The acknowledged presence of an assumed economic identity known as Capitalism is like the observation of someone nearby but this doesn't necessarily help to establish what the personality of the person is or much of anything else, unless the assigned name... the assigned designation or label such as "Capitalism" already has a related description— like a person's name which once described an occupation, or where they are from and activities associated with a place, or a place that arose because of some established legal act. In short, a person's name once afforded others a depth of detail about a person that remained consistent over expanses of time. However, simply designating an economic system as being "Capitalism" does not provide anyone with any intimate knowledge unless there is some preconceived definition such as being a system of private ownership of capital. Yet here again we must have some level of understanding that "capital" refers to "assets" and this designates anything of material value and usefulness.... and so on. In other words, each of the words has an identity that is understood in a chain-like model of referencing when we are first introduced to their existence prior to establishing some familiarity by way of repeated encounters. We do not automatically know what is being meant... we are taught to accept a particular assignment of quality and therefore, identity qualification... though some come to adopt a metaphorical style of reasoning which allows them to transgress the boundaries of conventionally labeled assignments.
Whereas it is of academic value to be able to accomplish original research for the purpose of acquiring a Doctoral (Ph.D) degree, the originality of this research may be limited to a new arrangement of old ideas, and does not necessarily mean some new and original word or idea has been coined. One can not be so creative that their entire means of creation is the expression of an entirely new language being used to convey one's idea(s), or such ideas may be received as gibberish. Researchers are forced to comply with a requirement for rendering their views, at least in part, with a language and ideas already in usage... or at least provide an intended reader-ship with an accompanying script for appropriate translation. In other words, it is of value to cite the ideas of others whose efforts have followed a course of conventionality. With respect to a discussion of Capitalism, so as not to appear to focus solely on an observation of externalized macroscopic application, let us now turn to an internalized microscopic assessment. Let us begin by providing an elementary generalized reference of economics based on the realization that there are limitations to all resources, at least within the Earth's environment:
Three Economic Questions
In the foregoing we could also include WHO should produce the goods and services, as well as WHERE and WHY. Typically, such questions are not discussed before-hand since a product producer or service provider is usually focused on making money or acquiring that which is desired and may later be found to be a useful commodity with which to barter for some other goods and services... or in any regard, a means to acquire some greater quality and/or quality of resource. While such foregoing details may be considered in hindsight by some observer, they are not necessarily a routine system of scholastic philosophy applied to entrepreneurial endeavors due to foresight. Likewise, the existence of the economic system denoted as "Capitalism" was not created by someone(s) who set out to deliberately create this particular identity. Capitalism evolved from primitive bartering exchanges in the distant past. It was not due to some person's "Eureka!" realization while soaking in a bathtub, dreamily over-sleeping in bed, or because of some museful other-worldly engagement while fiddling with one's breakfast. (The bed, bathtub and breakfast have been historically noted as the places where ideas of genius have frequently arisen... but not always.)
If humans routinely exhibited the ability for applying a perspicacious foresight in every endeavour, we might well be able to forego experiencing a lot of terrible events, unless of course like Stock Market analysts, a person simply wanted a bad event to occur in order that they might place themselves into an advantageous position beforehand. By being able to identify a situation as an opportunity to advantage oneself of, the process of analysis may be more on the order of a reflex and not some deliberate, cognitively arrived at perception. While many people may be in an opportune place and time, or a few, or even one person may be able to deliberately or impulsively take advantage thereof. Either because of a detailed understanding or some vague impression, situations can arise which assist one in acquiring a large proportion of resources. Such an advantage may later lead to an ability to restrict others from acquiring opportunities, because they are placed into a position, such as a frame of mind which obscures the recognition, the identification of an opportunity.
Obscuring the identification of an opportunity is not necessarily cleared up by a detailed analysis. For example, their are many people involved with an analysis of society but remained detached from an ability to acquire any deeper insight because they have been socially trained to reflect upon reflections already reflected on numerous times in the same way as numerous others. Their brains echo the ideas of others because they are comforted by an association of like-minded others who may otherwise convince themselves that they are practicing intellectual activities of originality because it is new to them. Indeed, with respect to them as an individual identity, original thinking may in fact occur daily with them, but it is the identity of originality for them as an individual, and not as an individual as part of a group that can collectively take advantage of a collectively assigned identity of originality. For example, the writings of Marx and Engles provided a means by which the random, individualized thoughts of millions became focused as a singular identity with which to use as a force, a tool, a weapon to acquire advances in working conditions. It was difficult for owners of businesses to conquer such a group by division, because they shared a singular identity. The way to disperse such a crowd has been accomplished by altering the identity of the overall workplace characterizations. In other words, the usage of the label, the name "laborer" is not as widely used today as it was in the past. While all people labor, they do not identify themselves as being a laborer. The name "laborer" has been relegated to the description of someone who does dirty, menial tasks... which the ego of many workers do not permit themselves to be associated with. hence, the old language used by Mark, Engles and their advocates, is too antiquated to generate a similar level of global revolutionary responsiveness.
Whereas the WHO and WHERE of production may have been constrained by thoughts of patriotism in the past, providing the means by which a given population might more easily identify themselves with a given self-perception, today's companies don't permit themselves to harbor such a sentiment of patriotism since it is over-ridden by a desire for greater profit... and not assisting a particular people or nation in establishing a decisive level of personal empowerment with which to wield as a bargaining chip in obtaining more benefits from their now many defined labels of labour. Because larger businesses are not constrained by territorial border distances nor embraced sentiments of affinity to a Nation or people, they are more enabled to remove themselves and workers from the old identifying stigmas of 19th century workplace practices denoted in the labour and Capital doctrines of Marx, Engles and accompanying brood of advocates. By being able to relocate, they can alter practices which may have caused production or capital-generating problems by providing employment to those who may be all too eager to accept the exchange of a small wage for performing labour... regardless of the costs involved for training new employees. Nor do such companies necessarily care what sort of government they may have to associate with, so long as it provides the amount of latitude needed for acquiring a desired increase in profits, if not a commanding position in their respective business interests.
Capitalism is a flexible economic tool that has no loyalties... and yet, it can be designed with enormous expressions of loyalty, compassion, sensitivity and generosity. No one owns Capitalism... either to coddle it or condemn it. For example, some Socialists and Communists (or generalized social thinkers) are inclined to rail vehemently against Capitalism as if they own it by virtue of having cornered the market for doing so; propped up by written documents which have been used by millions to assert such a perspective as a formulated presence and therefore as a precedent... which they own... because it was included as an argument by Marx and Engles as a testament to something highly undesirable. They claim an especial type of concealed ownership to denounce Capitalism as some evil that produces recurring social evils, and then hypocritically renounce the valueless act of private ownership. Yet, what is Capitalism the product of? Who, what, when, where how and why is it being produced? Is there something better that should be produced? What is it? Where are the definitively illustrated blueprints which are not open to the vagaries of subjective interpretation? What and where are the raw materials for such a production? Will it be bought and maintained as a staple, or subjected to varying embellishments for which former ideological patents can be dismissed as irrelevant?
If Capitalism is so bad, why are so many people addicted towards using it? Is it being allowed because it is a necessary evil or because the environments to which it is placed are conducive to its maintenance... even if it is an antiquated model of economics that is kept in service because of sentiments upholding traditions that do not want to make adjustments to sociological inclinations based on information which reveals patterns that need to be taken into consideration so that more informed choices can be made to adopt a redirection in governance? When it is already evident that the global market place produces thousands, if not millions of junk items, as can be attested by the worthless artifacts to be found at flea markets, garage sales, yard sales and cut-rate retailers; we must ask if this is due to Capitalism or some underlying idiocy of those using Capitalism to generate funds by promoting products of mediocrity? And yet, a much more visible pronouncement of this is seen in the surplus of vehicles sitting on new and used car lots, as well as the myriad thousands of vehicles which are routinely being shredded. Is such a surplus due to the ignorance of Capitalism, or those who use Capitalism as a means to practice stupidity... because they are permitted to do so by way of established laws generated by processes of government that are falsified representations of Communism, Democracy and Socialism?
We can analyze economics till we are blue in the face, with the greatest of scholarly detail being illustrated in peer-review journals from which reputations in a given subject area are established and awarded with great fan-fare; all to no avail in our desire to create a better society, when the governance of the society is what has created bad formulas of a given economics model to generate persistently recurring economic problems. If a government model does not enforce the usage of an economic model to promote a good environmental model, it is absurd to blame either the environmental or economic model as the trend setter of the original trouble maker. So what if we can deduce the finer details of an economic system, if its usage contributes to sustaining a form of governance that impedes social growth in its multiple dimensions? If the maintenance of a primitive government design is best accomplished by requiring a police and military force whose individuals need not have an I.Q. over that of a simpleton, this will then effect the type of economics with it associated production of related products. A nation of imbeciles requires products and philosophies to be developed by those with a slightly above average imbecilic interest. Such a situation is self-perpetuating even though progress appears to be taking place because of a routinely practiced activity of embellishment and delivery of such. For example, humans have not improved upon the fundamental products of fire, the wheel or water... they have only embellished them and how they are applied to different delivery-to-consumer systems such as using law to convolute simple systems in order to promote a complicated design to give the impression of innovation, ingenuity and inventiveness.
If today's military and police forces were replaced by ancient Roman soldiers, this would necessarily entail the need for altering social practices and the prevailing system of economics. Likewise, if we want a better system of economics, we have to alter the government in order that the employment positions of police officers and military personnel will also require them to have a better perspective. But we are up against an array of multiple perspectives (government, business, religious, entertainment, journalistic, scientific, tradition, etc.,) which act as impediments to progress beyond the ridiculous systems of government and economics we have. Historical progress has frequently been shown to exhibit a lineage of death, destruction, and disease. But not always. Progress also occurs by animated and dynamic alterations caused by ideological renovations... so long as fundamental needs are attended to. Change is easier if benefits can be outlined and there is no disruption in one's basic needs, or if a temporary disruption is attended to by everyone's participation in making a useful adjustment. Nonetheless, some people do not like to make changes. They are prone to stresses brought about by even the smallest or any prolonged disruption in their life's routine. Some people need to have their hands held while others are more likely to exercise traditions of behavior related to superstition, such as whistling, looking from side to side, or walking down the middle of an unfamiliar path. However, others will run, mingle with a group, carry some weapon or analyze or sketch out observations in their trek, if not harboring a more fearless spirit by venturing into depths of individually perceived pathways though others are urging them to stay with everyone else.
With respect to someone living in the United States, if they want to place blame on something or someone for persistently recurring social ills, it is best that they turn their spotting scope towards the Republic formula of governance being practiced under the falsified pretense of being a democracy. The form of Capitalism being practiced is that which will best perpetuate the illusion, the delusion, the lie. A more honest governing practice would necessitate the usage of a more honest economics and accompanying business environment. Religious belief does not generate the necessary level of honesty because it too is the practice of story-telling born in different eras of illiteracy, ignorance, and imagination used as a substitute for experience, knowledge, intelligence and wisdom.
There is no overriding public philosophy by which the production of products must abide with, except for manufacturing ideologies being subjected to generalized laws of specificity dealing with the creation of harmful products, theft of another's (product) idea, or usage for criminal activity. While some instances of production are subjected to alternative forms of regulation such as guarding against over-production in certain industries, or under-production causing needless shortages which can bring increased profits because of a generally sustained demand, or production controls by regulation in order that a government can better use a given product for bartering leverage amongst other nations, price controls, and various other manifested (eminent domain) ownership assumptions; the larger "global open market" is not specifically operated with the philosophical incentive known as altruism. At present, there is a generalize principal that a product can be produced so long as there is a demand for the product and the producers abide by local laws... which are sometimes stretched and skewed from time to time. And this is irrespective if the public disagrees with the provisions or subsidies that are afforded a given company. Whereas a company may contribute to an overall abundance of pollution, they alone are not a significant contributor. They are viewed as an isolated incident and not as part of a whole system. Such is the general philosophy of business from which a given model of economics is adapted to.
Granted there are those companies that do not contribute, per sey, to the larger instances of air, water, soil, produce, diary or farm animal (such as artificial Hormone) pollutions. Yet, their very existence of operation accounts for the perpetuation of a given type of economics which helps to sustain the type of social governance in which multiple social issues arise and are not adequately dealt with because they are symptoms... like the concentric circles which arise out of a disturbance in a body of water whose point of origination is deflected, diffracted, refracted, and reflected off of other social protuberances which are difficult to see past, around, over, or through; thus making it possible for multiple forms of misperception to occur. For example, the lack of a job (perhaps due to non-marketable skills, available training, or advanced education opportunities), as well as identified instances of poor working conditions (no workplace oversight or inspection), a non-living wage (dependent on costs in a given location), etc... whether or not they occur to oneself or other workers being identified with; can cause such occurrences to be interpreted as the result of a lousy economic's model such as Capitalism... instead of Capitalism being used as a mindless victim by a business community whose whims are indulged in by a government whose underlying philosophy tries to persist in maintaining a dysfunctionality because it practices a web of lies.
Indeed, the lack of a democracy being practiced by the U.S. government which actually practices a Republic (Representative) government headed by a moving target or "changing hands" form of Plutocratic-Aristocracy under the guise of a pronounced assertion that it is a democracy; should be cause enough for the public to bring a "Class Action Democracy" against it in order to force it to practice what it preaches... since it has convinced a seemingly unwary system of public education to teach generations of citizens to believe in such an hypocrisy. It is an hypocrisy which permits a particular brand of Capitalism to prosper with varying regards for the effects such a practice has on the well-being of the public. A public that is continually subjected to a way of life whose meaning and direction they must defer to the judgments of a few siding with those whose profit margins do not include the profitability of the entire species to prosper equally, judiciously nor with the liberty to be truly free.
Capitalism is a product poorly designed, poorly produced, and is provided with no guarantees nor insurance of assurance except to perpetuate a system of governance practiced as a lie. If the U.S. government truly was a government Of, By and For the people, then its Constitution and Bill of Rights would avow the testament to a practiced standard of being committed to an Actual Democracy, and not some phoney Representative ("Demo") model. But under the current form of governance, the Collective Will of the people do not matter, and they should be collectively outraged to be forced into the servitude of a gross 'misjustice'. From every street corner, in all workplace conversations, in all personal ads, and backyard across-the-fence discussion, the claim to a right for having a New Government, a Cenocracy, should be said out-loud. Let this be the collective voice of reason as a premise to a developing dialectic exceeding all previous social reforms.
The design of the New Economics does not yet have a blueprint from which to review and outline parameters to be adopted, since it will evolve as the practice of an Actual Communism, Democracy or/and Socialism does (or something altogether new)... both (government and economic models) that are intended to trespass the boundaries of expectations advanced in prosposals of previous sociological/government/ economic enlightenments; which had no parallel former illustrations from which a description of themselves could be ideally recognized. Both shall be new identities producing a synthesis that may be surmised, but altogether insufficient in its appraised details. However, by using the previously stated exposition of three key economic questions cast into the framework of being three key government questions, we might presupposed a relative appreciation:
Three New Government (Cenocracy) Questions
One of the "other" questions involves the means by which the disenfranchisement of the majority of citizens can be re-enfranchised to a social system of governance which ideally belongs to them. Since the present three-branch model of the American system negates the ability of the majority from participating as a desperately needed checks -and-balances provision, steps will need to be taken which permits the public to have its own branch of Legislative prowess in charge of an established forum for public discussion and referendum voting. Along with the prowess will be alterations in the Constitution which forces the role of government to ensure an Actual model of governance (be it Communism, Democracy, Socialism, or whatever), and that it is to the Will of the People that all functions of government are answerable. For example, because of the vagaries of change, and that such changes can not be readily nor flexibly adapted to by the mere bureaucratic practices of Constitutional Amendment processes, it is rather non-sensical for the people to be subjected to such a system which denies them their right to correct faults and dysfunctions in the government when government assignments such as the Supreme Court are answerable to a representation of antiquated public thought instead of actual present and future thoughts in living beings. Traditions should begin with the basic needs of those living today and not with the maintenance of ideas postulated on behalf of those having passed from this world. If the basic needs of those living today must defer to the maintenance of tradition of beliefs held by those in the past, then this little more than a reversed Ponzi scheme used by a few to support their acquired personal relevance by various acquiesences supplied by the majority.
The people of any present, can not fully commit themselves and the whole of their stock of resources to fulfilling the challenges of the future exacerbated by incremental diminishments due to environmental decay from which we are unable to obstruct the course of, though it may be temporarily slowed; if a disproportion of people and other resources are committed... because of governing traditions, to the maintenance and embellished perpetuation of those traditions instead of adequately fulfilling even the most basic needs for the people living today... and by the assessment of those living today... and not those serving a government with antiquated standards which effect varying forms of self-governing ostracism.
Again and again and again we must pronounce a "recognized acknowledgment" concerning the expertise of an avowed stupidity applied to the presumed distinction of obviousness for placing blame on Capitalism as if it were an adopted criminal exercise which produces the standards under which social ills arise; instead of paying witness to it as much a victim of an insidious dysfunctionality of governance which requires a particular model of a given economic brand to be used as a tool or weapon with which a given dysfunctionality of governing design can further the underlying motives of those who harbor some controlling position therein. Economic models are chosen in the manner of functionality to which they are adoptively applied because they serve the contrivances of ineptness inherent is systems of government that are widely noted as being falsifications of the greater ideal to which their namesake supposedly endeavors. Hence, the lies perpetrated in using a falsification of Democracy as that being practiced in America, Britain and elsewhere, is readily seen in the falsifications of promise that their systems of economics are used in an attempt to overshadow, and thus conceal the advanced forms of social charades they promote.
The people can not have an economy directed towards the purpose of helping to create better social conditions when its actual design is otherwise directed with an intent to perpetuate a governing system in charge of the economic game plan whose underlying agendas are a mere distorted facsimile of a Communism, Democracy or Socialism. Such systems of governance are formulas in word but not in deed. And they need to practice economic models which best suit superficial expressions and of such governances, or else wise become confronted by situations which demand adopting measures of full-fledged expressions thereof. If the people want a more trustworthy economy they must have a government whose functionality is dependent on such a formula of economics. It can not be dependent on a vicarious, surrogate model in the form of tax rates that can not be sustained if the economic model is frivolous and ill-disposed to the public. It can not practice the hypocrisy of expecting the citizenry to be self-sufficient and not dependent on it, while it is dependent on the public's taxes and an economic system configured with a dependency on other Nations goods and services.
Regurgitating old economic models with different labels and different orchestrations by different people does not make them new. Just because the application is broadened, selectively isolated, or subjected to variances of multiplicity to suggest an adaptiveness akin to an evolved formula, does not mean a New Government is at the helm in the seas of a different era. If a New Economics is truly desired for the benefit of the people, then this must be preceded by a New Government, a Cenocracy.