Originally Posted by Odin

You nailed it. Lincoln didn't give a damn about slavery as long as it didn't spread westward; IIRC he though it would slowly die out once it was contained. Unfortunately, banning the spread of slavery would result in the Southern Aristocracy losing political power in the senate as more free states were created. The Southern Aristocracy refused to budge and even became moronically paranoid, the result was disaster.

Oh, I think they were rightly and properly paranoid. Their way of life and their values were being faced with inevitable doom. It would be expected for them to be as irrational or more irrational than members of this forum when their own values are put into question.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Oh, I think they were rightly and properly paranoid. Their way of life and their values were being faced with inevitable doom. It would be expected for them to be as irrational or more irrational than members of this forum when their own values are put into question.

And they did irrational things as a result. Trying to justify it ex post facto doesn't change that.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let me remind you of the Manhattan Project and NASA. Can you show anyway either effort could have been undertaken by the private sector ... with its own money?

With response to the second, I would point you towards the recent winners of the X-prize, and their ongoing efforts.

With regards to the first, I am frankly surprised. Are you asserting that the end product of the Manhattan Project is something we should want?

NASA did have some success and some failure, but at what price as compared to what would have been done had this been a free market endeavor. The free market is so much better; look at the failure of the planned economy of the Soviet Union. Personally I resent having wealth extracted from me for projects like NASA that someone else wanted and decided that I should pay. I am pro choice when it comes to economics.

As far as the Manhattan project, first of all, scientists had already done some successful experiments that indicated the theory behind nuclear fission was sound, and that it was likely practical. This was a war time project which perhaps motivated the scientists involved to not do the ordinary government job. This contrasts to fusion which has been worked on since the 1930's without having more energy produced than expended. The $300 million that has been mentioned as the cost of the latest and greatest version of fusion is well within the means of the private market, but apparently no existing business or group of private investors assesses the likelyhood of success to be great enough to warrant the risk. If it looked like a good deal, a joint venture could easily raise the funds.

Success by government is more an accident than a characteristic of the system. A good example is the government school system where teachers are rewarded by tenure and not achievement, and where huge administration costs are incurred. Good teachers are not encouraged and bad are not punished, so it is a roll of the dice when it comes to quality education. What is the result when you take competition out of the education business? Most schools are mediocre to bad, but there are random exceptions, accidents of the system which has no mechanism to insure excellence. In a free market education system, the bad schools quickly fail because people spend their money elsewhere. Don't you think most people would go to private schools if they had not already been forced to pay for public schools? Would you go back to an incompetent, overcharging auto mechanic, but if the auto repair shops were government run, and you had to go to the one in your district, then this would happen.

So we face an energy crisis. Do you want the results similar to the public school system where private alternatives are crowded out? Or do you want the free market and competition to bring forth the best solutions, if there are in fact any solutions? Already the ethanol boondoggle should be apparent and this is the choice of government being crammed down our economic throats. We are being forced as taxpayers to subsidize an endeavor that no sane businessman would undertake without the subsidy. Does not that give you a clue that more resources are being used than produced if something is unprofitable without subsidy? Then there is the unintended consequence of doubling corn prices, with more to come as more and more corn is diverted to ethanol. And what about the developing fresh water scarcity, before the drain that ethanol will place on the water supply? Were the free market allowed to operate, then the resources now being squandered in ethanol plants might flow into something that works, and we would not have idiots like King George III making the choice for us.

I personally am convinced that the cost growth curve for energy acquisition will be the source of the 4T crisis. (This is not the peak oil problem which is in addition to the cost curve problem.) Energy to acquire oil is doubling every 20 years. This applies to all fossil fuels, but our industrial economy is based on cheap fuel. If we have energy cost of 16% today, in 2027 it will be 32%, and in 2047 it will be 64%. It can't double after that again without going over 100%. At the end, there will be oil, natural gas, and coal still in the ground, but it will take more energy to get it out than we get back. Why do you think that the real earnings for the average man has been stagnating? The economic pie in real terms is not expanding, and as this problem unfolds, the pie will contract significantly.

If you are depending on the collectivist approach to solve this problem for you, then you will get what government is prone to deliver; little and at wasteful costs.

There is no such thing as a free market, it is a theoretical entity that cannot exist in reality. There are only so-called "free markets" that are de facto regulated by corporate interests against the interests of consumers and workers; and there are markets regulated by the government in the name of the people.

Of course Libertarians are Free Market Fundies and thus don't care about reality.

Originally Posted by Odin

There is no such thing as a free market, it is a theoretical entity that cannot exist in reality. There are only so-called "free markets" that are de facto regulated by corporate interests against the interests of consumers and workers; and there are markets regulated by the government in the name of the people.

Umm. You do realize that corporate interests are creations of government privilege? That is, that the two situations you describe are not only not mutually exclusive, but are necessarily tied and simultaneously present whenever the power is assumed to make markets unfree?

(And that doesn't even begin to address the implied fallacy of your second option -- that governments which regulate in the name of the people do so for the interest of the people).

I didn't think it possible, but it seems your grounding in sociopolitics and economics is even flimsier than your grounding in the sciences... assuming, of course, you're not just a troll...

for a Great D-i-v-o-r-c-e after all the domestic abuse, foreign affairs, and extreme mental cruelty

Originally Posted by Odin

There is no such thing as a free market, it is a theoretical entity that cannot exist in reality. There are only so-called "free markets" that are de facto regulated by corporate interests against the interests of consumers and workers; and there are markets regulated by the government in the name of the people.

Of course Libertarians are Free Market Fundies and thus don't care about reality.

At present, you are correct. There can be a *MORE* free market than exists at present. The market has been corrupted by a number of things that "Govco" has done.

1. The Federal Reserve. Get rid of that government sanctioned banking monopoly. Why should economic actors pay "tribute", er um interest to that? The actual actions of the Fed are hardly noticed. The real result of the Fed's actions have been a transfer of weath from productive econimic actors to rent seekers.

2. Corporate charters are granted by assorted governments. The coop model seems to be a better way to go. With a coop, there is no segregation of the means of production from the workers. It really isn't socialism , since there's no direct government involement.

3. The problem of mulitnats. Multinats are essentially a mutant form of corporations. They may have some government charter originating someplace. The reality is they have no direct linkage to any nation state or workers. Thus, they are at best parasites. The classical Libertariean really doesn't acknowledge that reality, I'll grant you. Justin's observation seems to make more sense for this. Essentially, multinats gain government perks via playing one nation state against another or by buying off the proper people. The remedy of decoupling this arrangement is what is needed, but it's so dang hard to implement I think it's something that needs to be addressed since it delegitimizes the public sector in general.
(A for whom does a government *really* serve ?) If the answer is mulinats and the perception that this arrangement is a main driver for ripping people off, then at some point, pressure builds and violence could result. This is because the normal democrtic processs of grievance settling gets mucked up.

4. So it's more of a structural problem. First you have corporations which are legal entities , sanctioned by the government. At the periphery, corporate welfare should end. Later, it's the legal status and structure of how corporations are set up that would need to be redone.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

for a Great D-i-v-o-r-c-e after all the domestic abuse, foreign affairs, and extreme mental cruelty

Excellent find, Mr. Saari. THAT is regeneracy!

Say it slowly with me everybody.

Ideal Type.

See that wasn't so hard.

Originally Posted by antichrist

Say it slowly with me everybody.
Ideal Type.
See that wasn't so hard.

True enough, but let's all remember to recite that at the polls. It's not like we lack options. There's 1 nomad and several artists on the ballot. So if we get another Idealist as prez, we have nobody but ourselves to blame.

The comparison of secession to divorce is very telling. I would not rush into such a decision, as some appear to be doing.

It smacks a bit of "I'm taking my ball and going home" rather than doing the hard work of reform.

Originally Posted by jeil

NASA did have some success and some failure, but at what price as compared to what would have been done had this been a free market endeavor. The free market is so much better; look at the failure of the planned economy of the Soviet Union.

I can actually break this down a lot better. NASA was doing fine as a research organization until we decided going to the moon was a matter of national security. Then we essentially turned it all over to the military-industrial complex; if you don't believe me, take a look at the structures of the Shuttle contracts and the defense procurement contracts, which are dang near identical. We got to the moon as per our public commitment, and soon after that it all went to heck. A central planning committee determined to control all US space access grabbed the Shuttle project and used it from 1973 through 2003 to kill any other public sector efforts to access space. By 1980 they had actually killed the military launch systems; these were resurrected after the Challenger blew. The loss of the Columbia allowed progressive elements to boot the reactionaries from budget control, and now private space is growing with active NASA cooperation.

Unfortunately, the prioritization of control over results or efficiency and the high-profile loss of two out of our five baskets of eggs has caused Congress to no longer trust NASA. As a result, the little boy whose career was started by seeing the shuttle Enterprise at the New Orleans World's Fair is now actively cheering its demise.

I believe in a mixed public-private economy... but the right kind, the kind dedicated to preserving the free market and intervening when it gets stuck in the semi-inevitable cul-de-sac. I don't believe in the kind of public-private economy where the two entities conspire to maintain monopolies, and that's what we have had in aerospace for thirty plus years.

The $300 million that has been mentioned as the cost of the latest and greatest version of fusion is well within the means of the private market, but apparently no existing business or group of private investors assesses the likelyhood of success to be great enough to warrant the risk. If it looked like a good deal, a joint venture could easily raise the funds.

But central planners, having bet on an earlier and more costly plan, do not have the werewithal to reverse course, and actively seek to kill superior alternatives. This is, to put it in technical terms, a problem.

Success by government is more an accident than a characteristic of the system.

You miss the point, which Justin could probably elaborate upon. The point of good government is not to cause success; it's to remove obstacles to success -- and to ensure the government is not itself said obstacle.

Originally Posted by Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, long string of honorary letters

Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others.

A good example is the government school system where teachers are rewarded by tenure and not achievement, and where huge administration costs are incurred.

I like the idea of tenure if it is matched by a long series of merit-based trials required for entrance; it provides a systemic source of long-term memory. I don't like tenure incurred by butt-sitting; it encourages survival-oriented bureaucratic parasites instead.

Most schools are mediocre to bad, but there are random exceptions, accidents of the system which has no mechanism to insure excellence.

Not true. School quality in the United States correlates to three factors: (1) income of the parents; (2) the local social value of education; (3) a focus on results over process. There is, in fact, a free market in education (except where teachers are unionized) that causes the best teachers to gravitate to schools where they are paid well, respected, and not harrassed by administrative paperwork. These qualities would be accelerated by a free market system, and subsidies to the poor to finance their participation in such a free market system would result in inflation and/or raises until an equilibrium was re-established... and equilibrium similar to today's, where the rich get educated and the poor are never expected to be educable past a certain point.

Don't you think most people would go to private schools if they had not already been forced to pay for public schools?

I think they would if they could. Not everyone can afford it even if you hand them their school taxes back. And there are some who actively resist education, believe it or not.

And yet government has a role to play: not in active management, but in maintaining the marketplace. Investigating, grabbing, and zapping cheaters. Publishing statistics on performance. Funding basic research. And figuring out how the market is failing and addressing the areas left unserved. There's a lot a government should do to maintain a marketplace.

Anyway, on energy, the ethanol bit is brought to you by a certain mega-agricorp already indicted for price-fixing, who doesn't care that Mexican peasants can't afford their tortillas. Solar, nuclear, and (to a lesser extent) clean coal are the (immediate to mid-term) answers to the energy crisis, and we will come around to them in due time.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

At present, you are correct. There can be a *MORE* free market than exists at present. The market has been corrupted by a number of things that "Govco" has done.

1. The Federal Reserve. Get rid of that government sanctioned banking monopoly. Why should economic actors pay "tribute", er um interest to that? The actual actions of the Fed are hardly noticed. The real result of the Fed's actions have been a transfer of weath from productive econimic actors to rent seekers.

Who's going to regulate the money supply?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

2. Corporate charters are granted by assorted governments. The coop model seems to be a better way to go. With a coop, there is no segregation of the means of production from the workers. It really isn't socialism , since there's no direct government involement.

Actually, a co-op based economy is technically socialist (Market socialism, to be exact). That is what I am, a market socialist. Planning vs. markets is a separate question from who owns the means of production.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

3. The problem of mulitnats. Multinats are essentially a mutant form of corporations. They may have some government charter originating someplace. The reality is they have no direct linkage to any nation state or workers. Thus, they are at best parasites. The classical Libertariean really doesn't acknowledge that reality, I'll grant you. Justin's observation seems to make more sense for this. Essentially, multinats gain government perks via playing one nation state against another or by buying off the proper people. The remedy of decoupling this arrangement is what is needed, but it's so dang hard to implement I think it's something that needs to be addressed since it delegitimizes the public sector in general.
(A for whom does a government *really* serve ?) If the answer is mulinats and the perception that this arrangement is a main driver for ripping people off, then at some point, pressure builds and violence could result. This is because the normal democrtic processs of grievance settling gets mucked up.

4. So it's more of a structural problem. First you have corporations which are legal entities , sanctioned by the government. At the periphery, corporate welfare should end. Later, it's the legal status and structure of how corporations are set up that would need to be redone.

IMO there needs to be some form of international economic treaty regulating the actions of multi-national businesses in order to prevent them playing countries off one another in a race to the bottom, and countries that don't go along with the treaty should get hit with massive tariffs from the treaty countries.

Originally Posted by Odin

Who's going to regulate the money supply?

Nobody/ everyone I believe in monetary democracy. Money is just a commodity so to answer the question at hand, gold would be the main "regulator". I trust a hunk of gold atoms far more than the Fed and it's "money". Most definitions of money infer that it's purpose is to facillitate trade , be divisible, etc. and be a STORE OF VALUE. The crap the Fed puts out is not a store of value, so it ain't money for me. Copper and silver would work as add ons or be the money. I'm pretty open to anything which has a symbol on the periodic chart.

]
Actually, a co-op based economy is technically socialist (Market socialism, to be exact). That is what I am, a market socialist. Planning vs. markets is a separate question from who owns the means of production.

OK. I just think the time has come to replace the legal economic form known as a "corporation" with coops. I know they work well in quite a few facets. My insurance company is technically a coop or as they call it a "mutual insurance company". The policy holders own the insurance company and any profits get sent back out to the policy holders if the reserve is sufficient. The same goes "back home". The electric company is a rural coop, where the customers technically own it, and finally my credit union.
But hey if all of that falls under the rubric of "market socialism", than I prefer all of those arrangements by far over corporations. There's no "rent seeking" or speculation in any of the above

IMO there needs to be some form of international economic treaty regulating the actions of multi-national businesses in order to prevent them playing countries off one another in a race to the bottom, and countries that don't go along with the treaty should get hit with massive tariffs from the treaty countries.

Uh yeah. One would think our current prophet generation would at least say something along those lines instead of being at one with multinats. I mean really, even the Missionaries had William Jennings Bryan. He was a flake in supporting prohibition and loose money, but other than that, not too bad.
This is going to put us nomads in sort of an awkward position to say the least. We may have to try and I mean really try and give the prophets a wedgie on this and go off and do this ourselves. It's like the immigration thing, usually it's the prophets that put the kabash on this, but this go round it's the first wave X'ers (Jonesers) who are making the ruckus. Looks like we'll have to put the kabash on rampant corporatism as well.This is unreal, us Jonesers have to go and do prophet things and nomad things. I guess it's a good thing, we are such a huge cohort group with all that work to be done...

Originally Posted by Odin

There is no such thing as a free market, it is a theoretical entity that cannot exist in reality. There are only so-called "free markets" that are de facto regulated by corporate interests against the interests of consumers and workers; and there are markets regulated by the government in the name of the people.

Of course Libertarians are Free Market Fundies and thus don't care about reality.

At least in later posts you admit that what we have is not the totally the free market. What is the basis of your assertion that free markets are theoretical? They have existed from time to time in history, but the wealth they produce seems to be too great a temptation for those who desire to plunder, so government eventually intercedes and destroys the goose that laid the golden egg.

Here are some economic simplifications:
Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are OWNED and CONTROLLED by government.
Fascism is an economic system where the means of production are privately OWNED but CONTROLLED by government.
Freedom is an economic system where the means of production are OWNED and CONTROLLED by individuals.

Our present economy in the USA is a combination of the three systems.

I think that when you object to the private plunder that comes from grants of privilege you are objecting to fascism. The interference in the free market by government taking control does shift wealth in a different direction than the free market would have produced. It is not the free market you should be condemning, but government interference, fascism. You do not misidentify the plunder, but you misidentify the cause. Corporations that compete in the free market are not bad. Corporations that get the government to give them special position, subsidies, grants of monopoly position, and favorable government contracts are not part of the free market, but rather are fascist.

Another glaring error you made is questioning who would control the money supply without the present banking system. What makes you think that someone should control the money supply. The Constitution requires gold and silver be legal tender. Bills of credit (Federal Reserve Notes) are prohibited. So the only way to get more money in circulation is to mine more gold and silver, and the free market tells miners whether people want more money in circulation by whether mining is profitable or not. If the money supply stayed stable, and production in general increased, then the price of things would fall. If production of things fell, the price would go up with a constant money supply. Don't you think it would be a better system in an expanding economy for prices of things to be generally falling than increasing. Your savings would become more valuable, not less.

Originally Posted by Mustang

I don't recall that the troops had been formed into CSA troops by that time, but it does not matter. The property in question no longer belonged to the federal government because the people of South Carolina had seceded from the Union. It was up to the feds to withdraw, but Lincoln was a gamesman who did not respect the original understanding of the Constitution and tried to force a confrontation. Whether Sumter was fired upon by South Carolina, or by the CSA with South Carolina's consent (implied or otherwise), is irrelevant. Either way, the feds should have vacated.

Interestingly, a new secession movement has started in Vermont in opposition to the Bush administration. Should the Bush administration, or some similar future administration, be able to hold Vermont in the Union by force? Is there no escape for Vermont or any other state should things keep getting worse in this country? I invite critics of secession to take another look at the issue in light of the principles of self-government which the Founding Fathers espoused. I cannot imagine that secession would do a damn bit of good in this day and age, but the right of a people to voluntarily remove themselves from a racket which opposes their interests ought to be respected.

What might be helpful here is to tease apart the argument for secession into three key pieces: legal (Constitutional Law); ethical; and practical.

In regard to the legal, there are maybe only two dozen people in the entire world that can cite from memory The Federalist papers by page and verse; of these, I would not likely use all of my fingers and toes to count those sufficiently capable of discerning the Framers' intent regarding secession (fortunately, several of the SCOTUS members qualify). Even among this elite group, it would take considerable time and effort for a "near-enough" consensus to emerge. Bottom line, I would be absolutely flabbergasted if any one on this forum, including myself, could make the case that they have sufficient qualifications to make a Constitutionally-based legal judgment on the issue. So let's put that technical aspect of the argument aside for the moment.

In regard to the ethical, what you (as well as nearly all Americans) value is self-determination. Specifically, you argue for the ethic of self-determination of the state. The problem is that outside of Plato's Cave, values often have to be prioritized for their obtainment or chosen if they are in conflict. Self-determination is a "good" but how does it measure up against the value of preserving human life? Initiating open combat should never be taken lightly by an ethical person or institution; the eventual carnage of the Civil War should attest to that alone. You can argue all you want about Lincoln's political maneuvering,, but the persons or institutions that crossed the line to open conflict should be held to account for the ethic of that decision. They, and you, may very well argue that the value of self-determination exceeds that of preserving human life; I may agree with you.

Your real problem in using the Civil War as example is the short-sighted application of your value of self-determination. There is in no way, shape or form that your concern for states' rights supersedes the most hideous affront to self-determination, i.e., slavery. One may argue the degree of relevance, but any purpose or action that directly or indirectly was associated with staying for one more split second the death knell of that penultimate of monstrosities thoroughly corrupts that purpose or action. Think about the ethical idiocy of a statement that slavery would have eventually petered out.

Fortunately, today, there seems to be no overwhelming affront on par with slavery that would complicate the issue of states' self-determination. Some may be concerned that a woman's reproductive rights might be infringed but as long as she was free to leave a state imposing these restrictions, it might be argued that she was not being subjected to the equivalent of slavery. I would also hope that should secession move towards some momentum of viability that due ethical consideration be given to avoiding open combat.

So the courts will decide what the courts will decide. And perhaps the "good" of state self-determination now trumps other values particularly if open combat can be avoided. What is left is the question of practicality. I would be glad to see the discussion turn more towards that useful direction.

Originally Posted by jeil

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are OWNED and CONTROLLED by government.

WRONG! That's State Capitalism. Socialism is where the means of production are controls by the employees.

Originally Posted by jeil
Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are OWNED and CONTROLLED by government.

Originally Posted by Odin

WRONG! That's State Capitalism. Socialism is where the means of production are controls by the employees.

Hmmm... ancient Chinese proverb at work. Jeil is pulling a tiger by it's tail here.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The comparison of secession to divorce is very telling. I would not rush into such a decision, as some appear to be doing.

It smacks a bit of "I'm taking my ball and going home" rather than doing the hard work of reform.

Rather than 'taking my ball and going home', it's "I tried counselling, judicial restraining, a plea for separate maintenance,... and yet my spouse spends on rentpersons, gambles with the food money, beats the spawn and myself, takes the drug of Romantic Idealism, steals from both the kids and I, won't allow the doors and windows to be locked or even closed, won't fix the interior utility lines or even pay for the service, runs up credit card bills for who knows what, won't consider a regular employment, put our child into the mean streets of Eurasia, and is constantly asking to join in multiple partner social intercourse, and now threatens to kill me and the kids."

(to hide the blackened eyes of the Several States)

Originally Posted by Odin

WRONG! That's State Capitalism. Socialism is where the means of production are controls by the employees.

If employees own and control the means of production, then that is private ownership, just like an organization composed of numerous investors is private ownership, whether you call it a coop in which participants have an ownership interest, or a corporation. In the case of a corporation or coop, owned by employees, it is a privately owned. So I don't see how you can call this Socialism.

But if you want to use the term Socialism to define a subcategory of private ownership, fine and we can call State ownership and control then State Capitalism, a very poor term indeed in my view.

My point is that whenever government involves itself in economic activity other than to prevent theft and fraud, we no longer have a free market. If the government owns and controls the means of production, it is not a free market. If the government controls privately owned property, then it is not a free market. And the consequences of not having a free market are the things about which you complain, while at the same time you beg for more government involvement.

Your quibbling about semantics seems to me to be a means of avoiding the thrust of my argument that it is government bringing of its only ability, force, to market activity that has a negative effect on the normal distribution of wealth to the detriment of those against whom the force is used.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Rather than 'taking my ball and going home', it's "I tried counselling, judicial restraining, a plea for separate maintenance,... and yet my spouse spends on rentpersons, gambles with the food money, beats the spawn and myself, takes the drug of Romantic Idealism, steals from both the kids and I, won't allow the doors and windows to be locked or even closed, won't fix the interior utility lines or even pay for the service, runs up credit card bills for who knows what, won't consider a regular employment, put our child into the mean streets of Eurasia, and is constantly asking to join in multiple partner social intercourse, and now threatens to kill me and the kids."

(to hide the blackened eyes of the Several States)

I see what you're saying, but I still think the analogy is a bit of a stretch. I will play along for the time being.

Since this is a polygamous situation, I believe that gathering two thirds of the StateSpouses together for a consultation (i.e., a constitutional convention) would be a preferable alternative to complete dissolution of the relationship. Certainly if FedSpouse is abusing one relationship, it is likely abusing others as well. They would also appreciate relief.

And as FedSpouse is nothing more than a dysfunctional system perpetuated by humans, it can be likewise be reformed by such, and the "more perfect Union" can be preserved.

Originally Posted by jeil

My point is that whenever government involves itself in economic activity other than to prevent theft and fraud, we no longer have a free market. If the government owns and controls the means of production, it is not a free market. If the government controls privately owned property, then it is not a free market. And the consequences of not having a free market are the things about which you complain, while at the same time you beg for more government involvement.

Your quibbling about semantics seems to me to be a means of avoiding the thrust of my argument that it is government bring of its only ability, force, to market activity has a negative effect on the normal distribution of wealth to the detriment of those against whom the force is used.

In a fair market there must be a level playing field. Thus, there HAS to be a referee to prevent the playing field from being manipulated. There are also some goods and services, healthcare is a example, that "free" markets cannot distribute in a fair way. There is no getting around government intervention in the economy. You don't like that, though luck.

Originally Posted by Odin

Planning vs. markets is a separate question from who owns the means of production.

It's amazing how many people don't get that point, isn't it? Here's another point for you: ownership and control are also very separate things. A lot of co-ops, unions, mutual funds, etc. got run off the rails because the owners had no control over properties that they nonetheless legally owned and even received the profits thereof.

IMO there needs to be some form of international economic treaty regulating the actions of multi-national businesses in order to prevent them playing countries off one another in a race to the bottom, and countries that don't go along with the treaty should get hit with massive tariffs from the treaty countries.

This is the direct analogue to the reason the Federal government eventually became involved in economic regulation: because the states were being taken advantage of by national corporations. I'm not sure, though, whether the businesses are taking or being taken by states. For instance, China sure is acquiring a hell of a lot of advanced factory capacity, isn't it? It's reminding me of the aphorism that "Hitler would never have declared war on the United States if he'd ever toured Pittsburgh"...

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Nobody/ everyone I believe in monetary democracy. Money is just a commodity so to answer the question at hand, gold would be the main "regulator". I trust a hunk of gold atoms far more than the Fed and it's "money".

I feel like a Jewish prophet. Why do you worship gold, which cannot speak or move? Gold atoms make no deals. What you mean is that you trust private gold dealers more than the Fed. That's your business, but in the aggregate I cannot say I am in favor of returning management of the money supply to the private sector. I know something of economic history, you see, and the last time that plan was tried, J. P. Morgan (the man, not the investment firm he founded) wound up being the one-man central bank of the United States.

If you want to relax requirements for membership in the Fed, so as to increase what you call "monetary democracy", that's one thing; I'd be willing to entertain proposals to that effect. Abolishing it is quite another.

OK. I just think the time has come to replace the legal economic form known as a "corporation" with coops. I know they work well in quite a few facets.

I think there's a place for corporations still -- they're great at building new infrastructure, for instance -- but yes, I would agree that a great number of services now provided by corporations could be better provided by co-ops. My power company growing up was also a coop, and we bought fertilizer from an ag-coop. I have had friends with better banking experiences at credit unions than at chartered banks.

I think a reasonable first step in your direction would be to admit credit unions to the Fed. Nothing in the Fed's operations and mechanisms seems to make such a thing impossible. Indeed, the twelve Fed Banks appear to be designed as credit unions that only banks can be members of.