Neither really.

But I don't think you can have a large society without some degree of planning - how central it should be, is hard to say. We probably want less central planning than more of it, as a rule, but I think one can make a case for exceptions.

As for markets. Well what is a market? It's spoken of frequently, but it's not clear to me what they are. Nevertheless, I think they have a place in society. Preferably a much smaller one than what they currently have. But I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with having a market in a society.

It's a bit too abstract to say much that doesn't already involve presuppositions and ideological baggage, which we all have.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-florida-condo-collapse-rampant-corner-cutting-11629816205?mod=mhp

Cutting corners to save money and thus increase profits. Another great example of unregulated capitalism.

My problem is with free market fantasies, and the very idea that markets are something to be worshipped. They should be one small part of a society, and nothing more.

Markets are elevated to the point of holiness by a merchant mentality, where everything is about transactions, monetary value, and profits. I think we can aspire to more than that. — Xtrix

When anything becomes to be worshipped, just ignore the worship and the worshippers. What you are describing is when it has become an ideology, a pseudo religious mantra. Then it's just basically a religious sermon, a declaration of faith, what these people preach. Hardly worth listening, because these people aren't open to discussion or any new ideas.

And it's a kneejerk response usually to suggestions of supervision of market participants or simply about upholding existing laws. Have you actually noticed that the most vociferous defense of the free market is given as a response to defend basically either a monopoly or a tight oligopoly situation?

Comes to mind what an economic historian who had written the history of British Petroleum (BP) remarked: when BP is doing good and the UK government thinks about taking more profits or doing something other with the company, the company reminds of it being an independent corporation. When BP is in a tight spot, let's say a possible take over bid is looming, the company reminds the government who how strategically important it is to the UK and it's government.

But I’m talking about the real world, not about a hypothetical village somewhere. So there’s that defect, I suppose. — Xtrix

Markets have been the real world since the end of the Bronze Age. I don't think you're taking a particularly serious approach to your own question.

When anything becomes to be worshipped, just ignore the worship and the worshippers. — ssu

I'd love to, if not for the fact that they run the world -- and that's not an exaggeration. This dogma (really more akin to a religion) is espoused by corporate and political leaders to this day. The dogma says that markets know best, that they should not be interfered with by the pesky state, that anything negative in history can be reduced to state interference, and so on. It's all very self-serving, especially when a "market" has been very good to you.

Of course this is never admitted. Instead we're given lectures about how "government is the problem." The government is somewhat democratic. So where does the solution come from?Business. Naturally we're supposed to hear "mom and pop stores" and "the middle class" when this is stated, but it's not that -- it's big business, and that means (in today's world) multinational corporations.

Hardly worth listening, because these people aren't open to discussion or any new ideas. — ssu

What other options do we have? Revolution? I'm all for that. But since it's not happening, we're left only with rational discourse -- and that's probably for the best anyway, given the imbalance of military power.

Have you actually noticed that the most vociferous defense of the free market is given as a response to defend basically either a monopoly or a tight oligopoly situation? — ssu

Yes.

Comes to mind what an economic historian who had written the history of British Petroleum (BP) remarked: when BP is doing good and the UK government thinks about taking more profits or doing something other with the company, the company reminds of it being an independent corporation. When BP is in a tight spot, let's say a possible take over bid is looming, the company reminds the government who how strategically important it is to the UK and it's government. — ssu

An important point, yes. Reminds me of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc. But also Exxon, Chevron, etc. All want a strong welfare state -- for their interests.

Markets have been the real world since the end of the Bronze Age. — frank

I have not once argued that markets are not part of the real world.

"Free markets," like those that "self-regulate," are fantasies. There is no invisible hand.

Since then most of the world has realized that you need a vehicle that can turn both left and right. — litewave

I think with a grid system, you can get anywhere on the grid just making left turns, as long as there are no dead ends. Could be wrong.

I'd love to, if not for the fact that they run the world -- and that's not an exaggeration. This dogma (really more akin to a religion) is espoused by corporate and political leaders to this day. The dogma says that markets know best, that they should not be interfered with by the pesky state, that anything negative in history can be reduced to state interference, and so on. It's all very self-serving, especially when a "market" has been very good to you. — Xtrix

One should remember that a lot of this public discourse is what in the old days is called propaganda. Or jargon, lithurgy. Intended for some target audience for some reason.

Let me give you another example,

When there still was the Soviet Union, Finnish politicians and businessmen were quite apt in speaking "the lithurgy", the politically correct way to speak publicly (or to the Soviets, how to speak with any westerner) by allways praising the brotherhood of the nations, noting always the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance between Finland and Soviet Union and so on... This made the discourse totally confusing to an outsider, but it was of the uttermost importance when talking to Soviets! If you know anyone who has lived behind the Iron Curtain, they will remember it quite well. Now it's hilarious.

And I think this is happening here too now ...when people speak publicly, on the record. Have them speak privately and you can see they usually are totally aware of the problems and call them by their actual name.

What we have suffered under since the 70s is free market fundamentalism. Ideas like the "efficient market hypothesis," and things to that effect. All of it has lead to exactly the facts we see around us: huge income inequality, stagnant real wages, loss of unions, more precarious work, gib economies, corporate consolidation, stock buybacks, shadow banking, government bailouts, etc.

You’re absolutely right that this is a gigantic problem, but I feel like the left is currently going through a dilemma on how to address it. A Bernie Sanders style social democracy would solve a lot of this and is way better than the neoliberal bullshit we’re dealing with now, but is it sustainable? F*ck no if you ask me (and I’m sure you probably know why) but is revolution going to happen any time soon? Also no. I’m interested in hearing some more pragmatic solutions and your thoughts on this. You might disagree and I hate to say it, but I think voting in FDR style democrats is merely a compromise the capitalist class is more than happen to welcome for a few decades before chipping away it again

A Bernie Sanders style social democracy would solve a lot of this and is way better than the neoliberal bullshit we’re dealing with now, but is it sustainable? F*ck no if you ask me (and I’m sure you probably know why) but is revolution going to happen any time soon? Also no. I’m interested in hearing some more pragmatic solutions and your thoughts on this. — Albero

When Norway, lead typically by social democrats and having a huge wealth from oil revenues, doesn't spend as much money as the US does in health care per capita, you know there is a problem. And everybody else spends less than the US and Norway.

I think for a rich country as the US the Bernie Sanders style health care is quite sustainable. As long as you keep the private sector as competitive as it is now and take care of your financial system. The secret to social democracy is to keep the cash cow in good health! And not to shoot the cow (like the communists would do).

The real question is: What's so great about "markets" to being with? — Xtrix

Like democracy, it relies on the assumption we are flawed. Democracy limits harm through inefficiency and the free market functions on people serving their own interest above others. The free market doesn't describe a value for society; I think that's where things take a turn. It is a system of exchange that relies on humans to be selfish when they want something. It's organic and works with the least proud aspects of human nature. Central planning isn't a thing; too many people doing too many things. Trying to organize a forest.

In the future, central regulation of economy will increase because of automation, biotechnologies and climate change. More income will need to be redistributed from those who own sophisticated/AI machines to those who lost their jobs from automation so that the unemployed can live a decent life or retrain for new jobs if possible; or some of that machinery will be owned by the state, which will distribute the profits to the population. Biotechnologies will need to be regulated, similarly to healthcare, so that people have fair access to technological enhancements of their bodies and minds to prevent the emergence of a class of biologically inferior humans, or at least care is provided for those for whom such enhancements are not (yet) available. Climate change is already forcing governments to provide support for transition to technologies with less greenhouse gas emissions.

Such collective actions are necessary because the alternative would be social unrest and wars.

And I think this is happening here too now ...when people speak publicly, on the record. Have them speak privately and you can see they usually are totally aware of the problems and call them by their actual name. — ssu

Yes, which is interesting. Unlike others on the forum and in media generally, who are reasonably skeptical about the level of public understanding, I think that the large majority of Americans fundamentally agree with each other that something is wrong. That's in spite of the propaganda that says everything is great -- like that the economy is great because the stock indexes have hit records.

The anger is not articulated well, but it's right under the surface because they live it every day. They sense something is wrong with this world and would like to see it changed. It's not envy, it's not entitlement. It's a sense of fairness in a world where the rules aren't at all fair. But who or what is to blame?

Unfortunately, when it comes to that question, many take out their unhappiness on immigrants, or "welfare queens," or the "inner cities," or China, or the liberal elite, or "big government," or whatever else you can imagine. That's where the propaganda you mentioned is very effective and comes in very handy for those with power, because the anger then gets diverted to everything but the source, or else distracted by superficialities of life, like fashionable consumption or pop culture.

A Bernie Sanders style social democracy would solve a lot of this and is way better than the neoliberal bullshit we’re dealing with now, but is it sustainable? F*ck no if you ask me (and I’m sure you probably know why) — Albero

I’m interested in hearing some more pragmatic solutions and your thoughts on this. You might disagree and I hate to say it, but I think voting in FDR style democrats is merely a compromise the capitalist class is more than hap[py] to welcome for a few decades before chipping away it again — Albero

I'm not sure what you mean by "sustainable." Fiscally sustainable, or in general?

If the latter, I agree -- a return to the New Deal era, which is all that Bernie is advocating really (although he's portrayed as the left of the left; in reality, on the world stage he's a moderate), is just setting us up for another swing to the right in 20 or 30 years.

But that's if we as people don't push any farther. I think if we ever have anything like the New Deal again, and so return to something like the 50s and 60s, where there was less wealth inequality, the American public has to be much more organized and push much harder. But for what? That's part of your question.

Pragmatic solutions should be thought of as short-term and long-term. I think it's important to have a long-term vision, as it informs the short-term decisions. But we don't want to be overly rigid, because we have no clue as to what the future brings.

In the short term, short of a revolution we're not getting rid of state-capitalism or private ownership, so Bernie's proposals are very good ones. I think strengthening unions is important, higher taxes, more regulations, and new legislation are important -- especially concerning things like stock buybacks, campaign contributions, etc. All that will be difficult enough. But then there are other solutions: encouraging worker co-ops is a huge move that could be made. Short of strong unions and worker co-ops is another option: worker representation on the boards of directors and in higher management.

In the long term, I think Parecon is a good model. There are historical examples of other modes of organization as well. The push should ultimately be a more anarchist society, where people control their lives, in politics but more importantly (and often simply overlooked as impossible) in the workplace as well. Not necessarily majoritarian democracy, a classless society, total equality, or anything like that, but simply more participation and equity.

My other thread about the co-op model gets into examples of this in terms of the workplace.

I focus more on economic matters because I think that's where most of the power comes from, whether we like it or not. I wish it were the government, because that's slightly easier to change. In business, there's not even the profession of democracy or fairness -- if it's private, they can do what they want.

Even people of the right are complaining about this regarding mask and vaccine mandates, and what they view as censorship on Twitter and Facebook. I think their rationale is absurd, but the general sentiment is correct: the private sector, major corporations, have too much power. (These are the same people totally fine with Trump authoritarianism and private businesses being allowed to discriminate against gays, but I digress.)

t is a system of exchange that relies on humans to be selfish when they want something. — Cheshire

But this is a very narrow view of human beings. All you have to do is look around, and you see cooperation, solidarity, empathy, concern for strangers, etc. I agree with Nietzsche about overvaluing "pity" and compassion, and even Ayn Rand in terms of Christian-like altruism, but that's certainly not the problem these days. If anything, we could use a higher dose of that. We've gone way too far the other direction. The fundamental principle being followed the last 40 years has essentially been "greed is good," similar to Adam Smith's "vile maxim." We see how that's turned out.

We could just as easily say "part of human nature is love and concern for others" -- and that'd be true as well. Just look at families and friends. The picture upon which modern ideas of the "free market" rests is the assumption that human beings are sociopaths, and that the greatest goal in life is the accumulation of wealth. It's anti-social. Look closely at the assumptions, and you'll eventually arrive at this idea. Like I said, it's very narrow -- and fairly sick. A symptom of decadence.

A more pro-social, healthier view of human beings should be assumed before we decide how to organize a society, its government and its economy. Perhaps going back and reading Plato, Aristotle, and even Adam Smith is a good idea.

I think that the large majority of Americans fundamentally agree with each other that something is wrong. — Xtrix

I think the gut knows that the growth model is not sustainable, and the ability to keep bailing ourselves out is losing steam. When I say the "gut", I mean an "intuitive sense", not necessarily articulated the way I just did.

It's like the end of a kegger. There's still a lot of half-empty cups of beer laying around if you really want a drink. And the cool kids over in the corner still have wine and a secret stash of bottled beer. But the song is skipping, the sun's coming up, the neighbors dog is barking, that "ten" laying on the floor over there is looking more like a "three" and, well, it's just time to go home. It was fun, the open conspiracy of "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke" has worn out it's welcome. The joke is over. We need some sleep, in our own bed. Tomorrow is a work day.

The anger is not articulated well, but it's right under the surface because they live it every day. They sense something is wrong with this world and would like to see it changed. It's not envy, it's not entitlement. It's a sense of fairness in a world where the rules aren't at all fair. But who or what is to blame? — Xtrix

You can see that obviously there is this sense of things not being right. There is this underlying anger in the country that can sometime erupt. The question is how it is vented out and by whom. Trump was basically this middle finger from part of the voters. Obama was someone that other people pinned their hopes. I remember when my friend had visited the US just when Obama was first elected, there was a lot of hopeful thinking. Yet unfortunately, this isn't something that just a President can change.

I remember when my friend had visited the US just when Obama was first elected, there was a lot of hopeful thinking. Yet unfortunately, this isn't something that just a President can change. — ssu

I keep coming back again and again to a simple goal: organization. Getting involved, on the local level, with anyone willing to listen and join in, or joining in with something already happening -- and there are some things happening here and there. But not particularly well, and not particularly prevalent or effective. Still, it's worth trying.

I liken it to all to someone complaining about how boring everyone around them is, how uninteresting their lives and conversations, etc., and yet never offering anything themselves, never speaking out, never leading discussions, etc. It's similar to "political hobbyism."

I think the emphasis on individualism needs to go out and being pro-social needs to come into vogue. There's no other way. If we continue pinning our hopes to the Obamas or Bidens or even Bernies, we're toast. That's limiting yourself to a vote, like restricting yourself to asking for a raise or quitting. When you think these are the only options, then you're both disarming yourself and limiting your circle of influence to your living room. That guarantees nothing changes.

To hell with these political leaders and these corporations.

Those of us who can remember their early childhood, remember being helpless. The typical family is not run as a market, because infants have nothing to sell but their full diapers, and are dependent on the government (aka parents) for their survival. The family is more communist than capitalist in its internal relations; from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. It simply would not work if the newcomers to the family had to earn their keep from the beginning.

Family, tribe, nation, the idea of loyalty and mutuality is widened, and it is only with "others" that one begins to trade and thus invent 'the market'. the market is a way of dealing with folk one does not care about.

I keep coming back again and again to a simple goal: organization. Getting involved, on the local level, with anyone willing to listen and join in, or joining in with something already happening -- and there are some things happening here and there. But not particularly well, and not particularly prevalent or effective. Still, it's worth trying. — Xtrix

Ummm.. should we call this representative democracy and forming new political parties?

Don't think you are bound by law to have just two. Even if they masquerade their "primaries" as part of the system, they are just two dominating parties and there is only one elections.

I more pro-social, healthier view of human beings should be assumed before we decide how to organize a society, its government and its economy. — Xtrix

You quoted me out of context; ignoring the sentence directly following this one spoke to your entire complaint above. Do you have anything honest to say?

The family is more communist than capitalist in its internal relations; from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. — unenlightened

Right, and it works, but it's not easy to widen the circle of such love and compassion. The good news is, as Steven Pinker has documented, that human history seems to move in the direction of less violence. In the long term, mankind is getting more integrated and cooperative. Common religion, ideology or nationalism can help to some degree. Social mechanisms like laws, education, trade and workplace force us to be cooperative and considerate toward strangers, and we gradually internalize these attitudes. Mental capacity and flexibility seem to be important too, to be able to understand different people and interact with them fruitfully. The more people develop these traits the more they will be able to function like a family in larger groups.

..

the market is a way of dealing with folk one does not care about. — unenlightened

We're all descended from people who turned to markets to meet the needs of communities when there was no Fatherland to organize things.

Markets have been incredibly important to humanity for thousands of years. We just live in a time where their power is outsized.

Good point.

ignoring the sentence directly following this one spoke to your entire complaint above. — Cheshire

It didn't, and you were not quoted out of context. Nor am I accusing you of taking this position. On the contrary, I think it's accurate. Those who tacitly hold this view of human beings are simply missing the bigger picture.

The one preceding it I meant to say. I was misrepresented by any measure. How about don't quote me.

How about don't quote me. — Cheshire

Don't want to be quoted, don't post.

Redacted....Don't want to be quoted, don't post. Save your stupidity for elsewhere. — Xtrix

You know it's interesting how people only seem to get upset when you accuse them of something they are guilty of.....Why not let whoever you are ranting at off the hook and let whatever punch line you are setting up hit the floor like the sorry sack of manure it surely resembles.

You know it's interesting how people only seem to get upset when you accuse them of something they are guilty of.... — Cheshire

You quoted me out of context. Please don't quote me again.

You mean delete the record of narcissistic rage you decided to alter. I might if you have a good idea by the end of the thread. Maybe, read what others said and aggregate some knowledge. Proceed.

The important issue isn't whether planning is centralized or scattered, it is whether planning for the short, medium, and long run is underway. In many cases, it appears to be quite inadequate. it isn't just national governments that too often fail at this: Corporations, individuals, small farmers, professionals, small tradesmen--all sorts.

Just one small example: A developer wants to build 50 houses. The local city/county wants the tax revenue. How does it happen that the developer, local government, and others do not notice that the land for these 50 houses is a flood plain? Building houses on flood. plains isn't planning -- it's gambling. People, insurance companies, taxpayers -- all sorts -- are losing this gamble too often.

Smart companies build sufficient warehouse capacity BEFORE they build out their wholesale or retail operation. Manufacturers build sufficient factory capacity before they attempt to go into new markets.

Amazon seems to do reasonably good medium range planning (2 decades out), which has enabled them to keep up with booming demand for home delivery. Target, surprisingly, seems to have had problems with its supply chain for several years. Bad planning, maybe.

I don't think switching to electric autos (140 million of them in the us alone) is a good idea, but at least there is talk of building out a coast-to-coast charging system, which will certainly be needed when we roll out more of the electric fleet.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of problems with building out a non-fossil fuel electric grid, and I don't see a lot of planning for that taking place. Mostly there seems to be a lot of dithering. But long range dithering doesn't count as long range planning.

Too big of an idiot, I see. That’s fine. Save your simplistic comments for elsewhere.

I don't think switching to electric autos (140 million of them in the us alone) is a good idea, — Bitter Crank

Why?