"I'm simply stating the obvious. Free markets in America have nothing to do with Rwanda."

You claim without providing evidence that your markets are free.  I've shown with factual evidence how they are not free.  Your response is "Yes they are."  How can there be any discussion with you?

And you are flat out wrong that 'markets' in America have nothing to do with Rwanda. 

US is recipient of 5.6 % of Rwanda's exports, along with China which receives 13.5%, Kenya 30.1%, Democratic Republic of the Congo 12%, Malaysia 8.8%, Swaziland 4.8% (2011)

These exports total only 293 million, while imports are 1.307 billion.  Trade deficit.

Global food prices, due to the effects of global warming and the developed world's willingness and ability to pay more for food, are rising.  You'd think this would be a good thing for agriculture-driven economy like Rwanda, but, no:

"In 2011 rises in global food and fuel prices increased inflation in Rwanda from 1% in January to more than 7% in October."

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rw.html

And why would Rwanda be in the position in the first place not to profit from increased food prices?  Dependency on food aid maybe (primarily from the US)?  They are exporting food, importing food aid, and still suffering mass malnutrition and starvation.

The point is, Kemp, your claim is that the markets are free.  I have disproven this adequately.  Your next claim is that because markets are free, economic activity driven by the pursuit of excess is good for everyone.  This, also, is clearly not the case, for if it were true, 'everybody' would be getting better standards of living, including Rwandans.

Look at the room you are in right now and the various countries represented by their various products.  How could you not see that national economies are interconnected, and that national governments trade polcies effect market prices?  I have mentioned the tendency for governments and colluding corporations to conspire to control national economies, and by extension the global economy, for the interest of the few rather than the majority.  You do not deny that this sort of activity takes place.  You even admit it does.  Yet you still think the market(s) still operate according to vague fantastical notions of a 'laissez-faire' economic principals?  This is not rational, Kemp.  You cling to an ideology rather than face the facts.

You don't dispute the root problems, but rather my proposed solution, which you don't understand because you don't want to understand it.  There's no point discussing it with you anymore.

Xeno, you report posts and complain because people call you communist, and yet you put forth communist ideals?

You keep this bullshit up, and I'm going to take it as face value of trolling, which in violation of IC Forum rules, will get you blocked.

If it sounds like a fish, looks like a fish, and smells like a fish, it's obviously not a damn turkey.

"Xeno, you report posts and complain because people call you communist, and yet you put forth communist ideals?"

How is calling for the resurrection of the clearly usurped free market communistic?  If anything it is anti-communistic.

This was supposed to be an exploration of what a new economic paradigm might look like, one unlike our current one in which the pursuit of excess is celebrated at the expense of the fulfillment of the basic needs of the majority of our species.   

I would sincerely like this discussion to finally go this direction, and certainly not be trolled into defending clearly base-less accusations of what my personal political stance may or may not be, especially from mods.

But if you insist, how are any of my ideas communist, Arby?

you have never explained how the Free Market is going to award people value based on their anticipated needs such as a desire to have a larger family

you brought that up as an example of current repression: people couldn't have all the kids they wanted.

you claim the free market will solve it.

You never explain how.  That's my "melon scenario" -- how can people offer value in exchange for value and EACH PERSON with varying
"needs" gets their varying "needs" met?   How can you offer something for sale to people and get enough to feed 2 kids without taking from your customers who want to keep value to raise their own kids?  Does the price change for people who want no kids? 

please justify your assertion that a voluntary system will meet these requirements

In the exploitative situation the vendor decides what he needs to get from each sale and that's the price, you claim this is exploitatin of customers who need to pay a lower price to keep their wealth

"You never explain how."

Granted.  I never explained exactly how, but I did postulate that there could be a change in motivator of human behavior away from one of pure, materialistic self-interest to a more complex scenario:  People by their understanding of the inherent value of every human being's life everywhere, not just in their community, region or nation, and by their awareness of the value of life in general, not just human life, and their awareness of the interconnectedness of all of us, all life, and our place in the universe, could come to view one person's excess as encumbering on the opportunity of other humans and other life to fulfill their basic needs.  In other words, it would be considered unethical to pursue excess if there were a single person elsewhere in our world who was malnourished or starving; that it would be unethical to pursue excess when any species of life on the planet might be endangered by said pursuit; that it would be unethical to use up finite resources in the pursuit of excess when such would hinder the potential of our species (or any species that might ever evolve sentience on our planet in the future) to explore the stars, and thus survive.

"you claim the free market will solve it."

This change in awareness I believe is possible by making the sum of all our acquired knowledge easily available and accessible to all for minimal price, determined through an authentically-functioning free market system, free of regulation, manipulation, etc...

However reluctantly, the release knowledge to humanity is occurring in spite of opposition.  I think it is just a matter of time.  My concern is whether or not we have enough time to have this paradigm shift occur before the effects of global warming, climate change, the exponential growth of increasingly frustrated humans and the resulting economic strife, social conflict, etc...cause some catastrophe that sets us our civilization back by centuries or millennia (perhaps we'll never have another chance).

>>"To each according to his ability from the remainder from the fulfillment of every person's basic needs."

Is this not sufficiently differentiated from communistic ideal, The Yell?<<

Nope. 

The only difference between you and any other Marxist school is what you consider a basic need. You have said people need to have as many kids as they want, and humanity needs to set aside resources to evacuate the planet.  You feel free to condemn free choice that falls into your definition of "excess" to meet your definition of "needs".

"This change in awareness I believe is possible by making the sum of all our acquired knowledge easily available and accessible to all for minimal price, determined through an authentically-functioning free market system, free of regulation, manipulation, etc... "

Great, go edit Wikipedia, they welcome donated labor, that keeps it all free.  GO NOW!

"

Re: Exploration of New Economic Paradigm

>>"To each according to his ability from the remainder from the fulfillment of every person's basic needs."

Is this not sufficiently differentiated from communistic ideal, The Yell?<<

Nope. 

Yes it is sufficiently different.  It is diametrically OPPOSED to communism, while at the same time is diametrically opposed to the continuance of the ill effects on our species, other species, our entire world, our culture that we as a species have suffered.  It is diametrically opposed to the continuance of the sabotage of our potential as a civilization, that we have traditionally suffered in history as, inevitably, it seems, tyrants have traditionally risen to power over nations and sought to sabotage our potential for the sake of fulfilling their base, primal, desires of lust and greed.

The current economic paradigm is one in which the economies of the world serve the interests of the producer rather than the consumer, vis as vis systems instilling complacency and complicity of the majority with what is in effect criminal behavior.

"The current economic paradigm is one in which the economies of the world serve the interests of the producer rather than the consumer....

You meant the current government paradigm. Words have meaning. Use the right ones. You have no idea what the current economic paradigm is nor how it operates. You are therefore unable to render any judgement on the matter with any truth to it whatsoever.

"It is not about business or profit.  It is about CAPITALISM driven by mutually beneficial transactions that are inherently unquantifiable.  It replaces the fiat monetary system."

It's not capitalism if it's not diven by free people and free businesses seeking profit via selling goods/services to free consumers.

It's not capitalism if transactions are "inherently unquantifiable," and to propose such a system without outlining ANYthing about it is just stupid. Why would people work? How would they be motivated to work harder? How would they be motivated to innovate? How would they be rewarded for harder work and smarter thinking?

You're just giving us meaningless platitudes. And you're redefining words so both your criticisms and vague nonsense alternative proposals (with no substance) are meaningless nonsense. We take away absolutely nothing from your posts. You're not saying ANYthing.

"Everyone is determining the rightness of each others' acts, and the social stigma associated with unrightful acts is sufficient deterent.   "

What's your basis for this assumption? Because I don't give a darn what you think.

"By whom?  Tyranny by a central government?  No where in this have I expressed any notion of a central authority."

Nor have you ever said what power would forcibly steal wealth as you propose. Without a central authority redistributing, areas could and would obviously choose not to. And rich people would migrate to these areas.

These aren't hostile questions. Yet you refuse to give any substance whatsoever to what you propose or answer simple, obvious, respectful questions.

Wealth should be redistributed. But not by any authority empowered to do so.

Markets should be free. Unless someone is successful. Then most of their earnings should be taken for redistribution. By an unspecified power.

Looks like you're trolling.

"Seems like I'd be living in a tent, enjoying solar-boiled potato soup, telling the kids stories about McDonalds.  All around us would be empty tents and heaps of potatoes--such an abundance of food and housing that nobody bothers to buy them! Bliss."

Lack of imagination is your fallacy here, Yell.  The household, if allowed to function in a free market economic system under authentic (rather than the current artificial) capitalistic principles, is far more adept, far more efficient, far more competitive than the large corporation.  The new economic paradigm, however, undermines the power - or should I say tyranny - of those at the top of the current economic paradigm, and the state, which is the reason the elite are afraid of it.  It is a paradigm to which is we are already transitioning; a transition which is inevitable.  It would be to the economic benefit of everyone, therefore, to be well aware of it.  The only problem I see with it is, like our current economic paradigm, it does not foster an awareness and practice of ethics.  It (like the current economic paradigm), so far, does not recognize the extent to which we are interconnected, only that we are interconnected.  As a result, the same mistakes which resulted in the recent / current financial crisis could occur again in the new economic paradigm.

It occurred to me while taking a walk in the park this morning where are at in our transition to the new economic paradigm:

I went to sit at a park bench by a lake, on the shore of which were some ducks.  As I approached the bench, the group of ducks waddled from the shore into the water and paddled themselves out a bit. They were wary of me, the leader of the group the most so.  I sat for a while watching the ducks; they just paddled about, slowly meandering towards the safety of a sort of island of stands of reeds in the center of the lake.  Their leader seemed to be the one most frantic; the ducks nearest the shore were seemingly unperturbed by my presence, sensing no danger at all.  Eventually, I noticed one such duck closest to the shore not moving out at all with the group - it was just floating there.  As the group got farther and farther away, it began to get confused as to whether or not it should follow the other ducks.  It didn't sense any danger, didn't understand why the other ducks were moving off somewhere; its motivation was instinctual - simply to follow the group.  For a moment, it didn't look like it would follow them; for a moment I thought it might overcome its base-instinctual nature to mindlessly follow the group and instead do what it as an individual simply wanted to do, which was to stay where it was by the shore.  Eventually, however, it too followed the group led by the paranoid leader into the safety of the reeds.

In this analogy, the duck which hesitated and almost chose to break from the group and do what it wanted as an individual is where we are in our transition to the new economic paradigm.  Most of the ducks were not afraid; most of us are also not afraid of it.  It is only the elite, the leaders, those who are at the top who think they control or can control the current economic paradigm that are afraid. They are leading the rest of us into the 'reeds', back to the 'nest', back to our original way of doing things, our old system, back deeper into the old economic paradigm, away from the shore, due to their irrational fear of the new economic paradigm.

Any day, it could be tomorrow, next week, whenever, when I go for my morning walk in the park again and sit at the bench, it could be that group of ducks will stay by the shore instead of fleeing to the safety of the reeds.  It could happen that their leader won't be paranoid that day and won't thus lead the mostly unafraid group back to the reeds.  So too it could be that any day one of our current leaders will embrace the new economic paradigm.  It could be that any day one of the ducks that was not afraid of me this morning becomes the new leader of the group.  So too it could be that a new leader will embrace the new economic paradigm.

What is certain is that as long as people keep learning about the possibility of the new economic paradigm and how it is nothing to be fearful of, one day for some reason, various groups of us, whether they are families, neighborhoods, municipalities, provinces, states, nations, or even humanity as a whole, will start embracing it.  It will happen a few groups at a time over a transition of many years, decades or even centuries, or it could be that humanity as a whole embraces it all at once.  It only takes one person, one individual to break from the group and start the new economic paradigm, instead of continuing to follow the paranoid leaders of the current / old economic paradigm.

Who knows; it could be by doing so, that that individual becomes the leader of a group of unafraid, rational, un-paranoid people who, likewise, wish to break from the old / current economic paradigm and start a better life living in the new economic paradigm.

> BeoWolfe wrote:

> I think your duck story is the same way Jerry Sandusky lured kids into the shower room

Hmm a paranoid duck!