I'm sure I've come across Elle before (outside of Substack), unless I'm getting mixed up with someone else. But I should definitely start following her.
The idea of cooperatives of course goes back a long time and is a core element of original (i.e. genuine) socialism (pre-Marx, that is). Proudhon called them 'mutuels'. It's also how a proper free market can exist (as opposed to the current oligarchic system).
The most obvious solution is public ownership over the money supply (national bank). This is the one policy the bad guys fear the most, because it's the one policy they need to maintain their social control. The truth is they don't really have an 'economic' system, because it violates the 'natural laws of economics' which starts with 'demand' not 'supply'. Their 'economic' system is just a system of social control. If enough people realise and understand that, then the revolution will happen.
That’s interesting! I’d have to do more research on public vs. private banking, but my working theory is that public banking works great in Norway and not as great in China. Would I want a county like the U.S. to have full control of banking federally? Probably not. If it was in better hands, maybe.
That said, I think your mutual idea is better, and there is already precedent for that in banking, where each bank is owned collectively by the people that bank there. This to me would strike a better balance than govt or institution owned banking!
But I’d love to know your thoughts. And thanks for your interest in my project! I’m learning so much already!
Hey Elle. I think you have hit on one of the most important points, namely it entirely depends on the character of the people who are in charge. Adam Smith said as much 250 years ago, when he warned of bad actors getting involved.
The point being, it's not necessarily the 'system' itself that is wrong, it's the people controlling the system. In this modern world, those people only control it for themselves. So it is a mistake to call it 'economics', because they have perverted it into a system to enable them to maintain social control.
I think you will love my liberal socialism stuff (see link in original comment).
Ultimately, it all reduces to psychology. Humans have a spectrum of needs (cf. Maslow), and they can all be monetised. A wise society provides for all those needs, by granting everyone the means to fulfil them (enough money, in other words). This is the essence of liberal socialism. All of economics starts with demand (the needs), not supply. The current system we have to endure reverses that.
That's quite a coincidence that you post this article, because I resumed writing my liberal socialism thing yesterday (starts here: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/liberal-socialism-and-what-is-to?r=2s9hod), with part 5, which I'll post soon enough.
I'm sure I've come across Elle before (outside of Substack), unless I'm getting mixed up with someone else. But I should definitely start following her.
The idea of cooperatives of course goes back a long time and is a core element of original (i.e. genuine) socialism (pre-Marx, that is). Proudhon called them 'mutuels'. It's also how a proper free market can exist (as opposed to the current oligarchic system).
The most obvious solution is public ownership over the money supply (national bank). This is the one policy the bad guys fear the most, because it's the one policy they need to maintain their social control. The truth is they don't really have an 'economic' system, because it violates the 'natural laws of economics' which starts with 'demand' not 'supply'. Their 'economic' system is just a system of social control. If enough people realise and understand that, then the revolution will happen.
That’s interesting! I’d have to do more research on public vs. private banking, but my working theory is that public banking works great in Norway and not as great in China. Would I want a county like the U.S. to have full control of banking federally? Probably not. If it was in better hands, maybe.
That said, I think your mutual idea is better, and there is already precedent for that in banking, where each bank is owned collectively by the people that bank there. This to me would strike a better balance than govt or institution owned banking!
But I’d love to know your thoughts. And thanks for your interest in my project! I’m learning so much already!
Hey Elle. I think you have hit on one of the most important points, namely it entirely depends on the character of the people who are in charge. Adam Smith said as much 250 years ago, when he warned of bad actors getting involved.
The point being, it's not necessarily the 'system' itself that is wrong, it's the people controlling the system. In this modern world, those people only control it for themselves. So it is a mistake to call it 'economics', because they have perverted it into a system to enable them to maintain social control.
I think you will love my liberal socialism stuff (see link in original comment).
Ultimately, it all reduces to psychology. Humans have a spectrum of needs (cf. Maslow), and they can all be monetised. A wise society provides for all those needs, by granting everyone the means to fulfil them (enough money, in other words). This is the essence of liberal socialism. All of economics starts with demand (the needs), not supply. The current system we have to endure reverses that.
I'm definitely going to stay in touch!
Thanks for your comments Evelyn, I'll have a look over your work on the subject!