Fiscal views

I am a Social Democrat (including Democratic Revolution Social Democracy, Broad Front Social Democracy and Chile’s Nordic Model Social Democracy), Anarcho Libertarian 

future economic system between Left Blog and Right blog

I support the Labour Party UK (New Labour/Third Way/Friends of Israel/Third Way Social Democracy/current Conservative Party UK type Red Wallism)

I support the Progressive Utilization theory (including economic zones within that system to be created within the US based on Reaganomics, Abenomics, the Nordic Model and less flexible Third Way economics)

I generally and conditionally support market based economies which can be seen throughout this blog   

I reject the status quo and radical centrism of free-market economics. I also in rarer times support a large section of the economy being nationalized.

I economically value realism, entrepreneurship, managerial skills, work discipline, reconstruction, individual self-reliance, stability, expertise , disdain of economic science, competence, modern tech, gradualism  and this can be seen throughout this blog.

I feel that free enterprise (my brand as can be seen throughout this blog) turns the wheels of the economy. Prosperity produces social justice for all, including the poor. Sometimes we have to endure sluggish growth

I want our country to model itself after the Progressive Utilization theory 

Progressive Utilization theory is similar to direct and participatory democracies, which I also support as can be seen here 

It overcomes the limitations of capitalism, communism and mixed economy. Compromise, slight necessary policy reforms and Anti Economic Extremism would be its core tenants 

It is an economically progressive approach, which would aim to improve social development in the world that is in line with Sarkar's Neohumanist values which would provide "proper care" to every being on the planet, including humans, animals and plants

In this Progressive Utilization theory society there would be a socioeconomic system that would be an advancement on capitalism and communism.

Under this system resources would be collective property from which usufructuary rights would be carved out for individuals or groups of individuals to use

Distribution of goods in this system’s market would  be rational and equitable in order to allocate good maximization of the physical, mental, and spiritual development of all people.

There would always be a baseline distribution that would intend to guarantee medical care  , food ,some type of clothing (except tennis shoes/sneakers/trainers), shelter, education. 

It would be a three-tiered approach to industrial organization.

Key industries and public utilities would be operated as no profits (no loss basis as these are resources held on trust for the public). 

Decentralized industry that would be run by cooperatives which would provide people's minimum necessities etc

Most of the economic transactions in this system would be through producers' and consumers' cooperatives.

There would be Incentives for people serving society which would be funded through surpluses.

A small business sect would also operate to provide goods and services on a more individualized basis.

Politically this system would discourage nationalism, though nation-states would form a world gov in the form of a confederation. 

In this system, there would be a world constitution and a bill of rights for humans and for ensuring the biological diversity and security of animals and plants fix steward. 

Locally governed self-sufficient socioeconomic units or zones would support a decentralized economy.

This system would take into account the law of social cycle. It would see the social order as consisting of four classes of people which cyclically dominate society: workers, warriors), intellectual and acquisitors

However, there would be no abolition of these four classes, as this system would see them not just as a a power configuration, but also as a way of knowing the world, as a paradigm, episteme or deep structure if It would consider that any person could be worker, warrior, intellectual or acquisitive minded.

This system would see these four classes as connected to cyclic processes across time.

That when a class of people struggle and rise to power they cause a physical and mental revolution in the world.

To prevent any social class from clinging to political power and exploiting the others in this system, a "spiritual elite" sadvipras (etymologically sad – true, vipra – intellectual) would determine who would hold political leadership.

The the first sadvipras would come from disgruntled middle class intellectuals and warriors.

Sadvipras would be organized into executive, legislative, and judicial boards in this system and they would be governed by a Supreme Board.

They would be responsible for the order of dominance within the social order.

This system would align with the Neohumanism philosophy. Thatvphilosophy is a reinterpretation of humanism that calls for integrating the unity of life idea. In it all living beings belong to a universal family that deserve equal care and respect

The five fundamental principles of this system would be : There should be no accumulation of wealth without society’s permission. There would be maximum utilization and rational distribution of the crude, subtle, and causal resources. There would be maximum utilization of individual and collective beings’ physical, mental, and spiritual potentialities.  There would be a well balanced adjustment among the crude, subtle, and causal utilizations. Utilizations (which would be progressive) would vary in accordance with time, space, and form.

The values , economic structure and goals of this system would differ from the values, economic structure and goals of capitalism and communism (since they have anti humanistic elements) due to them encouraging people to relentlessly pursue material attainment, like name, fame, their shaky foundations, etc

One specific problem in Neoliberal and Capitalism’s case, is generally the centralization of economic power in the hands of the rich leads to the exploitation of the masses which further leads to the degeneration of society. 

One specific problem in Communism (like Marxism Leninism) is that the sovietic central planning committees have too much economic decision and cohersion power in the federation 

This system would have aspects of market planning to help to create and sustain a healthy economy.

Planning would allow the market to protect its stakeholders from neoliberal economics since in neoliberal economics , profit motive speaks loudest

A planning (or central planning) committee at a national level would only outline the economic development’s broader aspects which would the cause its details to be resolved by local level planning bodies where problems are best understood and dealt with more easily (see diseconomies of scale). 60 percent of this planning committee would be made up of the national government, 10 to 20 percent of this this committee would be made up five semi-national governmental non oil foundations (they would not be accountable to anyone except the main leader)  

At the National level, the public sector and government workforce would be very large.

This system’s type of top-down planning would leave communities, enterprises and workers with a important level of freedom to decide their own economic future (see decentralized planning)

This system would stress that the nationalization of enterprises is not efficient due to the higher costs and the amount of bureaucracy that is necessary to keep state-controlled industries running. 

Yet, in this system some industries would be nationalized operating on the principle of  "no-profit, no-loss".

As fot wealth distribution among the population in this system, there would "optimal inequality" where the wage gap between the richer strata of society would be substantially subsided.

Richard Freeman, (Harvard economist), wrote that income inequality comes from power monopoly and other activities that have "negative consequences" in terms of social development.

This system would not have total income equality, because in a society where material motivation to work is not present, the motivation to strive for financial success and to thrive in industry’s and society’s creative development would be lost in its citizens. 

Therefore, in this system, there would be an implementation of a policy that would allow the most meritous in society to receive added perks for the added benefits that they bring to society.

This is because it is theorized that the communist's motto of from “each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” can’t work in the real world. 

This system would instead a set a minimum and maximum wage, that would roughly br attributed according to the work value that each person brings to society. 

We see modern examples of attempts in this direction with companies like Mondragon or Whole Foods.

Regarding neo-liberalism, This system would throw a new light to Adam Smith's invisible hand concept, where individual producers act on the self-interest benefit of the community as a whole. 

Unchecked, the economic elite of societies will disrupt the just circulation of material wealth within society. The market will then need regulatory measures in order to create a functional economic system.

In this system, it would not be enough to free our society from exploitation and extreme income inequality. So in this system, it would be an economic democracy where the decision making power for the community’s economic future would be given to its inhabitants. 

Economic democracy would be reinvented by setting four requirements for it. The first requirement would be for guaranteeing the minimum requirements of life to all people in society. The second requirement, would be for an increasing purchasing capacity for each individual, since in this system local people would have to hold economic power over their socio economic region.

Unlike in capitalism, where the production and distribution of goods are mostly decided by market competition, in this system it would be based on necessity. The third requirement of this system’s economic democracy would be the decentralization of power, which would give the freedom to make economic decisions to its stakeholders. This would be accomplished by adopting a worker-owned cooperative system and also by using local resources (raw materials and other natural resources) for region development and not just for export

This would be a decentralized economy where self-sufficient economic zones would be created and organized according to a set of conditions that would be predetermined (like socio-economic units).

I would want a Reaganomics (including law and economics) economic zone , an Abenomics economic zone, a Nordic Model economic zone and a less flexible Third Way economic zone within the US in this Progressive Utilization theory system

The Reaganomics economic zone would be positively influenced by surrounding and other economic zones to fix Reaganomics‘ market and or voodoo-trickle down economics issues (like the less flexible Third Way economic zone and the possibly an economic zone based on the direct economic views of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar)

The Abenomics economic zone would employ Abenomics . Abenomics is related to the rise of China as an economic and political power and it seeks to enrich the places that employ it, and strengthen the army of such places. It isn’t reliant on superpowers to help them

This Abenomics economic zone would be based on three arrows: monetary easing from government banks (and or federal reserve) or Big Bank, fiscal stimulus through government spending and and structural reforms. It would be characterized by a mix of reflation, government spending and a growth strategy that would be designed to jolt the economy out of suspended animation that has gripped it at times over the decades

In this Abenomics economic zone it would consist of a monetary and fiscal policy and economic growth strategies in order to encourage private investment. 

Certain policies would include inflation targeting at an annual rate of two percent, correcting the excessive dollar appreciation, negatively setting interest rates, radical quantitative easing, expanding public investment, purchasing operations of federal reserve related construction bonds and revising Fiscal spending plans. There would be a pro TPP element too

The less flexible Third Way economic zone would have an economic system that uses Third Way economic policies that are less flexible than mainstream Third Way economic policies and governments

Meaning this in this less flexible Third Way economic zone would less flexibly believe in a theory of  "social-ism" than mainstream Third Way economics believe in and less flexibly try to pursue the goals of equality and social justice in a framework of a Neoliberal society than mainstream Third Way governments and policies did/do

In this less flexible Third Way economic zone  , it would less flexibly fuse traditional social democratic goals with an acceptance of Globalism (more like National Globalism i.e Multipolarism) and free markets than mainstream Third Way economics/governments fuse them together

In this less flexible Third Way economic zone, like with mainstream Third Way economics/governments, it would be built more on a more modern theoretical basis than Social Liberalism and Radical Centrism are, but less flexibly than mainstream Third Way economics/governments did/do

Moreover, in this less flexible Third Way economic zone,  it would less flexibly employ a "social capitalist" economy with free-markets and less economic intervention than Third Way economics/governments did/do . In this less flexible Third Way economic zone, it would less flexibly supports welfare reform and workfare while less flexibly pursuing other neoliberal policies like deregulation and privatization

The Nordic Model economy zone would have a market led model that fuses together market capitalism with a large welfare state and a neo-corporatist bargaining system . It would try to implement universal public healthcare, public pensions, and public institutions of higher education, and much, much more but there would need to be a debate over the degree of these reforms, the speed of their implementation, and how to pay for them.

In this Nordic Model economy zone , the state would have ownership stakes in many of the country's largest publicly listed companies, owning 37 percent of the Nordic Model economy zone, zone confederation or country’s stock market and it would operate the country's largest non-listed companies,

This would mean the state would control business through shares instead of through regulation

The government in this Nordic Model economy zone would operate a sovereign wealth fund, whose partial objective would be to prepare the Nordic Model economy zone or US as a whole for a post-oil future while also majorly and powerfully advocating for human rights. While it would be moderate, it would also have a progressive tilt to its early agenda. Younger generations would get richer in this system

I also like the Nordic model because it is in part based on Lutheranism

This requirement would not express xenophobic feelings, it would solely be the realization that there shouldn’t be a constant outflow of local capital, where the natural resources are explored by foreign investment companies which extract assets and money out of the community

From a Neohumanist perspective of this system, all people would be free to choose where they wish to live, as long as they merge their economic interests with the economic interests of the local people.

In this system, there would be asocio-economic unit, called Samaj in Sanskrit; a collective materialization effort that would be used to create a strong and resilient local community, which would be built on strong feelings of solidarity and self-identity.

To build a working and cohesive socio-economic unit in this system, in a way that would be similar to bioregions, their purpose would be to facilitate cooperative development, that would move towards a decentralized economy. Once that happens, these units would be economically independent and self-reliant. 

Though they still would be guided by national and federal guidelines and laws, they would prepare its own economic plan.

This would be to aim to achieve local resource maximum efficiency utilization,  they would make trade across borders more balanced and mutually beneficial

Since a progressive society can’t solely be measured by the nation’s GDP level of wealth, there could be benefits of material progress, but this system would deem them as insufficient indicators of the development of human society.

This system would rely on the view that even though progress as it is interpreted by modern society has its benefits, there are negative unchecked side effects that bring more harm than good. 

Like cars and airplanes enable people travel at increasing speeds, bringing great ease to travelers and commuters, they also bring air and noise pollution, traffic congestion, accidents, alienation from nature, etc.

This system would transcend material and technological development. It would move along lines of the triple bottom line which analyzes the ouput in the social, environmental and financial sphere of a given enterprise, 

This measure of progress would encompasses the qualities of a "fourth bottom line" that would be characterized by the incorporation of a transcendental dimension of human life which is focused on the integrated body, mind and spirit development

This fourth bottom line in this system, would allow society and individuals in general and in particular respectively to develop an larger identity sense which would allow for a neohumanist will of inclusion, that would create a society in which material gains wouldn’t be the summum bonum of life and would permit space to be made for people to work symbiotically together in a movement which primes for the welfare of the individual and collective through social, cultural, and also the tech development.

This system would be built on the view that the individuals well being is reliant in the collective development of and that the collective depends on the individuals development

This system would espouse the belief that the  physical and psychic development lead to minimal progress for humans as they are subject to deterioration and decay. There are diseases which effect bodies and minds, and even if we are free of them, eventually time will make all of our physical and mental faculties of no more use. Transcendental nature (supra-emotional values) intrinsic to the human mind and which exacerbate human multilateral existence is the exception to this “The deepest truths of life are an eternal fountain of inspiration. Spiritual, transpersonal development is a process of expanding one's consciousness to link with the Infinite, to reach a state of deep peace and happiness."

So in this system, there would be the need to meet physical and mental needs before being engaging in a transcendental journey to find that nature of the world.

Banks, taxing , gov fiscal views in general

I support a strong democratic governance and institutions that are aligned with markets and social policies that work together

A progressive agenda in society is possible without society ceasing to be an attractive place for investment

I support free trade

I support gradual reductions in various taxes

I support Liz Warren’s wealth tax of two percent on all individually held assets above $50 million dollars (a rate that graduates to three percent for assets above $1 billion). I wouldn’t be upset at all it would cause a distortionary effect.

I supported the Tea Party years back and would do so today if they came back (I still support the Tea Party)

I support a Liz Warren amended version of Rick Scott's 11 point plan 

I support the Gold Standard and want the US to bring it back. The Gold standard might prevent financial repression in some cases.

I support and encourage people to use bonds and to save their money in savings accounts. If war bonds come back, I would also support people using war bonds.

I support people having off shore bank accounts

The government should not increase the tax of people who profit from the sale of stocks ,bonds or real estate.

I'm against President Biden's IRS bank snooping plan and his plan to unprivatize banks

I support the Buffet rule

Antis

I am against the Great Reset

I am against Neoliberalism

I am against people having a sense of entitlement 

One word Communism/Communism without a moneyless , stateless society is evil, wrong and impractical. I am against that type one word Communism/Communism.

Biz and labor

I support mass socialist parties (like Social Democrat parties) and I want them to be dominated by oligarchic leaderships that help those workers but away from those workers’ job sites 

I feel to help mass socialist parties and their workers, we need those oligarchic leaders to have control over the party press, party finances, and conference agendas of those mass socialist parties as to reproduce itself.

I want a more socialistic society (ideally Leninist) to lead to the eventual abolishment of the state, hierarchy and patriarchy ,and this (or Democratic Centralism as a whole) may be the only way to realistically move us toward that socialistic direction since the Progressive Utilization theory might be too unrealistic at least for now (or even a pipe dream). 

I support the OSHA enforcing workers rights to a hazard free workplace to create a productive working environment 

I more than believe that its better for corporations to voluntarily reform themselves than for them to be forced to do so. 

I got an anti consumer streak in me but I usually override that to want consumers to be protected via sanctions by nation consumer services (which would also reduce and then phase out our consumer culture since consumerism is brainwashing and evil, see below)

I support unions being able to negioate collectively (maybe via organizing unions operating in parallel with groups of businesses in way similar to corporatism. Workers in this system would get a greater share of their company profits via negotiation between each union and the business group which corresponds with each of them. Above this system would be a very involved collectivist-paternalistic State.)

Most small businesses are NOT tax cheats and Justin Trudeau was wrong to lie and say that

sociofiscal views

I use to be not enthused about social safety nets, now I am ok with very specific ones

I support the government expropriating agribusinesses, large factories, and luxury homes that belong to former elites who aren’t elite anymore but I would never challenge the concept of private property

While I am personally never enthused on government intervention in the economy, I also support populist measures like massive government intervention in the economy to ensure free water, electricity and government provided homes for the poor 

I am ok with the Be HEARD Act since workplace harassment not only negatively effects the victim of the harassment, but is bad to working class people who aren’t victims of harassment as any discrimination practices between demographic sections of the working class cause a very divisive practice hurting the development of working class consciousness , creating barriers to class unity to take away attention from class exploitation which bolsters the rich

I conditionally support the the Child Care for Working Families Act, since it frees parents to spending more time to work. I support this as long as it doesn’t negatively effect the child’s upbringing

Raising the Minimum wage has drawbacks because it would force full time workers into part time jobs and hurt their access to health care benefits. Heavy care should be used in raising it

I support the Welfare state (Nanny state) that is funded by taxes that use a taxation model based on all of my socioeconomic views in this blog combined (but my view that moderate means-tested welfare targeted at the poor to ensure people can meet basic human needs being given the majority of the weight)

This is because its natural to have ‘Nannys’ help down and out people since that is what real Nannys do, just pretend that all people on Welfare are being aided by ‘Nannys’, no one bats a lash shen real Nannys aide children and teens, why should this be different?)

This should help transition us to an upgraded welfare state that is a fusion of system AB+ with System BC=

System AB+. welfare targeted at the poor to ensure people can meet basic human system with semi private charities (specific variant of Socialism’s pro private property allowance) set up to help struggling Americans not unlike the pre Welfare state type of private charity systems). These charities would rely on private donations from Americans to help other Americans (Americans would be incentivized to do so). In particular through this welfare, it would provide food, shelter and utilities for people in times of need (like winter, or hot summers).  This type of system would inspire people to be self sufficient or to work for the good of the community (but still have emergency nets if they couldn't) basically to encourage people to be economically self sufficient.  

with System BC=  A universal welfare system where the government indirectly (as in six degrees of separation indirectly) does what they normally do with universal welfare including providing universal childcare, care for the elderly, education, healthcare and workers' comp but also includes mutualistic Distributism (sort of like this).   fused with Christian Communism

Instead of subsiding private services or giving to the needy we should ‘give to everyone’ (i.e make sure that provisions are available for everyone). This way there are less needy people to give too since this can prevent people from being needy in the first place.

I believe in ‘redistributing wealth’ via mutualismistic taxes to make capitalism more humane

I am against consumerism . Consumerism fuels inequality and unequal social structures that create unequal hierarchies.  Consumerism is bad because people consume to increase their social position and to keep up with others. There is no good reason people should continuously buy new and new material possessions. It is against God to do so. God gives us what we need, not more and more garbage.

Corporations and the government push consumerism to make a buck at the expense of public welfare (due to things like social stratification, governing ethics etc). I also feel consumerism is bad because it is part of globalization in that corporations try to destroy other countries with their consumerism as they've done in the West.  Consumers are treated like guinea pigs that corporations try new and new tricks on to get them to obedient to their demands and that is wrong

Consumerism dehumanizes people and causes people to live immorally. Consumerism is shallow, hollow and makes people think they need things that they DON'T NEED. It also causes pollution and hurts the environment etc. Consumerism is basically corporations making us their slaves and that needs to end

People are compelled to use brand names since their identities are tied to brand names to compensate for other misgivings.  It is morally imperative that the state be a guarantor of rights and not consumer goods. The government should get out of the consumerism business and stop brainwashing people here and via senseless imperialism to be consumer culture warriors. 

I feel Obamacare with a public option is better in the present and near future than Universal Healthcare , Single payer healthcare and Medicare for All . I do think single payer healthcare and expanded medicare to all should be done in the future when it is viable and practical (and also as a safety net)

Personally I am mixed to abstain on the public option for healthcare 

Legality wise, I am mixed to non hostile on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare), as long as it has modest adjustments and provisions to the legislation if they can be done on a bipartisan basis. Otherwise we can do better than Obamacare

I am fine with a common sense, bipartisan, expansion of Medicare as long as it has unorganized (as in unorganized sector of India unorganized) elements to it

I favor cuts to entitlement programs like SSI, and means testing and raising the retirement age

This student leader’s views on education are eerily similar to my views on education . If Third Way economics would be applied to his educational views and reform ideas I would want less flexible Third Way economics to be applied to his educational views and reform ideas instead of mainstream Third Way economics being applied to them

I want to reform whatever new forms of Meritocracy forms in a Post Meritocracy world. The problem with Meritocracy is that Meritocracy is an illusion that thrives the economy but only fulfills the dreams of a few

I support a new socioeconomic model based on different homo economicus but without our constitutional handcuffs. This would create uncertainties for the 1 percenters (i.e the elites) who are stake-holding our assets and resources 

The 1 percenters (i.e the elites) are living the uncertainty that the 99 percenters (i.e non elites) have to face every day since the elite the 1 percenters wrongly hoard their vast fortunes 

We need to fix this via a process instead of through government lip services or bandaids 

My views on a Universal Basic Income are based on two or more of the above fiscal views I wrote above

My views on Build Back Better are based on two or more of the above fiscal views I wrote above

I want Amazon and Big Tech to be broken up. We have to stop their monopolies. There is no reason so many people should wear the same brand of clothes, or be a member of the same social media site. Movie character Arthur Jensen's speech in his movie about how corporations are the real nations of the world today seems frighteningly prophetic after decades of increasing globalism and corporate 'synergy'.

Values

I want Left Wing and (by Chile standards) policies to be implemented by Social Democrats and their parties in the the US, Europe etc 

While I value social welfare over economic growth , I feel that economic growth and social cohesion need not be mutually exclusive 

I support making ends meet fiscal policies and this can be seen throughout this blog

I am a fan of Survivalism and I believe that its a good concept to live by

I support Individualism

I respect the sanctity of private property and property rights