class.  Being that we live in the “land of opportunity,” everyone will be given the chance to “make it big” and become wealthy by throwing their paper ball into the trash can.  Whoever successfully shoots their ball into the trash has made it to the upper- class. Most likely, my students sitting all the way in the back of the classroom will start complaining, saying that their peers sitting in the front have an unfair advantage.  I will use this opportunity to make the perfect segue into talking about privilege and inequality. The closer you are to the trash can, the better odds you have, the more privilege you have.  It’s not impossible for those in the back to also shoot their paper balls in the trash can, but it’s a lot harder for them.  I will make a point to explain that the students sitting in the front row were probably unaware of their privilege initially as “they only saw 10 feet between [themselves] and their goal” (Pyle, BuzzFeed).  I will also point out that the people who were complaining were the students sitting in the back.  I will wrap up the lesson by stating that education is also a privilege, and that my students are capable of using that privilege in order to advocate for those who are behind them.

Click the link for graphics that further drive home the point made by the text.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Admittedly my exposure is primarily in the US, but other than a few exceptions it has been my experience that if you start out poor you end up poor. Same for middle class and rich.

In US majority of people are not attached to their family houses/apartments. Population is very moveable. One part of family on east coast (in rented apartments), other part of family on west coast (also in rented apartments mostly). For example here, majority of grandparents are giving their grandchild their houses and apartments (if they own any) in the last will (and they are real, made of concrete and bricks, not "woody shacks"). Then they rarely sell them, instead continue living in them. People without full ownership of house/apartment (and without loan) are spending majority of their income on lending house/apartment, which disallows them to get out of this circle..

List of countries by home ownership rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

US 64.5% home ownership rate..

(property tax and cadastral tax ("Ad valorem tax") can really f**k this up... disallowing poor people get out of being poor.. imagine retired person owning house which value increased significantly just because of demand for properties in area, and unable to pay it, is forced to sell it (his/her pension didn't increase accordingly with value of his/her real estate!).. and can't give it to child/grandchild)

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by Sensei

[iNow]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right-dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong

Quote

Even poor kids who do everything right don't do much better than rich kids who do everything wrong. Advantages and disadvantages, in other words, tend to perpetuate themselves.  <...> Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. Not only that, but these low-income strivers are just as likely to end up in the bottom as these wealthy ne'er-do-wells. Some meritocracy.

[StringJunky]

On 06/08/2018 at 4:40 PM, Phi for All said:

I think the US is out of balance. We have too much private ownership involved in our publicly-owned operations, and that's given the wealthy too much power. But I'm starting to wonder if we need new words to define our basic needs as a modern society. Just claiming we need more "Socialism" to balance the "Capitalism" isn't going to reach the ears it needs to. 

I'd love to see the US develop a system together with the EU where any of the citizens could study in any of the universities. I'd love to see Medicare for all in the US, and I think it should be set up so later administrations who don't believe in healthcare for its citizens can't mess with it. I think some kind of basic universal income could be the third point of this different political and economic system.

In any case, people need to remember that they give up many freedoms when they agree to abide by a societies rules. They should get more out of it, and the system shouldn't be set up to prey on them, or keep them in their place with a foot on their throat. We need systems that educate, and keep people healthy, and value them for their potential contributions. More emphasis on public ownership without private profit will really help.

I do wonder how the UK's NHS is so resilient in that respect because I'm sure several Tory goverments would love to have got shot of it.