Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Please refrain from copy and pasting messages over and over and over, or you will be removed from the forum. We all have input to make so let's keep this at a discussion and not a text block of commercials. Here are some helpful guidelines for good discussion and debate recommended by one of our members:

  • * Stay on topic
  • * Be clear
  • * Build upon your points and address those of other people
  • * Refrain from making assumptions about others' unstated views
  • * If you disagree with somebody, do so politely
  • * Clarify your terms and seek to understand others' (but avoid semantic derails)
Note: The opinions expressed by the moderators and members of this discussion board do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Occupy Together or Occupy Wall St. In the spirit of free information, open discussion, and the freedom of expression, members are able to speak about issues relating and directly pertaining to the Occupy movement. You will be banned for hate speech or intentional misinformation and please refrain from any violent rhetoric; this is a peaceful movement. Thank you.
On addressing poverty, and completing capitalism through deeper economic understanding
  • tomcarbontomcarbon October 2011 +1 -1
    If there was not an economic basis for resolving the poverty/distribution problem, how would the problem be solved? Probably not without bloodshed. Note that there are known technologies for crowd dispersal (pain/sound guns) that have been held in reserve - never used on the proletariat - yet. These will likely be used, effectively, before critical mass is achieved by the 99%.

    With that realisation in mind, here is a two-part question:

    1) If there was an economic basis for solving the poverty/distribution problem, what would it be? What economic theories have been advanced which address poverty and the unequal distribution of wealth? Surely there are some significant ideas. You wouldn't expect them to be trumpeted in the MSM, however.

    2) Perhaps more importantly: how may these economic ideas be presented for maximum effect? These kinds of ideas encounter headwinds, after all.

    Here is one offering: http://www.chamberlain-west.com/papers/070412SocialismVsCapitalismRev3.pdf . To distil the idea of this paper: Around 1870, neoclassical economics was founded incorrectly. In the interest of simplicity (and perhaps lack of mathematical rigour), an important variable - "time spent for consumption" - was left out of the equations which formed the contemporary neoclassical paradigm. 140 years later, today's economic model is basically "greed is good". There's a relationship to be found here... to say the least, a most human factor went missing from mainstream economics...

    It may be a meme that wins the battle for the 'good society'.

    Your thoughts?


  • Evolution101 October 2011 +1 -1 (+1 / -0 )
    There is a simple answer to the economic problem; but greed and pride have blinded people who care about themselves more than anything/anyone else. People say they are for fairness; but their actions continually reveal them as liars. Poverty cannot be; completely overcome; but much of the suffering that comes along with it can be.

    Agrees: whitefeather

  • Evolution101 October 2011 +1 -1
    Lack of money is the least of my problems; twice this year; "people have hid behind corruption of the law; in order to falsely imprison/rob and/or murder me". When some people are allowed to subvert/corrupt the law with impunity: How relevant is economics! Unless you control government, and stop it from unlawfully destroying people; everything else is meaningless
  • tomcarbontomcarbon November 2011 +1 -1
    @Evolution101

    It is not as urgent as you are experiencing, but it is relevant!

    Current economic theory is lacking and this enables the government to be corrupt. I know the word 'economics' doesn't have much s appeal but on the subject of economics, bad economics was a major player in what landed our world in the heap of trouble we're in now!

    Will economics by itself solve our problems? No, it will not (after some of the good points you've made, my words above feel a bit naive in my choice of wording).

    That said: is economics part of the problem, and also part of the solution? Absolutely. Without the economics part, our government, after it has been restored, will eventually sleepwalk back into its zombie state. And there should be safeguards put into place to prevent this from happening.





  • Evolution101 November 2011 +1 -1
    Money has a dual nature like all material things; it can be used for good or evil. The "letter of the law" also has a dual nature; but is "far more powerful than money"; and therefore of much greater concern for the oppressed who seek Justice: Religion is far more powerful than money, or law, as it is the maker of both; also a dual nature; and the "greatest problem facing society by far"! No matter how much money is in my pocket; anyone with a badge can destroy my flesh "without probable cause"; and the religiously self-righteous, and hypocritical can hide behind religion to make laws which give them, and their police, immunity from prosecution for anything including murder!
  • stringband December 2011 +1 -1
    Life is full of non-optimal choices. The Democrats need our votes, but more than, that they need our pressure to change the conservative economic mindset that many Democrats and all Republicans have adopted. When Robert Rubin and Larry Summers used their influence to kill financial regulation it opened the gates to disaster. They thought they were doing the country a favor because conservatives had convinced them that any regulation was bad and that lucrative markets would move offshore to avoid regulation. Most mainstream Demos didn't necessarily agree but it was hard to make the counter argument in that environment. The current environment, with Occupy members in the street, does provide an arena for non-conservative Democrats to make their case for reasonable financial regulation and that is where we begin to address financial inequality.

    My point here is that there are lessons we had to learn 80 years ago that are still true today. Democrats as a party must revive those lessons because the Republicans never will. It's not a clean choice nor one that doesn't require effort. But it's the only choice we have that is constructive. That choice includes the obligation to join and work toward a functional Democratic Party that serves the majority because there is no realistic alternative.
Add a Comment