Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
"Progressive economics" is riddled with too much planning. Should it be coops? Big? Small? Maybe small ownership?

I would suggest a different take: instead of planning good solutions, what about avoiding bad alternatives? And then let people find their own ways.

So, for instance:

  1. Avoid massive concentrations of wealth. Make it illegal one way or the other.

  2. Avoid private monopolies. Real competition works in several domains. Private monopolies is the worst of both worlds.

  3. Be careful with too much power in the central state. As the state can be taken by special interests (see, e.g., Europe, 2011)

  4. Enforce separation of powers. Consider money and mass media powers! Have money? Then cannot have mass media. Dear Rupert Murdoch, please choose: either your money or your media empire.

  5. And so on

Regarding the rest: stop patronizing people with "the best solutions", let them find their ways. The liberal mantra of "get out of the way" roughly works as long as people do not accumulate too much power.

It might not sound good, but "progressive politics" could be defined by negatives: these are the limits, the rest is fair game.

Big is Bad.

by cagatacos on Sun May 29th, 2011 at 11:20:45 PM EST
He, this could been written by most of the 1850-1940 anarchists I have come across.

To play devil's advocate, the traditional answer from socdems or commies to 1 and/or 3 is that concentration of capital is necessary for the modern industrial society.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 07:03:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but the advantage of the joint stock company is precisely that it separates concentration of capital from concentration of wealth.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 10:32:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dunno about advantage, but it's certainly a quality.

The key disadvantages of joint stock companies are:

(a) Concentration of Capital = concentration of control

(b) Principal/ Agency problem.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue May 31st, 2011 at 05:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

To play devil's advocate, the traditional answer from socdems or commies to 1 and/or 3 is that concentration of capital is necessary for the modern industrial society.

Yes, of course. But there might be middle way: have very restricted and controlled events of capital accumulation. And shed lots of light (i.e. transparency) on them. And force them to not outlive some duration. And so forth.

But the real discussion is: how much industrial society do we need? One ipad every year, really?

Of course industrial society has some benefits: it allows use to be communicating here, for instance. And, of course, pre-industrial societies were in many cases an inequality disaster.

Then this discussion becomes extra-special if we thrown in the ongoing and increasing resource constriction of the next decades. It puts the feasibility of industrial society (especially at current levels) also on discussion.

by cagatacos on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 11:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...have very restricted and controlled events of capital accumulation.

Capital accumulation means wealth creation. That is what economies should be doing, instead of rent-seeking.

The real issue is income distribution.

by kjr63 on Mon May 30th, 2011 at 05:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One ipad every year, really?

But! But! A forever ipad, iphone and ipod would really take a bite out of the Apple and seriously piss of Mr. Market. The results on Apple stock would not be pretty.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 13th, 2011 at 09:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series