One and the same
The free markets have reached their limit. If we examine them more thoroughly they appear to have two faults. The first is the global environment. Without government intervention the markets would pollute the environment beyond repair, and people would backlash against it. Just look at the super-fast economies of emerging markets like China and India, and the Western backlash towards them.
Second is that the markets only takes care of the select few and the rest are left to flounder in poverty. Inequality leads people to street politics, and in recent years we've seen more of this after the banking crisis of 2008. Governments tell the rich that they must pay more taxes, but they never seem to do that.
Wrestling back control
As global governments look to wrestle back control from large corporations, the democracies they were founded on tend to erode. The democracy of the free markets is now reduced - in this case hobbling them economically.
This leads to an almost Communist system of vast corruption that Eastern European countries have only left only 20 years ago.
Crony capitalists or Communists? The choice is poor. It seems we are not capable of solving these environmental or inequality issues anytime soon.
So which is the lesser of the two evils? I believe it's the free markets that creates the value, but they also require the creation of public sector goods like built bridges and furnished schools etc. The government is a requirement for all of these things.
So, how would you solve this crisis of environment and inequality? Does a decentralized economy also have drawbacks?
Look at the current feuds over Bitcoin. Comment below folks.
"So, how would you solve this crisis of environment and inequality?"
In the teritorial jurisdiction called the Netherlands they have a saying: Verbeter de wereld, begin bij jezelf.
Beter the world, start with yourself.
Thats the only place for me to start to better things, with me, and I stay there.
I'm not gonna force other people to better the world for me, in the way I think it is better, I could be wrong on what's better. And then things would be worse.
That's the kind of humility I like to see :)
If I'm wrong about something, at least I'm only hurting myself.
The journey within sounds like a good plan to me @wordsword ... off for my 20 minute candle meditation now :)
Crony capitalism and Communism are both problems that exist because of govern-cement.
Communism without govern-cement works very well. Their are communes all over the world. As long as you are free to leave, there is nothing wrong with communism.
Capitalism works well, as long as you do not have a govern-cement which mandates monopolies. In capitalism, the best product wins. If people care about the environment, well then "green" products are very competitive. However, when govern-cement decides who is the winners and who is the losers, than you have crony-capitalism, where you get the govern-cement to outlaw your competition.
govern-cement: the article in a nutshell @builderofcastles - I like that word. Still thinking that one over ... I LOVE IT!! Comment UV'd!
Interesting... and looking forward to seeing what others bring to the discussion.
Last things first... from my perspective, the main issue with decentralization as an ideology is the tendency to get too much fragmentation... everyone who doesn't like the current version can break off and create their own fork. Ultimately, you run the risk of losing ALL benefits of such things as economies of scale and cooperation. For example (extrapolating from current trends) is there actually a functional purpose for having-- let's say-- 100,000 different alt coins?
Otherwise... no real answers. Capitalism tends to become problematic because it doesn't take into account the quality called "human greed." Which soon leads to these huge inequities. Communism... can work OK at the "commune" level, but not as a total societal structure-- not everyone is willing to be part of a system that largely ignores the value of the individual because all that matters is the collective.
Decentralization leads to Bitcoin fiascos and Ethereum getting f- to death! All is not well in the crypto world. The cryptos are not near as apolitical as you would think @denmarkguy.
Starting in the late 1970s business woke up to the fact that if they bought government via PACs and lobbyists then wouldn't have to bother with pesky things like competition, providing a better product or service or making their company the kind of place where good people would want to work.
Instead they got government to pave the way for relaxing anti trust and in the financial services sector a guarantee through bailouta and never ending money printing compliments of the Fed. Companies just merged and acquired their competitors rather than be competitive. Its been all down hill since then.
Oh yes! You can't beat a bit of 1970s pesky government intervention! GRRRRRRR!
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of May 14. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $11.37 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: May 14 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Can you stop them?
We apologize for any inconvenience. You will no longer receive these comments on your posts.
Oh no! Please come back?? You help sharpen my daily brain before starting the day. You have purpose I promise you. It's not spam. Oh well. Do as you must :(