There are two I have in mind that would be good groups to work with that share many of the party's economic objectives. These groups offer alternatives to Socialism and Corporate Capitalism.
Steady State Ecomomics:
We should get in touche with these groups and I think incorporating some of their ideas into our platform would be an excellent idea.
I should add Social Credit. I will check out public banking seems similar in the sense that its debt free banking. The problem with capitalism is that there are to few capitalist. That is what many advocates of distributist say. When many people own their own businesses the wealth is spread among the people as oppose to to monopolized by the corporate elites under capitalism or the Government under socialism. Social Credit will also foster an ownership society. Social Credit has nothing to do with Socialism if anything it has been traditionally the Populist Right which has advocated for it.
Capitalism can be a wonderful Human Institution. It can enable Individuals to prosper and pursue their Happiness. But like just about everything else that Humans construct, Capitalism is a path that can be traveled too far. And too far is where We are with the Monopoly Corporations. We have gotten so focused on prosperity, (or survival), that We have failed to establish boundaries of decency regarding how far We should go with Our Capitalism.
Maybe We should revoke "Corporate Personhood" and establish wealth limitations. Maybe We should balance corporations with worker owned companies and outlaw outsourcing of manufacturing and profits. Maybe We should do all that has been suggested here and more.
I believe that Capitalism and Socialism can be at their best when they balance each other. Of course I speak of Capitalism and Socialism in their ideal forms. Not in the states they are in now.
Very informative as I've been wanting to research economics outside of the borders of Capitalism and Socialism. I would love to understand more about how Distributism can be applied institutionally. This is a school of thought that should be introduced to public forums and college campuses. I'm going to have to purchase that book on Distributism in the near future.
I second Adrien's motion Robert. If you get time, maybe you can tell Us more about this?
The only thing that I "pause" at, regarding "Distributism"is the churches' making the Family the main property owner. Is this a maneuver to strengthen the church's hold on Catholic's property? Just asking. Wondering about this refocus of ownership priority. What are the pluses and minuses of this move?
That's a good point, Scolos. Seeing as how Distributism has its roots in Catholicism, will "The Church" feel the need to interject in economic affairs? And to what extent would their influence reach? Being atheist, these are important questions for me.
While learning from others is always a good idea, aligning with these groups would be a mistake. They have their own agendas and those may not always work with the platform of the party. If anything, I feel that some of the ideas included in steady state economics are compatible. Ideas such as wise resource consumption and responsibility fit with our platform. As far as an economic platform is concerned. Let's try fixing what we have already broken before we push for a new system. Our current system does not in anyway resemble the system it was intended to be. I grant you that any distribution of weatlh system would solve some serious issues,but it opens the door for many more. The world has never figured out how to make such a system work without inviting corruption. Until we have a society of ideal morality, an ideal or utopic economic system is out of reach.
Hi Carrie Wallace. Good to see your post here. May I respond to some of your thinking?
"While learning from others is always a good idea, aligning with these groups would be a mistake."
Well said and I agree with your observation about "Learning". And your perspective about "aligning" has merit too.
Aligning with something, could mean submitting to its agenda, with a resultant loss of one's own...or part of one's own.
If, in the learning process, We discover that elements of other agendas is better than our own, then this loss of part of our agenda might be acceptable and desired. Also, sometimes other idea systems have considered parts of things that one's own agenda has not approached or discovered. And these new parts would possibly enhance our agenda...increase its scope. But for this to occur, the new part would have to be harmonious with the elements that our agenda, (platform), does have. I have to say, at this point in our discussion, that I haven't seen where "Distributism" might complement the Citizens Party Platform and Ideology. Maybe Mr. Stark would be kind enough to help us with a possibility regarding this. From what little I have read, "Distributism" requires more "radical", (fundamental), changes than the Citizens Party ideology is prepared to embrace and advocate. It seemingly struggles to stay in the "middle" of the political spectrum...be pragmatic and use "common sense". Like you said so neatly and succinctly, "They have their own agendas and those may not always work with the platform of the party".
I don't have any grasp of "Steady State Economics", so I will postpone comments about that until I have read more about it. I am for "wise resource consumption" though. That much I do embrace and support.
"Trying to Fix what is already broken...", could be a lost cause, but not necessarily so. We should approach this case by case. May I ask you for one example of what could be fixed that is broken? Even partially fixing something is not without some value.
Let me say Hi back Scolos Narbarson. A would like to acknowledge an appreiciation of your phrase "be pragmatic and use common sense." Just before I found this page, I had mention to someone that I was waiting for someone to start the Common Sense Party.
Now, on to economics. I don't pretend to be an expert, but it seems to me that there were obvious and disatrious mistakes made a critical times. The most obvious is the choice to completely abandon the gold standard in 1971. It is no secret that economies based on a gold or silver standard are usually more stable. That being said, I am not sure how feasible it would be to return to the gold standard. I think this is an idea worth further study.
The next glaring mistake is easily addressed with the Glass-Steagal Act. Considering the diverences technology has brought to the worlds of banking and investments, it may need some tweaking. The current banking and investment crisis seems to echo the corruption which inspired the act to begin with. The timing with it's repeal in 1999 with the advent of the current crisis is hard to deny.
During the post WWII era, when America's middle class enjoyed a good financial world, there were a multitude of differences with today's economy. We need to address, and the party already does, some of these. Lets start with jobs. the transferal of jobs to other countries is a major problem. Addressing this requires addresing almost all of our trade policies. Loss of jobs can also be atributed to increased technology. Automation has decreased the number of man hours many plants need to run. This can be addressed by refocusing our educational system. In the past we have neglected skills training in favor of college prep classes. The more successful educational systems in the world combine these two. We are seeing increase in the available tech classes in schools. However, we tend to give our students an ultimatum, not a foundation to build on. Why can must they choose between the two. We should provide enough education so that it is easy to build on what you have already learned. We also seem to have created a society that is more adept at spouting facts than thinking.
Now let me address the national debt. Is it really feasible that their is no national debt? Most likely not. We can reduce it. We can also endevor to pay them off sooner. During the earliest years of our country honor and the willingness to pay our debt is why others invested in us anyway. When Alexander Hamilton first combined our debts in order to pay them off this became a standard. A standard that we followed until fairly recently. Until the last few decades our greatest debt was the cost of WWII. Every president until Ronald Reagan attempted to pay on this debt. Now we add to it. The government seems to have shed it's honor in favor of the same give me attitude that many citizens have maintained. We, as a nation, have become a reflection of our worst habits.