Market Socialism

[Vlerchan]

People are free to jump-in with general criticisms.

Since I meet very few people who subscribe to market socialism that should be easy right?

Worker owned coops competing against each other in open markets.
Essentially what I believe.

Except I seek to promote the co-operative lifestyle in general. So I think that people who share an apartment building to form housing co-operatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative) and as far as possible people should attempt to form consumer cooperatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative) in areas such as credit and energy (I'm a fan of solar etc. for a reason - solar won't involve 10 bn investments at a time) and even things like groceries if possible. I probably haven't done near-enough research into alternative forms of co-operative living as I should but from where I stand now the communal-orientation seems preferable to general atomisation and relegation of individuals to that of just consumer within out societies.

I would imagine that the above format would be transplanted particularly to natural monopolies.

---

I also don't support necessitating for full worker's ownership. I still haven't devised a means for co-operatives to effectively access credit so I'm willing to allow ~20% of shares in the firm to free-float. This means that an investor class was almost certainly still exist but c'est la vie and all.

More consequentialist and mutualistic property norms more or less based on use.
I have no idea what this means. Please expand.

I don't have any problem with a strong government intervening in the market to prevent concentration of wealth.
I don't think this will happen in a system of worker's co-operatives.

Avg. wage ratios are in-and-around 5 or so:1
I would imagine that markets dominated by worker's co-operatives would be more competitive given firms individual anti-expansionist tendencies.

I guess there's a chance that the wealth might concentrate around the investor class.

I think preventive measures and laws that ensure everyone is fairly compensated for their labor and able to make a living are generally more efficient than government safety nets.
I'd need you to define what preventative measures mean here. I don't support a minimum wage or legislation pertaining to health or safety within worker's co-operatives.

I still support a small guaranteed minimum basic income for a number of reasons and then socialised medicine.

[Gamma Male]

I have no idea what this means. Please expand.
I think property laws should be based mostly on use and written with the goal of giving the most people the best quality of life, and that single individuals or organizations should not be able to withhold large amounts of unused land and houses from the public at large.

As opposed to the system we have now in most western countries in which there are m a NY more houses then there are homeless people but the state prevents anybody from attempting to move in.

I don't think this will happen in a system of worker's co-operatives.
Probably not, I'm just saying I think the state should take in active role in making sure the economy operates smoothly and don't have any philosophical problems with intervention.


I'd need you to define what preventative measures mean here. I don't support a minimum wage or legislation pertaining to health or safety within worker's co-operatives.

Laws and property norms written with the intent of making sure everyone is as fairly compensated for their labor as is plausible and hopefully preventing the need for a strong safety net. I guess you could call it a minimum guaranteed income.

[Vlerchan]

I think property laws should be based mostly on use[.]
Why?

Though more to my point of concern, how would this work?

[And w]ritten with the goal of giving the most people the best quality of life, and that single individuals or organizations should not be able to withhold large amounts of unused land and houses from the public at large.
I interpreted this as you don't agree with speculation?

I think a better way to deal with this would be to just place a tax on holding land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Main_tenets). This already occurs in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

Laws and property norms written with the intent of making sure everyone is as fairly compensated for their labor as is plausible[.]
What does fairly mean?

I guess you could call it a minimum guaranteed income.
By minimum basic income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) I mean guaranteeing all citizens a certain amount of cash each month.

It would replace all other forms of social welfare.

[phuckphace]

a minimum basic income is an interesting idea and one that I'd like to implement at some point in the future. not to sound like a pessimist but I think an MBI would present several problems of its own, namely "what to do with MBI recipients who use their free cash to buy black tar heroin and and/or stupid electronic gadgets they don't need?" (i.e. a significant chunk of the lumpenproletariat).

some would say "so what, let them, the positive benefits of MBI would outweigh any abuse." others will suggest drug tests as a prerequisite for receiving the MBI as some localities already do for welfare benefits. the former approach seems pretty hand-wavy and irresponsible, and the latter would add more complexity and administrative costs. I don't know, I can see an MBI working in Norway but being a complete disaster in the US.

[Vlerchan]

phuckphace: How about if the MBI was only expendable on necessities? That is, with the same general ethos as food stamps.

---

I'm more in the "so what" camp though anyway. It beats them stealing to get their fix.

From what I read drug testing also tends to costs more than it saves. I wouldn't be surprised if the politicians calling for it were connected to medical centres or something.

[phuckphace]

there was a Walmart in a nearby town that didn't drug test employees, but one day they decided to start doing it and then promptly had to fire 125 employees.

I'm willing to bet that 9 out of 10 of those positive results were caused by cannabis use, so they lost 125 productive employees over a benign substance that doesn't impact work performance when consumed off the job. I think once marijuana is legalized it will cut down on the number of needless firings of non-junkies and save money all around.

(this is not a MUH WEED post)

___________________

Vlerchan: I'd be okay with that, as long as we don't deem ice cream and pizza to be necessities.