Benevolent dictatorship.

Most people handle different systems like a final system that won't change over time. This is a radical naive view of how systems exist in society. Systems change according to the culture in which they exist. Capitalism change through trials and errors. In Sweden, there's arguably a "socialist capitalism", in which basic functions of society acts within a socialist method, while the market is still free outside of it or even in collaboration with it. It's an evolution of pure capitalism and pure socialism.

The biggest problem we face is that the automation of industries will render most of the population unemployed, while those with higher intellectual skills, jobs and education will continue within their fields. The economic crash due to this evolution/revolution will probably be bigger than both the 30's crash, the 90's and 08's crash and it will feed into the demand of a new system that is better for all.

The closest we have to a solution is the basic income system. Research has pointed out that things like general intelligence decreases within poverty, making segregation worsen by the consequences of itself. So those that are poor have less ability to pull themselves out of that situation. If we face mass-unemployment because of automation, we will face massive poverty in which we can see a downfall of society. Basic income reduces the effects of this process and gives time for the unemployed and poor to catch up, educate and get jobs of higher complexity, which cannot easily be replaced by automation.

The conclusion is that a political and economic system needs to be a synthesis of previous ideas, none of the current ones works together with the probable development of society we face in the future.

In essence, we need to stop judging down on some political systems, stop promoting other political systems and we need to evolve the systems that exist.

dictatorship is a political system. I'm asking about economic system. There is a connection but there is different.

fair enough. What would you think would make the system work better.

I think a benevolent dictator is in a unique position to have the best possible economic system.
The best system is one that takes what works from all systems and creates a new one, so asking for a label that encompasses a particular economic system is folly to me.
What economic system is better than capitalism? The one that keeps the good parts of capitalism and replaces it shitty parts with good parts from other systems.

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs , is the link to a video you may want to see for yourself. Probably only need the frist 5 minutes to get the idea. All governments have a problem if thay try to help the citizens. Basically you have the problem people in power need to remain in power and there action will reflect that

What would you think would make the system work better. — hachit

Resource-based economy has some merits, but mostly it's a very utopian idea that has big flaws in a society larger than a large tribe.

I think that basic income is a good way to create a baseline in order to help society and economy from becoming too segregated to a point of collapse. I also think that the basic functions in society should be totally free (tax-based); like infrastructure, electric charging for electric cars, electricity in general, internet, health-care, dental care, care for the sick and old, mental health care, construction of new homes aligned with population growth, research and science, school and high education (including the ability for older people to educate themselves for free in order to change occupation). And culture funding. All these are tax-based with a tax rate that is increasing for higher incomes. The rest of the market is a free market.

Problems arise with things like military funding and the global economy. The biggest problem we have are problematic political nations in the world which makes it hard to even develop past the current forms of economic and political systems. If all were to the standard of democracy, without corruption it would be easy to develop a better, advanced and improved system. So most of the improved ideas are utopian until we reach a better balance globally. Essentially, there's to much bullshit in the world today for a new system to actually work. Until there's a political and economic balance globally, we would probably need the capitalistic engine to run, since it still works great at pushing developed countries out of poverty. Capitalism is a great "pusher" for nations with problems to prosper, but it's generally a problem for stability without creating high-level corruption.

Ah, but now you arent talking about a system flaw, you are talking about a human flaw. The system could be perfect, but as you say the beast has a certain nature which compels him to abuse the system.

Preferably, nothing.

You are an anarchist then I take it? Whats better about having no system at all that outweighs the obvious drawbacks?

I am an anarchist who desires the voluntary end of human existence. What are these obvious drawbacks you refer to?

I am an anarchist who desires the voluntary end of human existence. What are these obvious drawbacks you refer to? — darthbarracuda

I explained in the other thread that being used as a source of labor is a harm to the individual. All economic systems will eventually do this by de facto needs and wants of the individual from needing to survive and the endless desires of the human psyche.

There are alternatives to the version of capitalism that we have. We could certainly have an essentially capitalist economy with a much stronger welfare state. We could have an essentially capitalist economy, but institute a guaranteed minimum wage. We could have an essentially socialist economy, along with democratic institutions.

There is nothing bizarre about public ownership of at least some industries. Most water systems in the US are government owned and operated. In some countries, the water works are private businesses. North Dakota operates its own bank. Many utility companies have been municipally owned and operated. GM wouldn't be in business if the US Government hadn't propped it up. The same can be said for a few other large concerns.

Capitalism as we have known it, as we know it now, and as we might know it in the future is delivering disaster. For-profit corporations apparently can not respond to the problem of the vast costs which they have externalized: CO2, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, plastic trash and plastic micro-bits from the north pole to the south pole, PCBs, oil spills, unemployment, obesity, diabetes, cancers, etc. For the sake of our home planet, capitalism needs to be either replaced or brought to heel (like a dog, trained to obey social commands).

Perhaps it's not a type but a degree issue. It's not that you make a profit, it's the amount of profit one wants. I guess it's a choice between enough and too much. Greed and contentment.

I asked you first, answer me and Ill answer you.

I'd replace it with a socialist system, not centered on money per se, geared towards providing both the essentials for everyone--food, housing, health care, education, transportation, etc.--and the things that people desire, which would be discovered via polling, and where the competition for scarce resources is centered on helping others, cooperating, providing things that people need/want. The more you do, via a combo of hard work and/or ingenuity, to provide things that people need/want, the more you have access to scarcer resources.

I need to know what you mean by "obvious drawbacks of anarchism" to respond appropriately.

Ah. i see. I thought you were being evasive.
Ok, well there are at least some positive effects of a system of some kind. Those would be gone, what adventages does anarchy have to replace them? As well, it seems obvious that without a system of laws in place there would be more theft and murder and rape etc etc. So what do we get in return for that under anarchy?

Ah, but now you arent talking about a system flaw, you are talking about a human flaw. The system could be perfect, but as you say the beast has a certain nature which compels him to abuse the system.

We human have to live in the system. If we can brake the system it's not perfect is it

socialist system, not centered on money per se, geared towards providing both the essentials for everyone

That is communism, as I said it has motivation problems. When people do something they think they need to get something in return. The only way it could work is if we're all carbon copys of each other.

If I'm wrong please correct me

There are alternatives to the version of capitalism that we have.

For the sake of our home planet, capitalism needs to be either replaced or brought to heel

Ok I understand, but I'm asking what should we replace it with and/or in your case how do you think should change it?

We human have to live in the system. If we can brake the system it's not perfect is it — hachit

Ok, now you are talking about a perfect system? You said “better”, didnt you?
I dont there is a perfect system, i dont know there is a perfect anything.

Perhaps it's not a type but a degree issue.

maybe it is. but then your saying that it's a cultural problem, are you not?

With the narrow definition, capitalism means private ownership of the means of production. Hence for the narrow definition the opposite would be socialism.

However if we start from traditional liberal/libertarian capitalism and free markets, there are many different kinds of systems, not just socialism or communism. And these mixed-economies can work quite well. Typically the systems have Private ownership and the market mechanism for pricing as the backbone of the system, but have usually the government/public sector take a far more active role than leaving everything to the "invisible hand" of the market mechanism to do.

You said “better”, didnt you?

Yes I did. I was asking if we can come up with a better system. Then you said

system could be perfect, but as you say the beast has a certain nature which compels him to abuse the system.

and I was trying to make a point. By saying that.
Because you didn't get it here it is. We live in the system and so we must account for that. We need a system that encourages people to do what we want us to do. This would be the "better system". When it doesn't encourage what we want, we label it as broken.

I have considered this. I just have no clue how to go about the construction of it or even it is possible to construct without collapse.

Yes I did. I was asking if we can come up with a better system. Then you said — hachit

I see that now, my mistake.

and I was trying to make a point. By saying that.
Because you didn't get it here it is. We live in the system and so we must account for that. We need a system that encourages people to do what we want us to do. This would be the "better system". When it doesn't encourage what we want, we label it as broken. — hachit

Ok, so you are asking if there is a better system than capitalism for managing or perhaps utilising human beings natural tendencies?

yes because it doesn't matter the intended pepose. When rubber meats the road the real test begins. So now you got a better idea for the question and problems, any ideas?

Ya, Benevolent dictatorship.

If that is all you got, fair enough. We can agree to disagree.