I am opening this post to serve as an intersection point for the varying topics in the subject banner.

Many of you have written extensively giving your point of view and expressed opinions praising or condemning the whole drama when it unfolded in 2008, it's 2010 and it continues to be the subject matter in everyday discussion, sometimes spilling out of context into unrelated topics and posts. It is a significant moment in history and a breakthrough for mankind. I say this because out of the financial meltdown we are witnessing evolutions in the policies and politics of global affairs that will ultimately erase our traditional way of banking, trading and transacting business. New possibilities are emerging and new markets will be borne out of that. Nigeria could very well emerge as a new market; we ought to be prepared and assume the odds in its favor.

The objective here is to pursue the root causes, review the outcomes, analyze the dispositions, discover alternatives and issue best practice, under the circumstance, for wether a free-market capitalist system is ideal to the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. Is mankind better off in a matrix that exploits and promotes largesse consumption as a human value system?

So if you are participating on this post, please give us your input covering these aspects of the objective.

Everyone is welcome to participate and give input.

What we are witnessing is cyclical and occured sometime in the 80's in this country and in the 90's in the Asian market. The only difference in the dynamics is that the world is more networked in terms of globalization and capital flow in and out of economies which magnifies and issues and creates more difficult solutions.

Was listening to Gordon Brown and may buy the book he has out talking about continious Global networking vs Protectionism and austerity measures which is usully an outcome when things get rough. Talking about pushing through the threshold instead of backing out.

I tend to believe he is right. Capitalism so far has been witnessed and tested to be the best system that has moved "MANKIND" forward improving his living standards and creating wealth and prosperity as a consequence. It is true there are side effects of thsi system but I doubt there wouldn't be in any other so called adpoted system. I believe no country practices true Capitalism which is according to the balancing act that is necessary to continue to redefine it.

If Nigeria does not seriously clean up house and forge ahead with the utmost of speed whcih is a prerequisite in this age of easy transfer of information they will be left seating on the sides lines and passed over. The South Africans, rwandans and ghanians are taking note.

Rather than beating our chest as the giant of Africa obviously only in terms of size leading to a greater military force,w e should take these new competitors seriously and outperform them. My two sense , I mean cents lol

Capitalism so far has been witnessed and tested to be the best system that has moved "MANKIND" forward improving his living standards and creating wealth and prosperity as a consequence. It is true there are side effects of thsi system but I doubt there wouldn't be in any other so called adpoted system. I believe no country practices true Capitalism which is according to the balancing act that is necessary to continue to redefine it.

Morpheus,

Improved living standards; inherited wealth and prosperity. . . . . what are these relative to the fundamentals of life and death?

A child is born today and will definitely die sometime in a future date - however far into the future that date maybe - . . . . in what ways can the society and the community of mankind support and sustain quality of life for this new born baby?

Negro_Ntns:



Morpheus,

Improved living standards; inherited wealth and prosperity. . . . . what are these relative to the fundamentals of life and death?

A child is born today and will definitely die sometime in a future date - however far into the future that date maybe - . . . . in what ways can the society and the community of mankind support and sustain quality of life for this new born baby?

Don't know why you are deviating from your topic. The last part of your topic poses the question is capitalism a sustainable system in the pursuit of happiness and fulfillmet. I contend that it is but reference that its definitions should be continiously reviewed and revised of course within the context of its core principles. Didn't think we were talking about philosophical issues on existence and the meaning of life. Thought we were talking ECONOMICS

Am I deviating from topic?

Economics is not a stand alone aspect of society. It is not the beginning or the end but the means by which the beginning is sustained to accomplish the end. Do you disagree?

So in the baby question, I already established the beginning and predicted an end that will occur at a time to come in future, I am now probing the means (the economics) that are available to sustain that baby through life. I am doing so as a follow up to your response. . . . I do not qualify your opinion. . . just an engagement to reveal the wisdom of resource distribution, whether it is private or public.

Negro_Ntns:

Am I deviating from topic?

Economics is not a stand alone aspect of society. It is not the beginning or the end but the means by which the beginning is sustained to accomplish the end. Do you disagree?

So in the baby question, I already established the beginning and predicted an end that will occur at a time to come in future, I am now probing the means (the economics) that are available to sustain that baby through life. I am doing so as a follow up to your response. . . . I do not qualify your opinion. . . just an engagement to reveal the wisdom of resource distribution, whether it is private or public.

Then first define what you percieve as the definition of capitalism because it has broad implications and there is no necessary consensus around its definition. We can follow up from there by then discussing within that context its support or lack there of, before expanding into other aspects of resource distribution in reference to providing for society and babies in particular.

My definition of capitalism encompasses the freedom and ability for the individual to own, manipulate and control natures given means of production to be held and operated in private hands for initial individual benefit which in turn creates an inevitable ripple effect of providing for and benefitting the public as a whole.

The baby question would then fall under resource allocation in the context of what each SOCIETIES perception and agreement of what measures or quantifies "Quality of life" for such an individual in society is supposed to be

From my perspective the need to provide for this baby originates from an initial individual problem based on self preservation, self interest and self realization before it carries over to any definition of a social agreeement of people to pursue similar goals.

Very Brilliant!

My definition of capitalism encompasses the freedom and ability for the individual to own, manipulate and control natures given means of production to be held and operated in private hands for initial individual benefit which in turn creates an inevitable ripple effect of providing for and benefitting the public as a whole.

My understanding of capitalism is not different from yours - The free and unimpeded action of man's resourcefullness to manipulate the factors of production under the basic laws of demand and supply in order to satisfy needs and wants.

The baby is a good model to use in this case because everyone in the society started from that lifestage. Therefore recognising the significance and value of the baby as a resource is vital to capitalism; endagering quality of life for the baby in anyway threatens the institution of capitalism as a viable option for the community at large.

Global marketers know that per capita, the baby is far more valuable to capitalism than a 70yr old retiree, even though the senior is a productive element of the GDP and the baby is not. To destroy the institutions of capitalism in a country you target a certain segment of its population with an ad commercial (I prefer to call them ad propaganda) aimed at exploiting its level of consumption. In order words, you throw their demand and supply out of whack!

Negro_Ntns:

The baby is a good model to use in this case because everyone in the society started from that lifestage. Therefore recognising the significance and value of the baby as a resource is vital to capitalism; endagering quality of life for the baby in anyway threatens the institution of capitalism as a viable option for the community at large.

May I note that recognising the importance and value of the baby as a resource is not only vital to the economic system of capitalism but also to other systems that operate within any given society. In terms of economics ,The baby provides an additional unit to the labor force essential in sustaining intellectual and physical ability. An unfortuante consequence of natures cruel act of aging which diminishes both referenced abilities in older folk.

Negro_Ntns:

Global marketers know that per capita, the baby is far more valuable to capitalism than a 70yr old retiree, even though the senior is a productive element of the GDP and the baby is not. To destroy the institutions of capitalism in a country you target a certain segment of its population with an ad commercial (I prefer to call them ad propaganda) aimed at exploiting its level of consumption. In order words, you throw their demand and supply out of whack!

In my opinion it is seriously difficult to achieve such in this day and age depending again on location. The only plausible means is the manipulation or restriction of information stimuli the baby/individual recieves as it progresses with any given society. Any society wishing to accomplish this most isolate its citizens from the present unstoppable access to information and free movement available to us today. Thereby disrupting the forces of demand/supply.

The Asian societies may be fooled into percieving they have achieved a slow down of this system but only in as far as it serves the short term objective.  The long run is where they will eventually hit a snag they are unprepared for in my opinion. The exponential effect of allowing even a small penetration of capitalist tendency and then assuming you are able to control its eventualities is not very bright thinking if you ask me. It either works or it doesn't work for you. This supports my previous statement on what each society defines as a measurement for the "quality of life"' it deems fit for its progeny.

In my opinion it is seriously difficult to achieve such in this day and age depending again on location. The only plausible means is the manipulation or restriction of information stimuli the baby/individual recieves as it progresses with any given society. Any society wishing to accomplish this most isolate its citizens from the present unstoppable access to information and free movement available to us today. Thereby disrupting the forces of demand/supply.

With everything else you said so far being correct, I am continuing with the engagement because the revelations will ultimately lead into the background of those cyclic economic downshifts you alluded to in an earlier response. I agree this is not a first time depression but I contend that the repetition is the result of deliberate machinations of the instruments of capitalism and again, I question the viability of the system to the true meaning of life.

There is the notion in every society that if we study hard and work hard, the end result will somehow take care of itself and we will achieve success. Those of us who studied hard, worked hard and ended up slaving under the prodigal, school drop-out boss are very pragmatic about the realities of that notion. It is a campaign. . . . a propaganda to keep the stream of capitalism flowing.

Industrial corporations are the champions of capitalism. They are the feeders that keep market swings within a tolerable margin of loss. The consumer bloc has power too; to hijack the control and tip the dynamics of demand and supply in its favor and the corporations know that. Please, don't start saying we are all consumers from the CEO down to the homeless person, I am well aware of that and shouldn't have to give it voice in this discussion. However, industry giants lobby and influence government legislation against consumers. This results in de-regulation for the industries and dis-integration of common cause alliance for the consumer. For most part the legislator we vote for is the candidate the corporate giants want us to have. . . but we are often too diluted and diverted to see past the face value.

When you talk about restriction and manipulation of information, it will not matter whether you relate that in historical terms, in contemporary terms or as a forecast of an evolved society, the fact remains that capitalism is an exploitation of humanity. It slowly and incrementally destroys the human ability to express freewill of choice by leaving him/her no choice to select an alternative away from indebtedness to a private hand that dictates his/her taste and lifestyle - from cradle to grave!

I can go further and express this relationship as a operational process. Imagine the industry to be a provider of commodity; the baby is the end-user that the industry targets; the baby's parents are the interface.

The baby start off with Johnson & Johnson, Procter and Gamble, Nestle, etc. . . .

Baby turns 1, ToysRus steps in and stay in the picture along with J&J, P&G, Nestle, providing diapers, baby oil, baby powder, toys, baby food.

At age 2, baby starts on solid. . so Gerber steps in. Bbay is potty trained, no more diapers but there is training pants. . .

Do you get the picture?

Baby turns 18 and get ready for college, Master card, Visa, AT&T, Verizon, HP, Apple. . . .

Baby graduates college and is already a debtor before he has had a first real job.

Baby gets a good job but stays in restaurants and malls. . .consuming on credit but amassing a future of debt.

Ultimately realities catches up and baby is overwhelmed with debt. . .not finding happiness, considers drugs, alcohol or even suicide.

Health begins to fail prematurely. . . 30yr old with cardiac problems. So pfizer comes in, with bayer, Pharma, Abbott. . . . with promises to give baby a quality life.

Who took his quality of life away in the beginning?

Meanwhile, on the other end of the equation, the Johnson & Johnson family is amassing legacy that will pass from generation to generation. Their interest is invested in congress and legislation must take account of any impact to their interest; the country cannot absorb a failure of Johnson&Johnson - they are too big to fail!

Negro_Ntns:

With everything else you said so far being correct, I am continuing with the engagement because the revelations will ultimately lead into the background of those cyclic economic downshifts you alluded to in an earlier response. I agree this is not a first time depression but I contend that the repetition is the result of deliberate machinations of the instruments of capitalism and again, I question the viability of the system to the true meaning of life.

I knew you were going there. Though I will conceed the fact that there are entities that have manipulated the SYSTEM in terms of the need for power and control of factors of production i.e Greed, Power and control, the system in of itself achieves its objectives in the overal societal goals of allevating poverty, improving the living standards of its members. and thus providing the condusive environment for the individual or society to ponder the meaning of life as they see fit to define it and become content with it. I know I don't need to discuss these issues in particular as you are well aware of them. The problem then becomes dealing with the inherent imbalances in the system created by these elements that are out to manipulate( in a bad way) the available instruments of capitalism not necessarily adopting new systems we feel are in opposition to the one already in existence and are therefore right. No matter what alternative is supposedly adopted the elements inherent inthe present system will exist in these new systems in different formats so you are indirectly not solving the problem but changing the tactics.

Negro_Ntns:

There is the notion in every society that if we study hard and work hard, the end result will somehow take care of itself and we will achieve success. Those of us who studied hard, worked hard and ended up slaving under the prodigal, school drop-out boss are very pragmatic about the realities of that notion. It is a campaign. . . . a propaganda to keep the stream of capitalism flowing.

Your statements above lead me to believe you are still soul searching on finding meaning and have not resolved certain conflicting issues you are still battling with. Neo capitalism only requires that you study and work smart,not necessarily hardSuccess is defined by what one believes success should be quantified by not what someone else defines as success. Capitalism is percived to measure success in material quantities. The more you have the more value you possess ergo the more successful you are.  This is only an idea and your reality if you choose to make it so. . Everything begins with choice and not cause and effect as you allude to. Once you become aware of this you have choice.

Negro_Ntns:

Industrial corporations are the champions of capitalism. They are the feeders that keep market swings within a tolerable margin of loss. The consumer bloc has power too; to hijack the control and tip the dynamics of demand and supply in its favor and the corporations know that. Please, don't start saying we are all consumers from the CEO down to the homeless person, I am well aware of that and shouldn't have to give it voice in this discussion. However, industry giants lobby and influence government legislation against consumers. This results in de-regulation for the industries and dis-integration of common cause alliance for the consumer. For most part the legislator we vote for is the candidate the corporate giants want us to have. . . but we are often too diluted and diverted to see past the face value.

and now that you have so eloquently enumerated what you percieve is the problem what do you suggest are the solutions.
Labour unions. oh wait they already exist but what happened to them. They got power and now are adding to the problem than solving them
A massive reset of the system to accomodate what you believe will be a resolution to the above obvious issues? Oh wait some countries already tried that. A group of them became powerful and became part of the problem than solving them.
A suggestion to adopt a new system advocated and championed by like minded people like you who have so carefully identified the problems we are very much aware of and therefore are capable of resolving them. Oh wait  that democrats isn't it. The champions ofthe poor and exploited, what happend to them huh?
A coup de tat? Don't need to sample exmaplesof that outcome
All that is simply going to happen is the replacemnt of one set of conspirators for another. If men were angels my friend only if men were angels.

As i said earlier Everything begins with Choice. No one can take that from you You only delegate or relegate that right away  conciously or sub conciously. Sub concious requires a prereqesite of being ignorant. concious is after the fact yet being docile and complacent

A fine discussion. Let me add my 2 cents

morpheus24:

My definition of capitalism encompasses the freedom and ability for the individual to own, manipulate and control natures given means of production to be held and operated in private hands for initial individual benefit which in turn creates an inevitable ripple effect of providing for and benefitting the public as a whole.

If this is your definition of capitalism, then capitalism is as old as the wheel, and will always be with us. I think the key is in your "inevitable ripple effect". Individual benefit is not guaranteed to have a beneficial ripple effect. On the contrary, it could (and has) had negative effects on a society as a whole. The question is, at what point does the state step in and curtail the negative effects of an individual's exercise of capitalism. This is what defines modern day capitalism: the ability to carry out business practices that could constitute future harm, with little interference by the state.

This is why you are able to pick apart Negro_Ntns's "solutions". They are solutions to an ill-defined problem to start with. The issue isn't really capitalism per se, but the values of a society. That is, what barometer do we use to measure prosperity. If unemployment jumps by 5%, and GDP jumps by 6%, is that prosperity? I think this is the crux of the issue,  imo

morpheus24:

The Asian societies may be fooled into percieving they have achieved a slow down of this system but only in as far as it serves the short term objective.  The long run is where they will eventually hit a snag they are unprepared for in my opinion. The exponential effect of allowing even a small penetration of capitalist tendency and then assuming you are able to control its eventualities is not very bright thinking if you ask me. It either works or it doesn't work for you. This supports my previous statement on what each society defines as a measurement for the "quality of life"' it deems fit for its progeny.

There is really little difference between capitalism in Asia and the West. A quick reading of recent WTO disputes shows that EVERYBODY finds ways to prop up their countries industries, such that they are part state-sponsored, part free-enterprise. The Asians are just not as slick at doing this. This should be instructive for our leaders (hopefully), who accept world bank recommendations hook, line and sinker, eg IBB and SAP.

wow. Awesome discussion fellas. Very edifying to me personally just reading. So many brilliant points. Thank you both for your input.

Birdman's quote here is on point:

birdman:
This is why you are able to pick apart Negro_Ntns's "solutions". They are solutions to an ill-defined problem to start with. The issue isn't really capitalism per se, but the values of a society.

This I think, is at the crux of the entire matter.

birdman:

There is really little difference between capitalism in Asia and the West. A quick reading of recent WTO disputes shows that EVERYBODY finds ways to prop up their countries industries, such that they are part state-sponsored, part free-enterprise. The Asians are just not as slick at doing this. This should be instructive for our leaders (hopefully), who accept world bank recommendations hook, line and sinker, eg IBB and SAP.

Precisely.

Unfortunately there are no visible debates on these issues that I am aware of within the country strong enough to influence policy.

Morpheus

I knew you were going there. Though I will conceed the fact that there are entities that have manipulated the SYSTEM in terms of the need for power and control of factors of production i.e Greed, Power and control, the system in of itself achieves its objectives in the overal societal goals of allevating poverty, improving the living standards of its members. and thus providing the condusive environment for the individual or society to ponder the meaning of life as they see fit to define it and become content with it. I know I don't need to discuss these issues in particular as you are well aware of them. The problem then becomes dealing with the inherent imbalances in the system created by these elements that are out to manipulate( in a bad way) the available instruments of capitalism not necessarily adopting new systems we feel are in opposition to the one already in existence and are therefore right. No matter what alternative is supposedly adopted the elements inherent inthe present system will exist in these new systems in different formats so you are indirectly not solving the problem but changing the tactics.

The first highlight is a summary of everything else that capitalism is built upon - "BALANCE OF POWER" between the elements of production and wealth. You cannot address the issue without touching upon the philosophies of life - "the mores"; laws of personal accountability and the ethics of personal responsibility.

Nature is balanced but in order to bend nature to our needs for daily subsistence and production of needs and necessities we are confronted with the issue of sacrifice. There is demanding need for a particular commodity and its availability is not enough to go round. In view of that scarcity, how should the human need be attended to so that no one starves or dies? A fundamental convergence point for economics and philosophies.

Selfishness vs Sacrifice!


In the second highlight, because competition for scare resources is often attached to ego, the outcome is that elimination of your rival becomes the cheapest means of controlling access. Exclusivity of resource and means! Therefore, the society ought to have a "check and balance" standard for overseeing the interests of those locked outside that gate, otherwise the imbalance of power in an exclusive hand become too intoxicating and dangerous for the overall good. Those in whose hands rest the future of the society must not be allowed to self-regulate. This is where the option for redistribution of resources is important. It's a threatening strike attempting to dilute their exclusivity. Also, we really must then consider which should lead. . . . "Equality of Opportunity" or "Equality of Results".

Your statements above lead me to believe you are still soul searching on finding meaning and have not resolved certain conflicting issues you are still battling with. Neo capitalism only requires that you study and work smart,not necessarily hardSuccess is defined by what one believes success should be quantified by not what someone else defines as success. Capitalism is percived to measure success in material quantities. The more you have the more value you possess ergo the more successful you are. This is only an idea and your reality if you choose to make it so. . Everything begins with choice and not cause and effect as you allude to. Once you become aware of this you have choice.

I'm shocked that someone intelligent as you have demonstrated will make that statement. You cannot accurately psychoanalyze anyone's convinction in life from a few paragraphs of writing online.

What you call choice is arbitrary. . . . whether you agree or not, everything is a disposition of "cause and effect". Choice is what the powerfull elite class waves in our face to assign attributes for our consumption taste. If you decline to make a choice then you face a penalty. How can you call that choice?

and now that you have so eloquently enumerated what you percieve is the problem what do you suggest are the solutions.
Labour unions. oh wait they already exist but what happened to them. They got power and now are adding to the problem than solving them
A massive reset of the system to accomodate what you believe will be a resolution to the above obvious issues? Oh wait some countries already tried that. A group of them became powerful and became part of the problem than solving them.
A suggestion to adopt a new system advocated and championed by like minded people like you who have so carefully identified the problems we are very much aware of and therefore are capable of resolving them. Oh wait that democrats isn't it. The champions ofthe poor and exploited, what happend to them huh?
A coup de tat? Don't need to sample exmaplesof that outcome
All that is simply going to happen is the replacemnt of one set of conspirators for another. If men were angels my friend only if men were angels.

As i said earlier Everything begins with Choice. No one can take that from you You only delegate or relegate that right away conciously or sub conciously. Sub concious requires a prereqesite of being ignorant. concious is after the fact yet being docile and complacent

. . . . . . for the reasons I have stated, capitalism is tied to human nature and a subject matter for the humanities. Whatever alternative we adopt has its own merits and de-merits and equally impacting to life. I am conscious of the fact that capitalism is an ideal and theoretically beneficiall but its dehumanizing practice is what I question. There is a middle way to address the problems of capitalism. Functional and effective regulation and oversight, as well as deployable options for implementing redistributive remedies.

Birdman,

On the contrary, it could (and has) had negative effects on a society as a whole. The question is, at what point does the state step in and curtail the negative effects of an individual's exercise of capitalism. This is what defines modern day capitalism: the ability to carry out business practices that could constitute future harm, with little interference by the state.

. . . . this is why industry giants lobby against government oversight; they want to be left alone to self-regulate. As if their interests are in harmony with the aspirations of the working class and a business policy to maximize profit is a good one for the consumer.

This is why you are able to pick apart Negro_Ntns's "solutions". They are solutions to an ill-defined problem to start with. The issue isn't really capitalism per se, but the values of a society. That is, what barometer do we use to measure prosperity. If unemployment jumps by 5%, and GDP jumps by 6%, is that prosperity? I think this is the crux of the issue, imo

Precisely! . . . .I was building the discussion to that point of metrics and this is why I inferred that the arguments will lead in to a conclusive win for humanities.


Look, national GDP is an inaccurate and deficient method for measuring wealth and per capita income of a nation but that methodology works in favor of the developed nations and to the detriment of the underdeveloped nations.
In addition to GDP, let us bring in other metrics such as the percentage of prison inmates to the overall national productivity base. Let us use a metric that compare terminally ill and diseased citizens of employment age as a percentage of the productivity base. Let us measure the population in rehabilitation as a percentage of productivity base. Instead of calculating credit (debt) as a measure of individual worth, let us measure true asset value based on cash worth.

If these indexes are published then the GDP of most European nations and that of USA will vastly be reduced and so will their per capita income. Nigeria may rate higher than most of the European countries we run to in order to escape away from per capita income poverty back home. But then these citizens may start departing Europe and USA and going back to their own countries. . . creating a further dent on the working class and consumer class.

Unfortunately there are no visible debates on these issues that I am aware of within the country strong enough to influence policy.

I agree! I believe that Nairaland, because the interests here are politically and culturally tied to the interests on ground, should regard itself as a powerful and infulential tool for changing events on ground. There are ways that this can be done effectivly and I suggested in past that this forum could serve as a proposition incubator for political policies back home.

Negro_Ntns:


The first highlight is a summary of everything else that capitalism is built upon - "BALANCE OF POWER" between the elements of production and wealth. You cannot address the issue without touching upon the philosophies of life - "the mores"; laws of personal accountability and the ethics of personal responsibility.

Which is why capitalism is the only system in my opinion that is compatible with true or work in progress democracies progressive societies adopt. The continious ability to engage in civil discourse and shift balances in both political and economical powers through representation, in an effort to redistribute wealth is part of the balancing act required. Business cycle upswings and downturns are an advent of the system continious trying to correct itself. The extreme views to the left and the right leave us with extreme outcomes. You and I know no country practices absolute Capitalism which is why there are several defintions for it.

Negro_Ntns:

Nature is balanced but in order to bend nature to our needs for daily subsistence and production of needs and necessities we are confronted with the issue of sacrifice. There is demanding need for a particular commodity and its availability is not enough to go round. In view of that scarcity, how should the human need be attended to so that no one starves or dies? A fundamental convergence point for economics and philosophies.

Selfishness vs Sacrifice!

I believe nature is in a continious state of balancing itself out. In order words nature is imperfectly balanced and must continiously go through a series of imbalanced flux of unbalanced equations because of the existence of interconflicting variables. We therefore do not necessary bend a perfect natural surrounding in pursuit of our survival but are locked in the same imbalancing nature of satisfying both our needs but our intrinsic WANTS and desires. We are unfortunately the only species on record with an overwhelming appetite to satisfy these additional desires good or evil as they may be analyzed. Economics deals with the satisfaction of Human wants in conflict with scarcity of available resources in satisfying those wants at a given point in time. Selfishness as you mention therefore alludes to a desire for the levels of want and sacrifice correlated to a desire for the need to survive and sustain oneself or one's group. The two can be separated. There in lies the power of choice. The baby you spoke of earlier does not necessarily need johnson and johnsons's baby products s a prerequisite to survival. he or she can do well witout it as they ahve done in the past only to the point when the want is manipulated and turned into a required need.

Do I need to have something or do I want to have it.

Negro_Ntns:



In the second highlight, because competition for scare resources is often attached to ego, the outcome is that elimination of your rival becomes the cheapest means of controlling access. Exclusivity of resource and means! Therefore, the society ought to have a "check and balance" standard for overseeing the interests of those locked outside that gate, otherwise the imbalance of power in an exclusive hand become too intoxicating and dangerous for the overall good. Those in whose hands rest the future of the society must not be allowed to self-regulate. This is where the option for redistribution of resources is important. It's a threatening strike attempting to dilute their exclusivity. Also, we really must then consider which should lead. . . . "Equality of Opportunity" or "Equality of Results".

There is in no dispute regarding the above point only as far as teh acceptance the capitalism has been proven in principle and practive to have been effective in its required outcomes holding fast to the resolve that it cannot self regulate itself as a check and balance requirement. If government  or the instruments are tasked with that regularoty responsiblitiy is up for debate as far as i am concerned.

Negro_Ntns:

I'm shocked that someone intelligent as you have demonstrated will make that statement. You cannot accurately psychoanalyze anyone's convinction in life from a few paragraphs of writing online.

What you call choice is arbitrary. . . . whether you agree or not, everything is a disposition of "cause and effect". Choice is what the powerfull elite class waves in our face to assign attributes for our consumption taste. If you decline to make a choice then you face a penalty. How can you call that choice?

Intuitively I can and vice versa, however for consistency and continuity sake I will withhold from further personal opinions.

Everything begins with choice. Those choices precipitate the causes and effects of one making those choices. Therefore, it is elementary that the solution to the problem is premised on the awareness of choice. Most people have been made to believe that choice is an illusion between those powerful elite and those without percieved power. However this is grossly underestimated. Knowledge or the accumulation thereof is the "illusion" between the two aforementioned entities. Choice is the action taken that determines the outcome depending on ones level of awareness or knowledge. Penalty is only a reality that can be invoked on acceptance of that reality.

Negro_Ntns:

. . . . . . for the reasons I have stated, capitalism is tied to human nature and a subject matter for the humanities. Whatever alternative we adopt has its own merits and de-merits and equally impacting to life. I am conscious of the fact that capitalism is an ideal and theoretically beneficiall but its dehumanizing practice is what I question. There is a middle way to address the problems of capitalism. Functional and effective regulation and oversight, as well as deployable options for implementing redistributive remedies.

I would rather it remain within the realm of economics and explored within that discipline and its sub components regardless of its relationship to other the broad subject matters of Humanities

Do nuccas like spewing hot air for the sake of it?

Pure philosophical bollocks on this thread.

Which is why capitalism is the only system in my opinion that is compatible with true or work in progress democracies progressive societies adopt. The continious ability to engage in civil discourse and shift balances in both political and economical powers through representation, in an effort to redistribute wealth is part of the balancing act required. Business cycle upswings and downturns are an advent of the system continious trying to correct itself. The extreme views to the left and the right leave us with extreme outcomes. You and I know no country practices absolute Capitalism which is why there are several defintions for it.

Very true!

I believe nature is in a continious state of balancing itself out. In order words nature is imperfectly balanced and must continiously go through a series of imbalanced flux of unbalanced equations because of the existence of interconflicting variables.

This curve pattern you described is humans.  This is the cause and effect that you incorrectly diagnosed as choices.  Whether we like it or not, it will rain in the village.  It's a blessing for the farms but it's also a trial when its current washes away the mud homes.  This is a opportunity. . . .nature taxes mankind and brings out the best in him.  Through the loss he learns to make reinforcements so his home is not simply washed away.  Nature is a "causative" benefit for man's "effective" growth and evolution.  

The interconflicting variables you correctly alluded to is the result of inner battles within self and as well with the environment that prompts ego to assert the will for self-preservation.  

However, I am not sure any self-preserving person is at the same time ready to sacrifice self so the interests of his/her neighbour can be preserved.  Nonetheless, the argument can be made, satisfactorily, that self-preservation is possible through altruistic outreach to others.  The society has a reason to learn to yield to the needs of others but again, the propaganda of commercial consumption dilutes and diverts us away from philosophical thoughts. . . and keep us engage in capitalism.

Negro_Ntns:

This curve pattern you described is humans.  This is the cause and effect that you incorrectly diagnosed as choices.  Whether we like it or not, it will rain in the village.  It's a blessing for the farms but it's also a trial when its current washes away the mud homes.  This is a opportunity. . . .nature taxes mankind and brings out the best in him.  Through the loss he learns to make reinforcements so his home is not simply washed away.  Nature is a "causative" benefit for man's "effective" growth and evolution. 

Is the natural process concepton out of the concept of "cause and effect" or as a result of choice? This is forever debatable in philisophical terms

However, When speaking about the outcomes and processes of man made systems in terms of capitalism and the likes, your above analogy does not apply. As mentioned before Choice preceds cause and effect in such instances. It must in order for that particular system to function. A level of consensus and acceptance is required. Capitalism does not exist whether we like it or not. It exists as a requirement.

Negro_Ntns:

The interconflicting variables you correctly alluded to is the result of inner battles within self and as well with the environment that prompts ego to assert the will for self-preservation. 

However, I am not sure any self-preserving person is at the same time ready to sacrifice self so the interests of his/her neighbour can be preserved.  Nonetheless, the argument can be made, satisfactorily, that self-preservation is possible through altruistic outreach to others.  The society has a reason to learn to yield to the needs of others but again, the propaganda of commercial consumption dilutes and diverts us away from philosophical thoughts. . . and keep us engage in capitalism. 

You are devling into philosophical matters that can be interpreted differently for different individuals.  The indvidual is not necessarily diverted from philosophical thought processes as a result of capitalist engagment if he or she conciously or sub conciously accepts the system for all its workings and it is wrong to assume that every single individual is not cognitively aware of the processess and the systems. One can be exposed to and offered many alternative realities and still choose to accept the present one he finds himself. The philisophical debate can begin with the reasons why this is so but the answers are never uniform.

Taking from your immediate response above and the several others before it in which you amplified the importance of choice as the leading impulse for commodity consumption, I get a clarification that you are describing discretionary action. . . . and not necessarily the impulse of fundamental human needs for goods and commodities.

By discretionary action I mean "discretionary spending".  I have $10 in my hand and I am going to spend it but I am faced with the choice of buying cigarette or buying beer or food or even weed.  Am I correct, is this what you mean by choice?


In case there was mis-understanding in the use of these terms let me illustrate for you what I mean by "cause and effect" and give you the same advantage for clarification.

I mentioned the notion of working and studying hard for successful outcomes.  Well, this is what can be called "latent success".  On its own merit it is a wise and enlightened way of grooming an individual for successful future.  I say this because in this notion it is assumed upfront that one is blocked by failure and only by striving hard and with fortitude can that blockage be removed.  Sustainable success comes out of failure.  There is no multi-generational success that ever took its root from a success. . . . .never!  The trials of life paves way for process improvement and tenacity of spirit.  People who work hard at success keep toiling believing that the day is near. 

There is another type of success and we can call this the "potent success".  This is what the American Dream is.  It is a notion that success is right in your hand and you can only fail if you let it slip through your fingers.  People who steadfastly believe in this dream have a sense of entitlement and when they fail to accomplish they resort to depression, suicide, isolation. . . . a total loss of faith in human cause. 

Again, we have to determine if in the pursuit of capitalism we are willing to gain material success at the cost of human souls or whether we ought to introduce balances that keep the dynamics of capitalism at its optimum and equally guarantee a satisfactory quality of life for mankind. 

What will it be, "equality of opportunity" or "equality of results"?

Negro_Ntns:

Taking from your immediate response above and the several others before it in which you amplified the importance of choice as the leading impulse for commodity consumption, I get a clarification that you are describing discretionary action. . . . and not necessarily the impulse of fundamental human needs for goods and commodities.

It emcompasses that subject matter but goes much deeper into explaining and understanding internal and external struggles human beings face in the pursuit of the satisfaction of percieved needs and desires necessary to survive. The ability to comprehend, control and alter outcomes within a system believed to to mechanized by a chain of cause and effects.
let me elaborate. The fundamental needs of humans stem from three basic necessities to SURVIVE. The physical needs of Food, health and shelter from the natural elements. Reset every system back to zero and these three will remain constant irregardless. Other systems are premised and built around attainment of these fundamental needs. Security, social cohesion, sustainability. Human wants are based on other less consequential needs never the less they exist. From the need for attachment, to interact, need for sex, for emotional connections and so on.

This therefore necessitates the building of systems be they political, social, educational or ECONOMICAL to govern these desires not premised on survival. Once the individual is aware of his elementary needs everything else becomes a CHOICE of consensus in so far as these systems are working for them.

Negro_Ntns:

By discretionary action I mean "discretionary spending".  I have $10 in my hand and I am going to spend it but I am faced with the choice of buying cigarette or buying beer or food or even weed.  Am I correct, is this what you mean by choice?

No. Again the choice comes from the ability to comprehend the successes and flaws within the system, internalize and alter outcomes

Negro_Ntns:


In case there was mis-understanding in the use of these terms let me illustrate for you what I mean by "cause and effect" and give you the same advantage for clarification.

I mentioned the notion of working and studying hard for successful outcomes.  Well, this is what can be called "latent success".  On its own merit it is a wise and enlightened way of grooming an individual for successful future.  I say this because in this notion it is assumed upfront that one is blocked by failure and only by striving hard and with fortitude can that blockage be removed.  Sustainable success comes out of failure.  There is no multi-generational success that ever took its root from a success. . . . .never!  The trials of life paves way for process improvement and tenacity of spirit.  People who work hard at success keep toiling believing that the day is near. 

The assumptions are observed/written parameters built within and around a defined system used as drivers in formulating and re formulating structures within that system. Parameters change. As you state above, It is no longer necessarily true that one must work HARD as opposed to working smart in achievement of material success in particular. Parameters change no longer governed by prescribed manmade laws.

It must be noted that there are apparent flaws in every possible man made system stemming from other additional variables influencing projected outcomes. It doesn't mean the system doesn't or hasn't produced its intended outcomes. What it implies is that choice again requires a requirement of absolute awareness in both internal( the struggle of defining what it means to live, be happy and success) and externally ( what you described as discretionary spending based mostly on external factors)

Negro_Ntns:


There is another type of success and we can call this the "potent success".  This is what the American Dream is.  It is a notion that success is right in your hand and you can only fail if you let it slip through your fingers.  People who steadfastly believe in this dream have a sense of entitlement and when they fail to accomplish they resort to depression, suicide, isolation. . . . a total loss of faith in human cause. 

The causes and potential effects you described are ultimately based on "notions". Ideas imposed on the psyche often not fully comprehended or articulated. My definition of choice therefore becomes a metaphor for "awarness" in its deepest connotation. Once one achieves this zen like state( speaking in philosophical terms) he is able to make a decision whether to accept and therefore work within the confines of this system or likewise reject its tenants and choose to "unplug" from this system. you are ultimately the master of your own soul.

Negro_Ntns:


Again, we have to determine if in the pursuit of capitalism we are willing to gain material success at the cost of human souls or whether we ought to introduce balances that keep the dynamics of capitalism at its optimum and equally guarantee a satisfactory quality of life for mankind. 

What will it be, "equality of opportunity" or "equality of results"?

These are the dynamics inherent in this particular system and others can be argued in other possible systems as well in the battle between assuring individual intellectual freedoms, pursuit of material things and a balancing of societal inequalities. Therefore my answer would be its a balancing act between equality of opportunityand equality of results.

The fundamental needs of humans stem from three basic necessities to SURVIVE. Food, health and shelter from the natural elements. Reset every system back to zero and these three will reamain irregardless of the intricacies in systems built around attainment of these wants. However, attainment of these basic fundamental needs are hinged on other factors. Security, social cohesion, sustainability and the intellectual capacity to innovate(improve and progress). This necessitates the building of systems around attainment of these basic needs. Once the individual is aware of his elementary needs everything else becomes a choice( often manipulated as a consequence of deman and suppy) but still dependent on the level to do so without the concious approval of the individual.

You are pushing theoretical ideals here.

Let me try and present it to you in a new way.

Cause and effect tie in directly with those basic functions of life you stated. The passion to survive and live is innate and is the designed order of creation. Cause and effect is the result of living in harmony with, or in disharmony with, that order and is carried out by the exercise of the willpower. There is gain and loss associated with it. The losses bring about opportunities for redemption and improvements - growth for the soul.

Now, if we step away from that order of creation and talk about "cosmic chaos", the painful results of subsisting in a disorganized and disorderly society arranged around temporal expectations, human interactions are then reduced to considerations of prejudicial cost/benefit outcomes. It is no longer a guarantee of freedom to exercise will but rather a response within the individual to conform to the norms and expectations of the community, whether one's soul finds satisfaction or not is secondary. This vulnerability of choosing is what consumer marketing exploits.

It is unfair to say that the baby can do without Johnson & Johnson, knowing that baby oil is an essential for the skin's nurture. Through her action of rubbing oil on the baby the pair of mother and child derive a satisfying human relations - that of bonding and massage therapy. Therefore not using oil is not an option, it is a necessity. . . .a fundamental. However, there is choice in the brand of oil she buys for her child; but where is the choice when 8 out of 10 baby oils are Johnson & Johnson brands labeled under different packaging and marketing tricks?

Negro_Ntns:

You are pushing theoretical ideals here.

I tend to try to think outside the box.

Negro_Ntns:


Let me try and present it to you in a new way.

Cause and effect tie in directly with those basic functions of life you stated. The passion to survive and live is innate and is the designed order of creation. Cause and effect is the result of living in harmony with, or in disharmony with, that order and is carried out by the exercise of the willpower. There is gain and loss associated with it. The losses bring about opportunities for redemption and improvements - growth for the soul.

I agree with everthing thus written above except for the statement on "order of creation" and your assumption on the concepts of redemption and improvement being tied to "growth for the soul" . None the less I understand your thought process and will not interject what I beliee are the origisns of the need to survive and indulge you in your stated concept

Negro_Ntns:


Now, if we step away from that order of creation and talk about "cosmic chaos", the painful results of subsisting in a disorganized and disorderly society arranged around temporal expectations, human interactions are then reduced to considerations of prejudicial cost/benefit outcomes. It is no longer a guarantee of freedom to exercise will but rather a response within the individual to conform to the norms and expectations of the community, whether one's soul finds satisfaction or not is secondary. This vulnerability of choosing is what consumer marketing exploits.

It is unfair to say that the baby can do without Johnson & Johnson, knowing that baby oil is an essential for the skin's nurture. Through her action of rubbing oil on the baby the pair of mother and child derive a satisfying human relations - that of bonding and massage therapy. Therefore not using oil is not an option, it is a necessity. . . .a fundamental. However, there is choice in the brand of oil she buys for her child; but where is the choice when 8 out of 10 baby oils are Johnson & Johnson brands labeled under different packaging and marketing tricks?

Staying within the confines of the discussions on economic systems i.e.( capitalism) and its relationship to Human's derivation of meaning of existence, Human interactions have always been predicated by levels of cost/benefit outcomes. Don't see how they cannot be. You will always give up something to get something else other wise the "interaction" is impossible. "Soul satisfaction" however one wants to define that whether in terms of pshychological contentment, spiritual harmony and emotional exhiliration is secondary to the process. 

The baby can do without the product. This is outside the realm of fundamental necessites in relation to survival in my view as long as there is an alternative which there often is.

Interaction of product-to-mother and Mother-to-baby, in terms of the illusion of choice is manipulated as so say but so is "the cause and effect" aspect .

Again you can choose not to participate witin the confines of this market system eliminating the chain of cause and effects as long as there are alternatives within your reach.

People say its impossible for everyone to stop using gas to fuel their cars. If they do so they wouldn't be able to function, buy food,go see their relatives, loose that human interaction that defines the meaning of life and is necessary for survival. is that really true?


The khoisan bush family living in the kalahari don't use any of these services or goods not to talk of  johnson and johnson's baby oil products on their baby's hair, probably never will. Have they diminished the meaning of life, Are they extinct?

The buyer is as complacent as the seller because there is a consensus. He can willingly exit the market if he chooses to and find meaning outside its confines

I tend to try to think outside the box.

It's reason I enjoy conversing with you. . . you stretch my imaginations.  I know I have said it before but it's worth repeating that you are brilliant and savvy! 

Staying within the confines of the discussions on economic systems i.e.( capitalism) and its relationship to Human's derivation of meaning of existence, Human interactions have always been predicated by levels of cost/benefit outcomes. Don't see how they cannot be. You will always give up something to get something else other wise the "interaction" is impossible. "Soul satisfaction" however one wants to define that whether in terms of pshychological contentment, spiritual harmony and emotional exhiliration is secondary to the process.

 

In everything you said here the keyword is in highlight.  - did I spell highlight right; I lose it sometimes! 

Anyway, yes I'm glad you used that word "levels", it is key!  That is so because the tiers of utilitarian taste vary and the range exist only within the confines of availability.  Going back to my $10 in hand - if what I want is not available in the market then I am persuaded to choose a close substitute with the same or similar utility value.  Correct?  . . .or I can elect to keep my $10.  In view of capitalism, is keeping my $10 a choice? 

The first determinant of value is "effect". . . in other words, the impulse.  You can put monetary value on impulse.  Next tier is "choice". . . .it's not the other way around as you have stated. 

Matter of fact, consumer behavioral models are computed based first on impulse, then on history. 

The other day, some analyst came on air and forecasted that gas price will peak at about $5 in summer.  Pure speculation to influence stock and also a propaganda to sheperd consumer response.  How many people know that American policy require a backup longer than 12months of oil reserve?  Very few indeed.  The gas we are buying at the pump now was produced over a year ago.  The gas we will buy in summer of 2011 was produced at the market rates of 2010 or longer. . . . .and the market price this year should actually drop lower than last year because demand has shrunk due to reduction in number of commuters.  The only explanation for a $5 gas in summer will be if a war or other territorial disturbances is also planned for around that time to make production and shipment difficult, but then that should go in the storage depot and only affect prices in 2012 and beyond.  But we consumers have been silly in past and so we are expected to continue in our gullibility and complacent response to commodity price hikes.

The baby can do without the product. This is outside the realm of fundamental necessites in relation to survival in my view as long as there is an alternative which there often is.  The khoisan bush family living in the kalahari don't use any of these services or goods not to talk of  johnson and johnson's baby oil products on their baby's hair, probably never will. Have they diminished the meaning of life, Are they extinct?

What alternative?  Please enlighten me.  Soothing therapy and bonding is a survival issue for babies.  As for oil, yes there is alternative. . . . .in indigenous products such as processed palm oil, coconut oil, groundnut oil, olive oil, aloe oil. . . . but how many of us buy our indigenous products?  We prefer foreign labels. . . and in the world of baby oils, Johnson & Johnson is a household name , like Cocacola! 

We should talk about monopoly. . . .in economic and political terms. 

The buyer is as complacent as the seller because there is a consensus. He can willingly exit the market if he chooses to and find meaning outside its confines

He will have to be a hermit at that point.  Society has evolved to a point in which leaving outside the confines of a capitalist market has punitive consequences.

Is it possible for an industry to erect virtual walls around which the consumer is limited to alternatives and options?

. . . .a curtain or veil that demarcate product markets and contain the consumer to a limited range of purchasing options, so to speak. . . .

Negro_Ntns:



It's reason I enjoy conversing with you. . . you stretch my imaginations.  I know I have said it before but it's worth repeating that you are brilliant and savvy!  

I wouldn't go as far as brilliant. Savvy Yes.

I am simply more aware of my surroundings
 

Negro_Ntns:


In everything you said here the keyword is in highlight.  - did I spell highlight right; I lose it sometimes!  

Anyway, yes I'm glad you used that word "levels", it is key!  That is so because the tiers of utilitarian taste vary and the range exist only within the confines of availability.  Going back to my $10 in hand - if what I want is not available in the market then I am persuaded to choose a close substitute with the same or similar utility value.  Correct?  . . .or I can elect to keep my $10.  In view of capitalism, is keeping my $10 a choice?  
The first determinant of value is "effect". . . in other words, the impulse.  You can put monetary value on impulse.  Next tier is "choice". . . .it's not the other way around as you have stated

The point is in changing an intrinsic and extrinsic value system in terms of the $10. We know an impulse to buy or satisfy a certain want is based on a certain value system engineered through time and  money is simply a representation of the storage of a specific definition of value. Both are ideals and not necessarily realities.(this of course can be argued)

In the context of capitalist markets the above of course hinges outside the realm of a capitalist framework, never the less remaingin a choice. However within capitalist contexts the solution would be to allow for the creation of alternatives by creating tenvironments of course through interventionist measures outside of the invisible hand of the market structure to oppose the maintanence of monopolistic competitions which is currently what most US and European markets are in conflict about.

Negro_Ntns:


The other day, some analyst came on air and forecasted that gas price will peak at about $5 in summer.  Pure speculation to influence stock and also a propaganda to sheperd consumer response.  How many people know that American policy require a backup longer than 12months of oil reserve?  Very few indeed.  The gas we are buying at the pump now was produced over a year ago.  The gas we will buy in summer of 2011 was produced at the market rates of 2010 or longer. . . . .and the market price this year should actually drop lower than last year because demand has shrunk due to reduction in number of commuters.  The only explanation for a $5 gas in summer will be if a war or other territorial disturbances is also planned for around that time to make production and shipment difficult, but then that should go in the storage depot and only affect prices in 2012 and beyond.  But we consumers have been silly in past and so we are expected to continue in our gullibility and complacent response to commodity price hikes.

A manipulation of value is an equation of attaining the highest level of profits possible.

Negro_Ntns:


What alternative?  Please enlighten me.  Soothing therapy and bonding is a survival issue for babies.  As for oil, yes there is alternative. . . . .in indigenous products such as processed palm oil, coconut oil, groundnut oil, olive oil, aloe oil. . . . but how many of us buy our indigenous products?  We prefer foreign labels. . . and in the world of baby oils, Johnson & Johnson is a household name , like Cocacola!  

We should talk about monopoly. . . .in economic and political terms.  

Alternative: you change consumption patterns through the expansion of information. You can move to a part of the US who's climate is conducive for growing olive plants and learn the process of extracting oil for your baby's use. A subsistence amount is all that is required. Is this a realistic alternative cetris paribus?

Negro_Ntns:


He will have to be a hermit at that point.  Society has evolved to a point in which leaving outside the confines of a capitalist market has punitive consequences.  

Depends on the society being analyzed. In terms of the Western world yes there will exist punitive consequences in so far again as you believe there is literally no other form fo survival outside this system. Look at it from a broader perspective in terms of Global communities. Freedom of movement allows the possibility for you to choose to move to a vicinity where you are outside of such economic confines or at least not subject to all its trapings. this may be percieved to be a radical solution being offered.

Again within the context of capitalist systems which is based on its principles of an individual being given the possibilites to control the factors of production it aint impossible to become a hermit i.e control most of your factors of your production holding that your variety of taste for other goods you cannot produce is curbed and attracting followers or like minded people into your group with the confines of capitalism again.

Once this lifestyle is seen as sustainable the current system is not necessarily reset but is forced to innovate altering its previous framework nd the sytem of course slowly corrects itself in the unfair control of monopolistic tendency inherent in the system. the problem stems for the struggle to balance out interventionist hands vs invisible hand of the market( invisible is simple a synonym for some is always pulling the strings) and its consequence on the top holders of economic powers and therefore choice with the interventionist forces usually by the state is stifling the middle market activists actually creating these alternatives fore mentioned

FACEBOOK IS WORTH $50B. . . . . says Goldman Sachs.

I wanted to bring this topic up but in the heat of our debate forgot.  I can't wait to hear the proponents of Keynesian stimulus solution give us input on this one.  

Monopoly markets and facebook valuation, let's talk.  Anyone with thoughts?

The point is in changing an intrinsic and extrinsic value system in terms of the $10. We know an impulse to buy or satisfy a certain want is based on a certain value system engineered through time and money is simply a representation of the storage of a specific definition of value. Both are ideals and not necessarily realities.(this of course can be argued)

I wholeheartedly agree.

In the context of capitalist markets the above of course hinges outside the realm of a capitalist framework, never the less remaingin a choice. However within capitalist contexts the solution would be to allow for the creation of alternatives by creating tenvironments of course through interventionist measures outside of the invisible hand of the market structure to oppose the maintanence of monopolistic competitions which is currently what most US and European markets are in conflict about.

. . . .you tied in neatly with the next theme -monopoly.

Alternative: you change consumption patterns through the expansion of information. You can move to a part of the US who's climate is conducive for growing olive plants and learn the process of extracting oil for your baby's use. A subsistence amount is all that is required. Is this a realistic alternative cetris paribus?

Let the labor unions and industry lobbyists catch you proposing that on the airwaves.

Yes, it is a realistic alternative but soon enough you will have to settle disputes flaring from comparative (dis)-advantage