What are some alternatives to Neoliberalism? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14830378
I can only assume you have never been forced to do serious downsizing. It is very liberating to find out you are not as dependent as you thought. It is mostly in your mind and complicated by too many people. There is absolutely no reason why we can not decide how we want to live and then change the economy to coincide with our choice. It is easy to forget that all we are talking about is trading goods and labor. It is not some magical God that must be obeyed. It is actually our modern economy that is the biggest threat to our survival. It has destroyed local production of necessities. Many people are starting to realize how foolish this was. A return to more emphasis on local production increases our survivability.


We cannot choose not to eat, we cannot choose not to drink, we cannot choose to exist outside of the resources we need to live, and we cannot be independent of the system that produces those things. To conflate not having a job or changing your job with some magical ability to dictate reality to reality is too so fundamentally misunderstand the point I am making as to make me wonder if it's even possible for us to effectively communicate.
#14830380
mikema63 wrote:We cannot choose not to eat, we cannot choose not to drink, we cannot choose to exist outside of the resources we need to live, and we cannot be independent of the system that produces those things. To conflate not having a job or changing your job with some magical ability to dictate reality to reality is too so fundamentally misunderstand the point I am making as to make me wonder if it's even possible for us to effectively communicate.

I Agee. We seem to be totally missing one another. I don't understand why you believe the economy must be our primary goal to be effective. We can still live based upon higher priorities and have a vibrant economy.
#14830391
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. Try and live by higher ideals while your children starve because there is no system for feeding them.

Why does anyone need to starve simply because some things are more important than the economy? :?:
I am having a hard time understanding how anyone can believe such nonsense.
#14830395
One Degree wrote:Why does anyone need to starve simply because some things are more important than the economy? :?:
I am having a hard time understanding how anyone can believe such nonsense.


No one is claiming that people are going to starve because some things are more important than the economy.

We are saying that people will starve if you do not recognise that the economy is our primary tool for ensuring our continued survival.

Perhaps you would be less confused if you responded to what people actually wrote instead of your incorrect ideas about what people write.
#14830397
One Degree wrote:Why does anyone need to starve simply because some things are more important than the economy? :?:
I am having a hard time understanding how anyone can believe such nonsense.


I think your confusing the words 'Global Trade' with the word 'economy'. You're making no sense. Unless you own your own land, built your own home, grow you own food with tools you have made from you own land you need to rely on an economy. The US economy.
#14830399
Your ranking importance by your subjective opinion. We are ranking importance by what will win in a head to head battle. Survival, and thus the system that allocates resources will always win. Indeed since every other goal you could possibly have is at some level reliant on resources and society which is dependent on economics all non survival goals are dependent and this will listen to the economy.

Everything we do, need, and desire requires resources which makes resource allocation, i.e. the economy, the single most important thing on which all other things rely.
#14830402
B0ycey wrote:I think your confusing the words 'Global Trade' with the word 'economy'. You're making no sense. Unless you own your own land, built your own home, grow you own food with tools you have made from you own land you need to rely on an economy. The US economy.

Yes, but that does not disappear just because you decide other things are more important. We can decide state's rights are our highest priority and it does not change the economy significantly if at all.
#14830406
One Degree wrote:Yes, but that does not disappear just because you decide other things are more important. We can decide state's rights are our highest priority and it does not change the economy significantly if at all.


Wasn't the last US "states rights" conflict all about whether the US should have a slave based economy or an industrial one?
#14830407
One Degree wrote:Yes, but that does not disappear just because you decide other things are more important. We can decide state's rights are our highest priority and it does not change the economy significantly if at all.


This is diverting from the point being made though. The point was the economy should be someone's primary objective because we rely on it every single day. If every single person gave up on the economy we would return to hunter gather status. Is that what you want? If not you rely on an economy whether you like it or not. A economy will only last if people use It due to need. And they do so it lasts. It is that simple.
#14830409
A mixed market and planned economy. There should be a combination of free enterprise and state ownership, all directed and coordinated by central planning. Essentially you would have the planning ministry and five year plans to coordinate efforts between private companies, state corporations, workers and managers to develop the economy and maximise employment. The unemployed could be given guaranteed work in state firms while private enterprise would provide an incentive for productivity and prevent economic stagnation. This system would be something half way between Soviet style socialism and free market capitalism.
#14830410
Pants-of-dog wrote:Wasn't the last US "states rights" conflict all about whether the US should have a slave based economy or an industrial one?

Off topic :D
However, slavery was already on its way out. The Civil War was fought over principles. The South was right about state sovereignty if nothing else. Only military dominance holds our 'democracy ' together. Pretty sad version of Democracy, when you are not allowed to leave it.
#14830415
One Degree wrote:Off topic :D


Yes, your digressions often are.

However, slavery was already on its way out. The Civil War was fought over principles. The South was right about state sovereignty if nothing else. Only military dominance holds our 'democracy ' together. Pretty sad version of Democracy, when you are not allowed to leave it.


No, your decision to completely ignore the economic reasons for the war is not an argument.

Your example of the economy not being important was actually a good example of how economic systems are important.
#14830418
It was economic realities that eroded state power. Where ever economic efficiency ran against state power the economy won. It won because people want increased access to resources more than they want to uphold abstract principles. These same forces cause globalization of the economy. The unification of the global economy isn't about morality or your particular desires or about wanting to grow the economy above all else. It's simply an inevitable result of the fundamental structure and forces of society.
#14830423
mikema63 wrote:It was economic realities that eroded state power. Where ever economic efficiency ran against state power the economy won. It won because people want increased access to resources more than they want to uphold abstract principles. These same forces cause globalization of the economy. The unification of the global economy isn't about morality or your particular desires or about wanting to grow the economy above all else. It's simply an inevitable result of the fundamental structure and forces of society.


That is not so. State power was never defeated, its just that the political class in countries that practiced central planning failed. To say that the fall of the Soviet Union proves that central planning does not work is no different to saying that the fall of Weimar Germany is proof that market systems do not work. There is a reason that a lot of people in the former East Germany think they lived better than they do now.
#14830426
mikema63 wrote:It was economic realities that eroded state power. Where ever economic efficiency ran against state power the economy won. It won because people want increased access to resources more than they want to uphold abstract principles. These same forces cause globalization of the economy. The unification of the global economy isn't about morality or your particular desires or about wanting to grow the economy above all else. It's simply an inevitable result of the fundamental structure and forces of society.

Well, that is a very nice way of saying our government has been mainly controlled by big business, and we should make no effort to interfere with this 'inevitable ' happening. :lol: Economic realities eroded state power is correct, but you make it sound like a natural occurrence. It was the result of the federal income tax and then using that monetary power to pay states to give up their rights. The courts were also useful in reinterpreting the Constitution. So, it was not natural or inevitable. However, this still has nothing to do with why the economy must be our highest priority. It comes down to whether that is what you want to dictate our society. We have a choice.

Edit: I don't even understand how this is a disagreement. The survey I just filled out for my Congressman had one question where I was to prioritize 5 choices from a long list by importance to me. The economy was one choice, but it did not make my list.
#14830441
It wouldn't matter if the means of production was controlled by big businesses or by government or by collective syndicates or whatever else.

Saying you don't personally prioritize the economy so society doesn't have to have it as a primary goal is like saying the earth doesn't prioritize gravity so mass doesn't have to have gravity as a primary goal. It makes absolutely no sense because gravity is a function of mass and the economy is a function of society. What you or the earth wants doesn't make a bit of difference.

@Kaiserschmarrn what is more important: acedemic[…]

Of course things are changable. But at first, the[…]

EU-BREXIT

Well here is a solution : if the people of Gibral[…]

Will it matter? Ultimately I doubt much will ch[…]