@Nerv - VA that's true in one sense, but it's not optimal if you want to avoid risk. that's where multi corporate structures are beneficial - because of redundancy, not choice

Maybe IE should have five year goals.

^

i mean that's the only reason the soviet economy was anywhere significant in 1941

@Jacob I don't appreciate the condescension. I respectfully disagree. Words change meaning over time and can mean different things in different places. In Europe, "liberalism" is considered right wing. In America "liberal" means broadly left wing. That doesn't make the American definition inherently wrong. In America, you can and should make a distinction between capitalism (having private property and generally free markets) vs corporatism (letting multi billion dollar multinationals do whatever they want)

I mean it wouldn’t hurt to have a clear vision of where we want to be.

Wow. This might actually be some brilliant honeypot move to force watermelon marxists to show their hand.

The outcry and push to federalize private and state controlled lands for "conservation" has led to an ecological and economic disaster.

45% of California is owned by the Federal Government, from National Parks to Wilderness Refuge etc.

They act as an absentee landlord, implementing a top-down approach to ecosystem management, which is why past harvesting methods proved unsustainable and harmful to connecting ecosystems.

All of this has been going on and growing for decades. Meanwhile fertile forests have grown to tinderboxes, under the direction of the federal government. And now since so much of the federal budget set aside for forest management has been spent on fire suppression the amount of maintenance backlogs tops the 10's of billions.

The only way to combat the problems caused by federal land grabs is to relinquish control of these lands back to the states, then from the states back to the counties, and so on.

Ecological management needs to be a bottom-up approach, which takes into account all related ecosystems. This is why the NW forest plan has failed, this is why Endangered Species Act has failed, etc etc.

fascism in an economic system is considered corporatism - merger of state and corporate powers

https://twitter.com/PatrickCaseyIE/status/1060339370866159616?s=20

This is what Patrick was talking about in the fireside @missliterallywho

You can pick a different word if you find it so crucial, but the basic distinction between capitalism that favors the nation vs that which favors corporations is essential

corporations are meaningless, they are extensions of the state apparatus

there is no sovereign corporation

Corporations largely control state policy via big money politics. That's why GOP congressmen support more immigration when their voters hate it

capitalism is sound money, period. govt focuses on managing money and the goods and services are handled by private parties. corporations play no part unless they are subsidized by the state

Capitalism will inevitably beget monopolies and oligopolies absent regulation

we do not have a capitalist economy in america, we are a part of the global corporate structure known as fascism - unelected elites control global finance

capitalism would be GOLD and GREENBACKS, a true USD

@TMatthews would you agree that Juche economics would be good for america?

compard to the current state

monopoly is not a bad word, and it's rarely achievable in any real sense. capitalism produces multiplicities, which defy the idea of monopolies

the only monopolies that are "bad" are over land, crops, & energy

@Vilhjalmyr Interesting breakdown, thanks for sharing!

North Korea best Korea.

@TMatthews We don't get to be the ones that change the meaning of words. Maybe when we have control over the media, but we just can't do that right now. Even in America, if you talk to any educated person about economics, corporatism refers to a system where employers and employees are sorted into interest groups based on sector and the state mediates negotiations between them to make sure each side is fairly represented.

I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just saying what the facts are. The fact is, if we just change the meaning of words whenever we want to, it's going to sounds silly to educated people. I'm sorry if saying that comes off the wrong way, but that's just the truth, and it has to be said.

Historically, the great era of capitalism saw the development of monopolies or oligopolies in every major industry. Oil (Rockefeller), Steel (Carnegie), Railroads (Vanderbilt), Explosives (DuPont), Sugar (Domino) etc

i don't think you have bad reasoning @TMatthews , but i agree with earlier comment about definitions. you're using common tongue rather than economics facts

Yeah but what do you guys think about Bitcoin?

It's not even common tongue. The word "corporatism" is rarely used outside of economics discussions.

@Jacob Again, I have literally never had a single person argue my definition and I've discussed this in college economics courses. If it matters so much, fine, pick a different word, but corporatism is a logical choice when critiquing excessive corporate power

@Nerv - VA Juche gang here, who up?>

@ThisIsChris it's decent only because we can't undo globalism, and it's a global commodity. worth holding some, but i'd hold physical gold first

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFof6s1O1mY @Nerv - VA

OK how about Monero?

@TMatthews Because most people don't have the energy to argue it. How often do you argue with someone when they say something that sounds silly to you?

i think you might be able to make some money if you understand fundamentals and trading technicals with other coins, but bitcoin seems the most robust @ThisIsChris

BTC / LTC is the gold & silver - with ETH being more like oil with higher volatility and utility as "gas" for Dapps

@Jacob I'm literally an econ major. I would respectfully disagree and bring up the definition if someone used a definition I didn't agree with. Ultimately, however, the "people only pretended to agree because they think you're too stupid to argue with" argument has no basis in reality

if corporatism can only exist with a state apparatus, then it's not even related to capitalism

Exactly, it isn't

@Jacob As I have said repeatedly, you can use a different term. In fact, if you have one, by all means let me know. For communicating with ordinary people though, corporatism works well in my experience.

Corporatism is closer to socialism