Though many things have interested me sense I was young, economics has not been one of them. Recently though it has become apparent to me that my ignorance of economic matters is doing me no service.
So I am starting this thread for anyone who, like me doesn’t understand the complexities of economics or peoples lengthy rhetoric in support or criticism against certain economic policies.
And those who have or think they have knowledge on the subject at hand.
So to take up where we left off.
Right. Lacking any specific questions/comments at this time, I’m going to be brief.
I think it’s important to limit incomes and to tax off the remainder, but at the same time, I think income disparity is an integral part of any financial system as far as workers are concerned. While I do not contend that humans are fundamentally lazy, I would suggest that the vast majority of people are only going to pursue professions that are both necessary and difficult (for example, doctor) if there is income disparity at least to the extent that they may live better than the burger-flippers of the world.
Furthermore, small businesses would also be allowed to exist, privately, with taxed-off income caps because such small businesses serve a niche. By niche, I mean that the small businesses can bring goods/services to the people that the Government either cannot bring at all, or cannot bring efficiently. It’s also important to note that you cannot have the Government, de facto, be the only employer in an entire country because the lack of competition for good employees will drive down wages.
I believe that Universal Health Care is important, although we may still permit private sources of healthcare, because making Healthcare Universal aids accessibility to health care. With the American health care system as it is, Hospitals/Doctors can charge outrageous sums of money, virtually unchecked and without a standard, which the insurance companies then pay and forward to the clients in terms of premiums. There is no question that all parties involved (including pharmaceutical companies) are making outrageous sums of money, while the public, seeking nothing more than to live comfortably, gets raped.
Furthermore, the actual cost of the Health Care will go down because you will have an income cap that applies to all Health Care professionals, and furthermore, you will have strict limits on the profits that can be made by any private healthcare enterprise. On the flip side of that coin, absent egregious conduct, you will not be allowed to sue for malpractice. With that will come significant decreases in settlement costs and the cost of attorneys fees.
I’m not going to get into anything concerning the Gold Standard just yet. That will be time-consuming and comparatively minor, so we can tackle the above issues first.
Does/Could a production for use economy fit into that model? When it comes to the larger essential assets of the state?
I suppose that it could, but for me, it doesn’t. The antithesis of Production-For-Use is Production-For-Profit, but since profits are going to be eliminated by tax-off, if nothing else, there’s really not going to be much of a reason for any business to seek substantial profit margins on basic necessities.
Furthermore, all of the working people in the Socialist country would be subjected to both a Minimum Annual Income and Maximum Annual Income, and the Minimum Annual Income would be more closely indexed to the cost of living to the extent that, absent excessive debt, (which would have to have been accrued via illegal means, anyway) even the poorest full-time workers are going to be able to afford basic necessities.
In any event, my focus would be more along the lines of trying to control the flow of the money rather than actually trying to control the profit margins. For instance, a company that makes Macaroni & Cheese isn’t going to strive to sell their product at a realized 175% profit when the company would only get to actually keep 10% of that money and half of that 10% must go into either R&D or an emergency fund to cover losses.
That being the case, I would really be unconcerned about what type of percentage mark-up there is on any product because there would be no incentives for most businesses to mark it up that much. In fact, the only companies/individuals that would have ANY incentive to substantially mark up their products are those that would ultimately be under the Maximum Annual Income cap anyway, so it’s going to be limited largely to small companies competing with large companies and/or government. Substantial mark-ups could also come from businesses/individuals offering specialty items/services, but that would also be subject to the cap and be Macro-Economically negligible.
The only two ways to cheat the system would be to fudge income figures or to create expenses that were not actually incurred. Neither of these methods would survive a detailed audit where sophisticated computer systems are used. You can’t fudge the income figures because the amount you are claiming to have sold would be checked against your inventories, which would be based on your order which is verified by both yourself and the shipper. All public record. The second way would be more difficult to prove, at least until we make it that all currency comes in the form of plastic. When that happens, you couldn’t fudge a bullshit expense because there will be a government-accessible record of every expense from the company.
Trust me, any faking that will be done will be very small scale.
My largest concern lies in when business/corporate influence interferes into other sections of society (Cultural, Politcal, Military).
When people undermine these simply in the service to make a profit.
I’m wondering what could be put in place to prevent War profiteering, as in having the cost of war goods NOT multiply in value so that Business would have no incentive to instigate in political or military matters.
I still maintain that all of that would be covered by everything above. The largest industries, eventually, will ultimately be run by the Government as if by necessity anyway. The Government could also strictly regulate weapons prices, though they would seek to profit greatly on weapons export…any export really…because that benefits the country as a whole.
The problems I see today is Corporations are subverting government, Money essentially equals politcal power.
Replacing republics with plutocracies.
.
And I despise Business shaping foreign policy far beyond it’s boundaries.
But this is due to the existence of government. The government is the one with the monopoly on the moral right to initiate force, not business. Business’s are of course profit seeking entities only, they will seek to maximise profits and if government exist the most efficient way will usually involve bribing/lobbying government. Why do you look at the one side as the cause but not the other ?
Also ’ Corporations’ (separation between owners and the business entity) in their current state can only exist due to government.
They won’t have enough money to shift the policies per the above posts.
Thats what I mean, the majority of current government is illegitimate.
This thread ought to be rich. 
I’m anti economics by the way. I can offer my fine tuned criticisms for you. 
What’s your opinion on Mercantilism Pav?
As an Isolationist, I’m not a huge fan of foreign trade, in general, particularly in the cases where we have the primary resources to create the secondary (read: manufactured) goods entirely within our own country already.
In situations where we are gaining access to a resource that we otherwise do not have within our own borders, or trading a resource to a different country that does not have it, (and we should only be trading off strictly on over-abundance of that resource) then I am a fan of setting up a trade network to the extent that network countries face severe trade sanctions for going outside of that network. The fact that the goods are traded based strictly on need would mitigate the possibility of unfair pricing because a country that is, “In the loop,” would simply state their greivances against you during one of the network meetings and you would face sanctions from countries who produce what you need and do not otherwise have.
In this situation, I’d pretty strictly trade goods for goods (no cash involved) based on the domestic price of the goods in question, in their respective countries, and get it as close to even as possible. In the event that the shipping of one set of goods cost more than the shipping of the other set, that can be resolved with either cash or credits towards future trade. In the event there is a great imbalance (one country needs item x while the other needs none of y at that time), then that could also be resolved with cash or trade credits.
The problem with the effective elimination of competition is hoping that everyone prices fairly, but since the goods would be based on domestic value, that should happen.
Imbalance in all aspects of life are by design and purpose. As long as that is going on, there can be no such thing as a stable economy. And even if there was, it would immediately be subject to the same manipulations and terrorism. JP Morgan committed the first act of true terrorism on the USA by quite intentionally causing the “great depression”. He even stated it before hand.
Economy is entirely an issue of covert manipulation either directly or indirectly. It is the aberrant effect of a planet of apes.