Hey, all you socialists and near-socialists -- how many understand econ?

[Mairead]

Today, hardly anything is made in the USA. Which means that a lot of people are hard-pressed to find work.

Adam Smith said that, if there are no capitalists deforming the process of trade by skimming value and pocketing it, economies work correctly without strain (the 'Invisible Hand').

Jane Jacobs says that cities are concurrently anchors, sinks, and centers of creative ferment. A factory needs to be logically if not physically in a city because it's too narrowly-focussed to survive in isolation.

Would it be possible to re-create a low-waste, low-impact, non-profit industrial economy in the US from scratch? What would it take? Would people even go for it, since its balance would have to be completely different to that of the 'exploitation pyramid' we now have? Could people get used to having 20-40 extra hours of leisure per week?

[Mountainman]

1. I have this idea for a works program.

Similar to the CCC of the depression days. I think that the government should build factories in this country, hire only citizens. Pay them a livable wage. Develop efficient means of production and produce things that the private sector doesn't to produce such as alternative energy sources and cars that don't pollute or burn fossil fuels.

I really believe that if we worked at this like we did the moon project we could really do some good.

If the government produced a car that people could drive to work that didn't cost them what it costs now and the government would finance the sales like a form of credit union.

The government could and should get involved in improving the living standards of working class people by not exploiting them like capitalism is doing now. Compete with private industry by providing what people want. They want the American dream and we could provide it. We could provide the education so that we have a steady stream of good minds.

What I am saying is the government should get out of the business of promoting the wealth of corporations and get into the business of quality of life for the people.

Now these government industries don't have to remain in government hands. Once they take hold and are on solid ground they should be given to those who work for them. The profits should go to those who produce the decent life style of the working class.

[Cleita]

7. Oh I can hear the screams of "commies" already.

You do have a good idea though. I had relatives who benefitted from the CCC after the Great Depression. It was a stepping stone for them to jobs that would sustain them for life.

[KingFlorez]

17. I agree with that

I don't think it's a bad idea since the government would build the factories and hire only Americans. People can't always rely on big employers to pay them good wages.

[Mairead]

21. When you liken your idea to the CCC, is that intentional or convenient?

In other words, is it a key part of your idea that the federal bureaucracy itself would start, own, and run the factories you envision? If it's a key part, could you expand on why?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. All of our problems began with the dissolution of the family

farm. We need a return (to a degree) to an agrarian society.

[Bucky]

10. SMASH the machines! I'll start right now with my compu -- *

[wli]

3. natural resources are diffusely distributed

Transportation inextricably links these affairs to the mainstream economy.

[Mairead]

14. Could you connect that up a bit (no pun intended)? (nt)

[barb162]

4. It is theoretically possible to create

a low-waste, low-impact, PROFIT industrial economy in the US from scratch. Some of the industrial infrastructure and knowhow is still here. People definitely would go for it, especially the unemployed or underemployed. I don't see the non-profit aspect playing. If there is no profit, there is no point for lenders and others to invest.

[Mairead]

5. "there is no point for lenders and others to invest."

Public investment?

[barb162]

6. where's that money coming from as in what money do state or

local governments or whatever have these days that is left over. Explain the source of the money

[0rganism]

8. property tax revenue and municipal bonds

the usual sources of local project funding

The major difficulty is, as always, convincing a tax-hostile electorate, force-fed with a century-worth of anti-commons propaganda, that a public works project is a worthy investment in some way that a private enterprise undertaking the same goals wouldn't be.

[barb162]

11. Everything is stretched to the limits right now at least in my state

education, libraries, public safety, etc., funding is going down. Also the very people who need it most, the jobless and underemployed are often so scratching for money they don't have anything left to give. That's why I think even a minor profit would have to be involved. Or else somebody has to come up with a tax free district or something on that order. But then what taxing body which is scratching for any and all dollars will want to do something tax free?

[0rganism]

19. That's what the bonds are for

If raising taxes is deemed to be impossible, then the state or county or municipality can float a bond -- assuming its credit rating is strong enough to arrive at a workable pay-schedule. The bond can be paid back either through an increase in the tax base (more employment + better infrastructure = enhanced property tax revenue, so it doesn't have to be tied to a rate increase) or -- if the public works project provides a billable service (e.g. communication, recreation, or utility) -- via an initial rate premium that drops over time as the bonds are paid back, or gradually redirects to project upkeep and service expansion. Remember, just because something is "non-profit" doesn't mean it won't have an income; that income will theoretically match up with its outflow, just like any truly competitive enterprise. In the initial phase, that outflow can certainly include paying off general revenue bonds.

[Mairead]

12. I agree that there's not much public money left over, but that's

not to say that there's not much public money.

Let's suppose we re-purpose that $250G p.a. now going as 'welfare' to for-profit corporations. That would seed a fair few low-impact, non-profit businesses, wouldn't it?

[barb162]

16. that would work for me theoretically

but in actuality, the tax bodies are so tied in/ so in bed with corps, they'd find ways of sabotaging the new entities, especially if there were any hints of competition. The way things seem to be going , I suspect there would be no public work type programs demanded without the massive unemployment you had in the 30s or the race riots in the Johnson years. I am not seeing mass turmoil or anger boiling up in our society. Depression maybe, but that is turning inward

[rman]

22. The money is created (printed) as needed anyway;

by the government (at least officialy so)...

...so why would we need a middle man (investors) who will want part of the money as compensation for his efforts of being a middle man?

[Bucky]

9. You can't build anything "from scratch" in a free economy.

You can't devise an "ideal" economy without tramping all over the existing property rights of current citizens. The pyramid is a fact of life. What you have to do to get to your more efficient system of economics is to have a government with a fiscal policy that rewards and encourages new smaller start up enterprises and contains the accumulative powers of existing large multinationals and conglomerates.

You'd have to have a looser money supply and tax credits for more start ups and enough business regulation to let the new guys stand a better chance at survival and keep the fat cats from clobbering them. That's pro-enterprise and pro-business, but also anti-oligopolistic. Governtment should both regulate and encourage smaller businesses, which also would have a huge impact on unemploynment and underemployment rates. New enterprises account for 70% + of new job growth; and the jobs they create tend to be higher wage than what gets created by megacorps with stacks of MBAs constantly on the lookout for how to trim worker waste and worker salaries.

Anyhoo, that's my prescription. Make business flow and keep the little guys a little more afloat so that there's a natural turnover of capital to the middle and working class. Unleash the power of free enterprise and stave off the choking power of large corps.

[Mairead]

13. Could you expand on why building from scratch isn't possible?

I'm especially interested on your statement about 'trampling all over the existing property rights of current citizens'. I can't work out how that would happen.

[Bucky]

15. I meant that if you want to build an industrial system from scratch,

what are you going to do with all the property currently held by the capitalist overstructure that's currently invested in our existing industrial capacity. Your basic argument seems to be (and correct me if'n I'm wrong) that there's no problem with industrial might, but that the investing classes of capitalists skimming ever larger profits off the top is part of what's fueling the upward redistribution of wealth--the rich getting richer.

If you want to have a purer economy, one where the profits of industry go more directly to the people who earn their dollars by actual work rather than by investing, what do you do with all the current dollars and property rights of those who right now own the means of production?

The investing economy is self feeding. If you want to build new businesses from scratch, you have to find new ways to exclude capital investors. That doesn't seem very promising. But if you want to create another system by scratch, you have to find some way to undo all the current property holdings of those who invest capital without actually contributing work.

You could do that in a command economy, but it'd be a disaster. It would also require nullifying the property rights all existing investors. In a free economy, you have to respect the rights of capital to invest, or you'd end up with capital flight overseas and a lack of start up funds for new businesses.

But again, I may be misunderstanding your main idea here.

[Tactical Progressive]

18. Well, that's what Republicans are for - small business

At least, that's what they say.

And small business seems to support them.

[rman]

23. The pyramid is a fact of life, because criminals are a fact of life.

Doesn't mean we have to just stand by and accept it.

[Deja Q]

20. Given our energy needs, we couldn't even begin to do so...

Take away 200 million Americans and 5+ billion humans from the rest of the world and you might have a shot.

The good news is that this is poised to happen thanks to peak oil.

The bad news is the corporate elite are using their wealth as the litmus test. (but that's okay; they're such animals that they wouldn't survive any paradigm shift not in their control anyway.)