NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally what I advocate is something of a mixture between a very free market, and a completely government owned market.

My theory is this.

First, the government should provide the services/goods provided by all major industries. This should provided to the people free of charge. However it will also be very unremarkable products, enough to allow people to be provided with whatever, and not much more.

Second, industry should be very free. The government should make sure that products aren't dangerous to the users, and employees aren't being exploited, and enforce that, and there would have to be some degree of taxes to support the government industries above, but beyond that hands off.

The reasoning behind this is thus. The government allows people who cannot afford superior products access to products. Meanwhile, innovation and improvement of products remains important. What's more, companies can aim all of their endeavors at the people who can afford superior products, thus a better quality of the non-government products in general, especially as they will have to be above the quality of the products the government is churning out in order to be worth actually paying for.

Is there already ready a political system that works on this theory? If so, awesome, I just found a new political allignment. If not, awesome, now I can pad this up to book length, sell it, and make tons of money, buy a ton of land, secede from the U.S. and put this theory into practice. Either way, I win!:D

First, the government should provide the services/goods provided by all major industries. This should provided to the people free of charge. However it will also be very unremarkable products, enough to allow people to be provided with whatever, and not much more.
How will that happen in practice?
It'll need a lot of taxes, for one thing. Will you nationalise industries (as was done in Britain after WWII and which failed), or will your government just buy goods from private industry? If the second, at what price? Will you force companies to only sell to the government?

Second, industry should be very free. The government should make sure that products aren't dangerous to the users, and employees aren't being exploited, and enforce that, and there would have to be some degree of taxes to support the government industries above, but beyond that hands off.
Hmmm, wouldn't that create a two-tier society? Rich vs Poor in the extreme?
Because in Britain, the productivity and general quality of goods was quite horrible before Thatcher came along - I'd expect the same to happen to your government-owned businesses.
And as you said above, you'd expect private industries to produce much better products...wouldn't it be nicer to simply give poor people a bit of extra money to allow them access to a selection of superior products as well?

The reasoning behind this is thus. The government allows people who cannot afford superior products access to products. Meanwhile, innovation and improvement of products remains important.
Aren't welfare payments an easier way to do the same thing?

Is there already ready a political system that works on this theory? If so, awesome, I just found a new political allignment.
As I said, I think Atlee's Britain sorta comes close. This is like a 2006 version of the same thinking.
http://www.mdlg05075.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/attlee.htm

:eek: :eek: :eek: .... Wiki is down!

Personally what I advocate is something of a mixture between a very free market, and a completely government owned market.


Heh. Didn't read the rest of the post, but this just looked funny. Like saying, "Personally I am of the opinion that Osama Bin Laden is either dead or alive. "

Mine involves the government owning everything. Think about it. Why should the government pay benifits that are then sppent on products made by capitalists so that the state is effectively paying capitalists? This is wastage. The only way to stop this is for capitalists to be removed from the equation.

How will that happen in practice?
It'll need a lot of taxes, for one thing. Will you nationalise industries (as was done in Britain after WWII and which failed), or will your government just buy goods from private industry? If the second, at what price? Will you force companies to only sell to the government?

I would nationalise industries, yes, and I concede that it would be difficult, which is a large part of why at no point do I intend to remove private or corporate industry. It'll be my safety net.


Hmmm, wouldn't that create a two-tier society? Rich vs Poor in the extreme?

No, the entire point is that this is only to help the poor survive while they try to cease being poor.

Because in Britain, the productivity and general quality of goods was quite horrible before Thatcher came along - I'd expect the same to happen to your government-owned businesses.

I suppose I'll have to count on the fact that the people who are buying these products are quite possibly the same people producing them on the assembly line. It's in their own interests to build them well


And as you said above, you'd expect private industries to produce much better products...wouldn't it be nicer to simply give poor people a bit of extra money to allow them access to a selection of superior products as well?

There we unfortunately enter the slippery slope of when is someone considered poor. Could, through welfare payments, someone doing little to no work gain more money than somebody working their (censored) off? That doesn't quite seem right.


Aren't welfare payments an easier way to do the same thing?


Make no mistake, this policy doesn't call for the elimination of welfare. But it would be limited to those who are unable to get a good job, through reasons beyond their control, such as physical infirmity. Rather then leave the unambitious, unskilled, and just plain lazy people to sink, this calls for bringing them all sorts of products, merely at a lower quality.

However, while answering this post, something else came to me. What about Fine Arts? I shall have to ponder this, and respond later.

Mine involves the government owning everything. Think about it. Why should the government pay benifits that are then sppent on products made by capitalists so that the state is effectively paying capitalists? This is wastage. The only way to stop this is for capitalists to be removed from the equation.
So you're Communist? I wish Communism could work in practice, I really do. It's a beautiful idea, but people are so damn selfish it bombed hopelessly. With that said, however, I think it is possible to come up with a Communist system with incentives for hard work. It wouldn't be true Communism by any means, because not everyone would be equal. However, for the most part if someone did not have as much as other people, it would be his own fault.

Actually, in real life I'm just a fluffy liberal. I have just joined the liberal democarat party, as if to prove it.

Actually, in real life I'm just a fluffy liberal.
Which type?

Heh. Didn't read the rest of the post, but this just looked funny. Like saying, "Personally I am of the opinion that Osama Bin Laden is either dead or alive. "

Well, perhaps if you had read the rest of the post it would make more sense. Conceded, perhaps, 'between' instead of 'a mixture of' would have been better, but your analogy makes little sense.

Of course giving how you only read the beginning and then dismissed the rest out of hand it is unlikely you'll be reading this at all.

Is there already ready a political system that works on this theory? If so, awesome, I just found a new political allignment. If not, awesome, now I can pad this up to book length, sell it, and make tons of money, buy a ton of land, secede from the U.S. and put this theory into practice. Either way, I win!

Secede from the U.S?

HOT DAMN!

I could care less what you're political alignment is, I WANT TO GO WITH YOU!!!

Talking about seceding reminds me of the story of the conch republic. Gotta go start a thread about it.

So you're Communist? I wish Communism could work in practice, I really do. It's a beautiful idea, but people are so damn selfish it bombed hopelessly. With that said, however, I think it is possible to come up with a Communist system with incentives for hard work. It wouldn't be true Communism by any means, because not everyone would be equal. However, for the most part if someone did not have as much as other people, it would be his own fault.

Communism doesn't work on a national scale, it has been proven to work quite effectively on smaller scales however.

Communism doesn't work on a national scale, it has been proven to work quite effectively on smaller scales however.

Right. My mom lived in a commune for a while when she was a kid.

Check my nation main page for my philosophy

Well, perhaps if you had read the rest of the post it would make more sense. Conceded, perhaps, 'between' instead of 'a mixture of' would have been better, but your analogy makes little sense.

Of course giving how you only read the beginning and then dismissed the rest out of hand it is unlikely you'll be reading this at all.

Didn't drink your fucking coffee this morning?

My analogy makes perfect sense. You stated that your ideal government was somewhere between no control and total control. That statement means absolutely nothing. every government type has policies somewhere between no control and total control. You might as well have said nothing whatsoever. As for reading the rest of the post, if all I planned to comment on was something I found funny, there is no reason whatsoever to read the rest of the post, as long as I don't make assumptions on what is in it, or include it in my comment at all. It's perfectly acceptable to only comment on one thing in a post.