New World Order (If not peace)

Socialism

Peace (If no NWO)

That is the only way that we can successfully escape this situation and it's pretty damned impossible to accomplish.

My major contention when people ask these kinds of question or propose an issue of "better", "better at what"?

Is there a better way to organize scarce resources than the mixed economies we have now? Something that could work in the real world?

I think it's evident our current system does not organize scarce resources in any kind of responsible way at all. I would even say non-scarce resources are only organized in such a way that is most economically efficient for those with the means to have a say in how this "organization" is achieved.

At the very core of capitalism is greed.

And this works in places where there is plenty, for a time, on its own, because the goal is always to give the most people what they need and want at a price they are willing to pay.

Prices are idealy determined of course by 1. competition 2. need/want / means of obtaining.

If there is plenty of something, and there is competition, then it's okay to utilize the negative characteristic of greed for the greater good.

Ex. Soda,

There's plenty of supply, plenty of competition, and the need vs want ratio is very low, no one really needs soda. Greed on the side of corporation does just fine in providing something people want for what ends up being an acceptable price.

Now the problem though is:

1. monopolies (even the hidden ones, and the inside deals between companies to set a minimum price and squeeze out new competition through corporate take-overs and undue influence in the law-making process)

2. scarcity

an example of the second is oil. We know there's X amount, and only a few people have it.

The regulations we have in place do nothing to conserve resources, or even ensure everyone gets what they need or want.

In fact, in many cases it pays to pretend something is more scarce, and deny people it in order to excuse raising prices. This is okay for say a Rolex watch, which is not a necessity. It's not okay when it's food or a doctor.

Competition can work to curb this. But it does not necessarily have to. If another watch company comes up with a high-end watch that costs just as much to make as a Rolex, does it pay to price it cheaper so more people can get one?

We've seen the answer is not always yes. Often making something harder to get increases desire for it.

The only point here is that capitilism does not ever work to regulate use of resources, it actually pays to use more resources in order to make things more rare, thus raising the value. And increased competition from this perspective only works to increase the rate at which resources are consumed.

And price is a crapshoot. Sometimes competition lowers prices, but often it does not.

The point is, in spite of the shouting from the church of capitalism on the right. Capitalism is not a solvent for all of the worlds ills, and can only work in conjunction with social programs where need is considered.

So how to better regulate capitalism:

1. Start actually enforcing the current monopoly laws, which have basically become a joke akin to j-walking in the corporate world.

2. Enforce current laws on price gauging, which again have become a joke to many.

3. Begin enforcing conservation where resources are not renewable. This encourages these companies to invest in renewable resources and advances in technology and is actually good for them if they can look past their next quarters numbers for once.

4. Instead of tearing down the current workers rights and unions and high pay of Americans which have lead to us being the wealthiest nation on earth, start enforcing fair trade laws, tada, being undersoled, and jobs moving to S. America is solved.

5. Price caps and salary caps.

The last would go a very long way toward improving the value of the dollar as well. Which consequently is getting its ass kicked (and has been for quite some time) by the "socialist" euro these capitalists are so hell-bent against.

Yes. First, take out the socialist. Then, redistribute their wealth. Then put an end to regulated capitalism and replace it with real capitalism. But that's just me ;)

I don't care if we choose total free market capitalism or if we go totally socialist with it; I just want one or the other.

I want one of the two parties to just stop. Let the other party do whatever it is that they're going to do. Don't fight it, don't vote against their agenda, give them free reign to do pretty much whatever they want. Democrats, shut up and let the Republicans do their thing. Republicans, step aside and let the Democrats get a real chance. Because neither side has ever had a real chance to do its work, without facing relentless obstruction by the other party. And this is why the same two parties are never replaced; they're never defeated. When the Republicans have a bad go of it, they can just blame Democrats' ibstructionism, and when the Democrats have a bad time of it, the cause is Republican mudslinging.

Say the Republicans were given free reign for four years. They get a president, and a majority in the Legislature. The Democrats make it well known and public that they are stepping aside and lettin g the Republicans give it their best shot. Then, the Republicans' plan fails, horribly. The Democrats would be able to turn and say, "I told you so", and the Republican party would be effectively destroyed. This would leave a vacuum into which the Democrats could step, and have their four years of control, while a third party rose from the ranks to claim the seat of the fallen Republicans.

Now, say the Republicans' plan, instead, succeeded. How is this bad? If it works, then hey, it works. The Republicans finally get to go "Hey, free market capitalism works!" and be assuredly correct in it.

In the same sense, the Republicans could step out of the Democrats' way, and allow federal health care, and the closure of Guantanemo Bay. If it turned out to bite the Democrats in the ass, then they'd be able to say "I told you so." and would have finally defeated the Democratic party once and for all.

It's like this. If you're playing chess, and your opponent makes a careless move, you can capitalize on it and win. But, after the game, he'll still talk smack about how you only won because he messed up. Now, if you let him take the move back instead, and let him play to his fullest potential, then -still- beat him, he'll recognize his defeat a lot more easily. Do not destroy your enemy, let them destroy themselves.

In spite of what some people might think, capitalism hasn't been working. It has been aggravating inequalities in the world as a whole, irresponsibly using up our planet's resources, and fermenting a global culture of selfishness and detachment from real problems.

Listing all of capitalism's flaws here is not necessary, all that needs to be pointed out is that if we go on with capitalism (regulated or not) and the consumerist culture that it requires in order to keep money circulating, our planet will simply run out of resources at some point. Can we do better? For our own sake, we have to!

The most dangerous threat to progress is to believe that an ultimate solution has been found. The answer to the question here and any future question of the kind is Yes. We can always do better, even if we don't know how to yet.

As for alternatives, I won't claim to know the ultimate solution, but I believe that treating the problem more objectively with the use of the scientific method is the best way to find a proper way of organizing scarce resources at the moment. How to give a good life for 6 billion people on the finite planet we have? Certainly a system based on subjectivity such as elections and the corporate world cannot answer this question adequately. The following video talks about that.