The Future!

Was just having a look at the 'Stock Crash' thread there and not for the first time I was hit, in a nasty fish across the face fashion, by the realisation that a reconfiguration of our capital markets is imperative in order to assuage worries over the long-term sustainability of man-kind. And as a logical corollary to that, it is needed to ensure the economic success of all the nations and companies who form a part of that wider system. If your body is in meltdown then it doesn't really matter that your eyes still work, you're still fcuked.

I alluded to what I'm talking about in my signature a month or so back when I championed a concept formulated by a sound old bloke called Frank Dixon; Total Corporate Responsibility. Now rather than blathering on all day about the manifold considerations (the cows are coming home soon anyway) I'll just give a quick run down and a link to a video in which Dixon outlines his perspective so that we have an initial elucidation of the problem.

Basically there is a systems failure. (something socialists no doubt are aware of, but the staunch capitalists may frown at. Sorry lads, the current system is fcuking up the world, let's deal with it!) The markets are too money-centric and represent a huge barrier to any sort of sustainability plans.

The success of corporations and their managers is adjudged in purely financial terms, ie by their bottom-line profitability. So as much as you may like to be socially and environmentally responsible to the full, because of the overwhelming emphasis on financial aspects you can only go as far as is profitable. Yes market forces play a role, but as long as Cnut Company steadfastly chase profit then they gain an advantage over Conscientious Company as a result of being more attractive to the investor who just wants more money (the vast majority) rather than he who just wants the intangible feeling of well-being from his investment (not really the purpose of the markets is it).

So in this regard Dixon espouses a plethora of different criterion by which corporations can be judged against their competitors so that the best (in terms of doing good for society) company is facilitated by the system to fully prosper and be compensated for the good it does, and thus greatly assist sustainability and of course general happiness all around the world; indicators would range from the obvious such as pollution to the welcome such as misleading advertising and lobbying for more corporate responsibility, and obviously funding institutes and 'scientists' to deny climate change is happening would be frowned upon - take a bow Exxon.

Now I'm sure everyone is concerned about climate change, etc. Personally, the invisible tears and inaudible cries of future generations bemoaning our ineptitude causes me serious disquiet in my hours of silent thought. (honest! :)) Drastic times call for drastic measures. Something much more than reduced CO2 is necessary. I'm not suggesting this TCR thing is any great panacea (haven't really looked into it enough as yet) but it seems that it would be a great tonic for the flailing confidence of the capital markets and give corporations reason to return to their proper, original raison d'etre; creating overall wealth for society.

Feel free to discuss any aspect of this 'future' lark in these turbulent times. But apologies to BohsPartisan I don't think a socialist world is likely and so maybe we should look to corporations to lead the way and begin to redress current wrongs in the old quantity v quality chestnut. Right we'll leave it there for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingdom hoop

Feel free to discuss any aspect of this 'future' lark in these turbulent times. But apologies to BohsPartisan I don't think a socialist world is likely and so maybe we should look to corporations to lead the way and begin to redress current wrongs in the old quantity v quality chestnut. Right we'll leave it there for now.

---

If you think corporations will lead the way you'll be waiting longer than I will!

One of the more interesting threads in a little while. Will the world's governments institute means of ensuring that they behave? Can we hope for the corporations to find their way to a happy place and release the rest of us?

Corporations were created as a separate kind of entity in order to avoid certain legislative issues in the US towards the end of the 19th century (there are other examples predating this, but this was where it became global). Their significant feature is that, unlike other businesses, their legal identity ois essentially the same as that of the common, or garden, human being. The can't cast a vote or get a driving license, but other than that, they have pretty much all the legal rights of the average person, and in doing so, they shield the shareholders from the legal, financial, and, inevitably, the ethical responsibilities for their behaviour.

I got over-enthusiastic and wrote a hell of a lot on this, so I blogged the rest. If you are not already asleep by now, you can check the rest of what I wrote on my blog, and that should send you off.

Love it or hate it Capitalism is here to stay. You can debate the different forms of but Socialism in Marxist form will likely never succeed. Wages in sport in particular football are a good example.

It is nice to suggest success not based on money but you get into far too many unquantifiable issues then. You suggest compare companies against their competitors but who are they & how you you rank?

Capitalism does not only exist at large Corporate level. It starts with employees. We trade you time for payment. Payment is determined by market rates which is determined by demand & supply. In the boom dot com days IT wages increased but when dot com burst wages dropped & people lost wages.

If you look at the current Global Warming buzz most "Green" products & solutions are being pushed by the private sector. It is unlikely the state can do must because states compete against each other & will take advantage.

I love American and world business - they go apoplectic whenever there is any "interference" from government into business but any time the market goes down everybody bleats for "stimulus" packages or a rate reduction or they blame the regulators, or the FSA, or the lack of regulation.

Morally and intellectually bankrupt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

If you think corporations will lead the way you'll be waiting longer than I will!

---

:) Fair point, and it's the kernel of the matter. The system in place simply doesn't facilitate corporations to lead the way. But we know change is essential, so it's a matter of how we elicit it. **

The problem isn't a case of CEOs etc being downright malevolent and wanting to ruin the world for their grandkids, but that they are forced into it by overly financial-centric parameters in the markets. So that's why I'm supporting an emphasis-shift in the system to induce requisite changes in behaviour and priorities. Only instead of supporting a change in the political systems (well I would, but not so much) I'd shout, firstly, for a change in the way the success of a corporation is adjudged.

Think of it this way; get companies actively working in common with state interests and the populace will become far more perceptive for enlightenment. Maybe a stepping stone to a socialist world? ;) :)



** Briefly, what options are there?

- Companies; Well you can hope companies take the lead and realise that profits can be made from becoming sustainable, like this pioneering legend has.

- Law/government led; There's the strict legal approach, but that won't work as; the subject matter is inappropriately 'soft'; you'd just see bad behaviour avoided; too hard to enforce; footloose companies will just go where laws are lenient, and; best behaviour wouldn't be adequately compensated.

- Markets; Then there's the market option that would offer huge rewards (incentives) for companies who are the nicest/have the most sustainable model.

Just on cursory thinking it seems clear (to me anyway, others may think differently?) that a market-led approach is the best route to sustainability....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Love it or hate it Capitalism is here to stay.

---

In its current money, money, money guise hurtling us towards dystopia I think I'll choose to hate it thank you. Can't understand why any objective person could love it as it is to be honest.

Quote:

---

You suggest compare companies against their competitors but who are they & how you rank?

---

Innovest are the leading non-financial analysts. Here's a brief outline of what they focus on.

Quote:

---

Capitalism does not only exist at large Corporate level. It starts with employees. We trade you time for payment. Payment is determined by market rates which is determined by demand & supply.

---

Don't get your point there. It's well established through survey and common sense that employees will happily work for less pay if its for a more socially responsible company. Clearly money isn't the only important thing for people.

Since the early days when bartering was the only way to trade and later the introduction of coins, capitalism was always going to win over all. Profit was always key to people trading and human nature is always leading people to better their lot.

Without trading, humans would not have society as we know it. Socialism/Marxist ideas are just that ideas, we cannot change our human nature of betterment and as a result practise will win or idealism

Our animal instinct controls our human nature.

I've always hoped the world would turn out much like the world of Final Fantasy 7. One huge city that the devout capitalists and their minions live in, and dotted towns all over the world that cater for the needs of us, more community minded people.

Don't worry I've already punched myself for being so nerdy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

Without trading, humans would not have society as we know it. Socialism/Marxist ideas are just that ideas, we cannot change our human nature of betterment and as a result practise will win or idealism.

---

Exactly. we can talk how marxism/socialism would be great but human nature will not allow it.

I would suggest that it is only people in the relatively well off West talk about marxism/socialism as people in most parts of the world are happy to get an opportunity to survive or maybe improve their lot.

People may invest in social aware companies but probably only when they already have a large sum stored away for their pension. Capitalism already allows for this as reacts to demand. If this was to come from the state were do they get their mandate?

I agree employment conditions can override financial concerns but possibly again only when get to comfortable level of income. If employees do not like conditions they will leave forcing employers to change.

Pete, are you back on this, there was a multiple page thread that you seemed to have given up on. Are you ready to dust off the mud huts "argument" again?
:rolleyes:

As for only people in the west talking about Socialism, Pete, The CWI which the Socialist party is affiliated to has sections in 40 countries including Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Chile, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Israel/Palestine, South Africa...
I could go on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

Since the early days when bartering was the only way to trade and later the introduction of coins, capitalism was always going to win over all. Profit was always key to people trading and human nature is always leading people to better their lot.

Without trading, humans would not have society as we know it. Socialism/Marxist ideas are just that ideas, we cannot change our human nature of betterment and as a result practise will win or idealism

Our animal instinct controls our human nature.

---

The future does not need to be the same as the past. The Statue of Liberty isn't considered art for its giant solid base.

As for profit always being the driving force in humanity, anyone with the slightest knowledge of anthropology would know that is not the case. People did not make a profit through barter. And human nature is always changing - evolution anyone? We haven't just changed biologically since we unbent our backs and got those thumbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

As for profit always being the driving force in humanity, anyone with the slightest knowledge of anthropology would know that is not the case. People did not make a profit through barter. And human nature is always changing - evolution anyone? We haven't just changed biologically since we unbent our backs and got those thumbs.

---

Never said profit it was the driving force....

I said Profit was always key to people trading 'and' human nature is always leading people to better their lot.

Bartering - To trade goods or services without the exchange of money.

As no two items are the same in bartering then someone will always end up with a better deal even if only a fraction.

When bartering was replaced with currency, trade changed, profit became a tangible fact.

Directly evolution has nothing to do with people wanting to better their lot, human instinct does as apposed to animal instinct. (yes evolution brought the human about but did learning come trough evolution or through experience? Therefore it has an indirect role in Human nature)

Society accepted coins and currency as the standard to which goods could be charged and exchanged. It did not set out minimum profits etc it left that up to the trader and capitalism was born...........

So until Socialism can deconstruct human behaviour dating back to 800-700 BC then it will never succeed as capitalism became part of society back then and it has become part of human nature (could this be evolution????)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

So until Socialism can deconstruct human behaviour dating back to 800-700 BC then it will never succeed as capitalism became part of society back then and it has become part of human nature (could this be evolution????)

---

He's right. Just like we'll never stop people throwing their waste and urinating from windows / doors / cave mouths onto public throughfares as has dated back to 1 Million BC. People have alwasy done it and always will. Even Raquel Welsh does.

One second, I'm getting something from my researcher.

What is it you tell me?

Sorry, it seems that some less than delightful thing that was always the way, seemingly human nature has been altered. Well I never! What could possibly be next to go? Indisciminate murder over women? Feudal rule? Duels of Honour? Picking your nose and eating it?

Capitalism can only exist on the basis of finding potential new markets and converting them. Perhaps the Alexander that is the "Global Economy" has sat down to cry that there are no more worlds to conquer, before humbling this one and conquering it again.

We are all part of capitalism. We all trade our time as employees for profit i.e. money. It is fine to theorise that everyone in society will work for the benefit of the collective but the only society I have seen that work out for was the Borg. It is human nature to better yourself. If you got hand outs for everything a certain percentage would take advantage & thereby discourage the majority from trying.

Socialism probably unrealistic so maybe better to find best place to live on the planet & replicate? Possibly the most successful economies in the world are Scandinavian however Norway is built on oil money so can't be used as a model. Maybe Sweden is the best example but might be hard to judge unless lived there. Then again maybe not everything is perfect? Only article but they did have an exodus I think in the 90s when taxes on single people increased too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

We are all part of capitalism. We all trade our time as employees for profit

---

This shows you don't understand the first thing about profit. We do not trade our labour for profit. Yes we sell our labour, but in return for wages which are less than the value of our labour - this is how the capitalist makes a profit. The capitalist sells the product of the worker's labour for a greater amount than he/she bought it for. Thats profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

Bartering - To trade goods or services without the exchange of money.

As no two items are the same in bartering then someone will always end up with a better deal even if only a fraction.

---

Again wrong, the basis of barter was that like was exchanged for like.
Human beings are social animals. Thats human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc.
Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism and is thus unnatural. Evolution of the human was made possible through our group organisation. That is one of the things that gives us our natural advantage over other species. Compared to a lion or a cheetah or a bear or most of the species on the planet, our ancestors were pretty puny and if you were betting on a species to survive until the present day you wouldn't have picked them. It is our social aspect, our ability to work together that did it for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Human beings are social animals. Thats human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc. Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism and is thus unnatural. Evolution of the human was made possible through our group organisation. That is one of the things that gives us our natural advantage over other species. Compared to a lion or a cheetah or a bear or most of the species on the planet, our ancestors were pretty puny and if you were betting on a species to survive until the present day you wouldn't have picked them. It is our social aspect, our ability to work together that did it for us.

---

I'm not in 100% agreement with your argument. The formation of groups depends on the initative of an individual/ individuals. This individual "drive" to form groups does not reach contentment on formation of a group. Rather individuals will seek to improve the group's dynamics or, if unsuccesful in doing so, seek to form a new group or other formats to improve.

It all comes back to Maslow's hierachy of needs. :D The esteem and self-actualisation levels of Maslow's hierachy are most individual in their nature. And if we base our understanding on Maslow's hierachy of needs, there is a natural, inherent and progressive need for the individual in us to come forward.

Whether or not you agree with Maslow's hierarchy and it's workings, the fulfillment of fundamental human needs is based on individual perception not group perception. How the individual perceives her/his current standing/status/position in life will determine current and future actions. That's human nature.

Good point Angus.The head honchos of Industry talk about Goverments not "interfering" with the markets until it all goes belly up and then they want rescue packages to "stimulate" the economy.Even more blatant in the case of Northern Rock where tax payers money is used to bail them out.
Did'nt the US recently release cash reserves in reaction to the stock market crash.Does cash not lose value when this happens and encourage inflation?
What about Gold reserves?Has it not proved to be more reliable source for underpinning an economy(in say the last 100 years) than cash which can fluctuate wildly in value.Economics is not my thing so I make these points because I am interested in replies from those who are informed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Again wrong, the basis of barter was that like was exchanged for like.
Human beings are social animals. Thats human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc.
Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism and is thus unnatural. Evolution of the human was made possible through our group organisation. That is one of the things that gives us our natural advantage over other species. Compared to a lion or a cheetah or a bear or most of the species on the planet, our ancestors were pretty puny and if you were betting on a species to survive until the present day you wouldn't have picked them. It is our social aspect, our ability to work together that did it for us.

---

You are saying I am wrong on bartering but you have not looked at the process of bartering.

There was no universal price list, and no set bartering rules your view on bartering is simplified and as a result it is not accurate.

Unless you exchange like for like then it is not the same, if they are the same you are just swapping.

The more animal pelts that were available the more pelts you would get in exchange for another required good. Therefore there were fluctuations in quantities of exchange this can be further backed up with seasonal products fresh meat was worth more than salted meat.

The more of something that was available the less you needed to exchange, the better the quality of your product the more you got in return

This was even before the coin was introduced!!

"Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism"

Yes that is true but it is not just individuals, it also promotes companies, it allows groups and individuals set prices and set margins.

I know co-ops aren't capitalist ventures but a lot now abide by the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market which is primarily a capitalist ideal.

You say
"Human beings are social animals. That’s human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc"

Capitalist also organise themselves into like minded or complementary groups. The assumption that all capitalist are individuals is wrong.

That is where the flaw in your argument is you think capitalist are purely individuals, that is not the case 100% of the time.

theres a film on youtube called Zeirgiest Federal Reserve,it comes in 5 parts but just watch the first part to get the idea of it.it relates to this thread very nicely.the guy makes very valid points and has some great quotes to back up his theories.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ

I think the issue of people coming together with a common goal for the betterment of mankind is very tough to achieve, the reason, well humans in a society need to be able to look at other societies and say 'you are wrong we are right.' That issue is more prevalent in the era of globalisation then it was in the early half of last century even though there were two world wars.

Kingdom Hoop, The issue with getting companies actively working in common with state interests and the populace is that lobby groups are a part of life in a democracy. State interest is not always the best way forward, history is littered with examples of 'the state' saying it is for the betterment of the people when in fact it is power that drives the state and not the good of the people.

There a few things that can polarize people and get people together for their cause, natural disasters being one, war being another.

Both make the society affected take stock and realise that their way of life is under threat and either they take an active part in securing their society in their own little patch or they reach a point of Zen and accept what is coming (be it through their own wants or it is forced upon them).

Socialism, Marxism, Capitalism and what ever else is there to control humans all have the same flays, control/power & humans, you need power to control society and power is abused by all of the above ideals. All also have positives as well but inevitably all have a trade off against human rights in each society


I must say I'm enjoying this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dricky

You are saying I am wrong on bartering but you have not looked at the process of bartering.

There was no universal price list, and no set bartering rules your view on bartering is simplified and as a result it is not accurate.

Unless you exchange like for like then it is not the same, if they are the same you are just swapping.

The more animal pelts that were available the more pelts you would get in exchange for another required good. Therefore there were fluctuations in quantities of exchange this can be further backed up with seasonal products fresh meat was worth more than salted meat.

The more of something that was available the less you needed to exchange, the better the quality of your product the more you got in return

This was even before the coin was introduced!!

"Capitalism promotes unbridled individualism"

Yes that is true but it is not just individuals, it also promotes companies, it allows groups and individuals set prices and set margins.

I know co-ops aren't capitalist ventures but a lot now abide by the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market which is primarily a capitalist ideal.

You say
"Human beings are social animals. That’s human nature folks. This is proven time and time again as people organise themselves into groups. Nations, communities, parishes, football clubs, unions etc, etc"

Capitalist also organise themselves into like minded or complementary groups. The assumption that all capitalist are individuals is wrong.

That is where the flaw in your argument is you think capitalist are purely individuals, that is not the case 100% of the time.

---

On Bartering - in primitive communist societies and early agricultural societies that have been observed by anthropologists first hand, the idea of bartering between groups was exchange of a "product" you had a surplus of for something the other group had a surplus of. It is far removed from the concept of profit.

On capitalism and individualism - I said it promotes individualism- that is its ideology. Of course in reality there has to be some level of co-operation involved or else nothing would get done.

Also Dricky I'd suggest you have a look at this thread first and see if there is anything that has been missed.
http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=4415...ight=Socialism
I'm reluctant to go over old ground now. If you are skimming through the main points in favour of Socialism are made by myself, Dr Nightdub and Son of Stan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

On Bartering - in primitive communist societies and early agricultural societies that have been observed by anthropologists first hand, the idea of bartering between groups was exchange of a "product" you had a surplus of for something the other group had a surplus of. It is far removed from the concept of profit.

On capitalism and individualism - I said it promotes individualism- that is its ideology. Of course in reality there has to be some level of co-operation involved or else nothing would get done.

Also Dricky I'd suggest you have a look at this thread first and see if there is anything that has been missed.
http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=4415...ight=Socialism
I'm reluctant to go over old ground now. If you are skimming through the main points in favour of Socialism are made by myself, Dr Nightdub and Son of Stan.

---

I’m not disputing the virtues of socialism, a Marxist would say it is the stage to follow capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterised by the implementation of collectivist principles.

I'm not prompting capitalism as the saviour of mankind but there is a fundamental flay in human nature which prevents ideals based on community, socialism etc, that flay is hierarchy. People wanting to better their lot is a fair assumption but as long as you have groups of people there will always be bosses and bosses get/want more than the ranks below. Flat structures don’t exist in Socialism or capitalism, if they did then I agree things would be easier fairer and more productive and capitalism would never exist. Humans were introduced to capitalism through trade, trade began with bartering.

in primitive communist societies and early agricultural societies that have been observed by anthropologists first hand, the idea of bartering between groups was exchange of a "product" you had a surplus of for something the other group had a surplus of. It is far removed from the concept of profit.

I do not disagree with this at all , people used dance & song as a currency in bartering (which is still a form of currency between some tribes in Africa) but that is not the full life of bartering, it did not have set rules outside each community and bartering developed as societies developed, the same recording of history show that a produce (be it a crop, animal pelts etc) came to have a higher premium if a product was in short supply or dropped in value if over supplied (which was a result of communities developing and starting production on a greater scale).

Another thing developed with communities, Members of communities started to travel and explore and it was then they discovered that if they traded Product A for their desired product B that there could receive more of product B then they needed but the adventurous community member knew that the excess they had could be traded at a much higher premium where product B was in short supply. This is where your simplified version of bartering developed into trade and it is the beginning of profit.

When coins were introduced they became the medium of exchange, profit became quantifiable. The hierarchy of the communities received the wealth be it food or later coins or jewellery it did not filter down to the sod on the ground. The first son was feed better then the rest of the clan (after the leader of course) in these communities it was not distributed evenly amongst all. This was the beginning capitalism.

The issue in getting socialism to succeed is that we have to deconstruct human nature and take out Capitalism before socialism would have a chance of working 100% of the time for 100% of the people, capitalism only came about because of communities and the hierarchy in human society, that same flaw is in socialism.

Socialist would say they can introduce it now and society would be a better place but how? You have to control the masses and in order to do that you need to control information, the control of information is a strong tool and should any group in power have such controls? Personally I think not, as it will lead to ‘do as I say’ (which is the exact same as capitalism)

Natural resources are a huge tool socialist can use and it is only where there are massive saleable resources do we see success stories in socialism. The unfortunate thing is we also of many many countries where socialism has been based on Marxism and Leninism ideas and these are just as bad as capitalist countries when abused, wealth is not distributed through communities and they are dependant on the state for work and can never get out of that cycle. Do these countires divide the land amongst all?? Certainly not, are you considered a loyal servant of the mother land if you dispute the view of the hierarchy, defiantly not and this can have a detrimental affect on a person and family, which goes against one of the key priciapls of socialism.

Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formly known as California. White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.
Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.
Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped.
Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.

Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.
France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica.
Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.
Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
85-year $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.
Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.
Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals, violates their civil rights.
Average height of NBA players is now nine feet, seven inches.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.
Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts.
IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines.

I think Cloning could be a huge issue with scientists playing Flying Spaghetti Strawmen :mad: