Transition: This topic should be on fire!!!
If ever there were a more important question I fail to discern it. How do we get from here to there? What tools are needed to transition from this current economy to an RBE? It's one thing to devise an optimal economic ideology and quite another to devise a strategy to implement it. If an economic strategy fails to incorporate ekistics, it will fail. If an ekistic solution fails to incorporate economics it will fail. We must begin to understand how the two inform each other.
I think we are lucky there is even a 'Transition' Topic !
For many years the very idea was considered taboo, and folk into that sort of things was expunged with almost religious fever.
> How do we get from here to there?
A couple of avenues spring to mind:
If one is able to make a million or two, then one could retire from the effort of making money and focus on more useful projects.
Saving money helps to reduce how long it is till one can retire. :-)
I'm aiming to save money by having a solar vehicle, so I don't have to spend money on fuel.
Making money though, is quite difficult and I can't say I have many answers on how to do that one !
> What tools are needed to transition from this current economy to an RBE?
One of the first tools I might suggest is an efficient and reliable communication system, as the moment trying to communicate with each other is pretty difficult with forums going up and down like yoyo's and useful information ending up lost.
Another perhaps, neglected aspect of tools is, a better understanding of human behaviour and its limitations.
For example, you don't generally get a million people rushing out and start doing the right thing, or we would be there already.
So, even though there are millions of people who could do that, but aren't, what can we get folk to do, and how ?
Transition Towns is perhaps a good example of a group that seems to better understand how to get folk to do something, even if its not very much.
But one group that did a lot is Occupy Sandy:
But I haven't found out yet what their special ingredients are, and digging into other successful organisations, I have yet to figure out much of what you do to become a successful group and get folk to work on projects.
One might also say that Universal Basic Income could be a tool that would allow folk to retire and work on important projects without having to work all their waking hours just to keep a roof over their heads.
To me it's not just about making money. I wish to demonstrate that a properly designed ekistic system operating in a social capitalist model will have an enormous competitive advantage over entities using the currently predominant model. My goal with that is to get others to adopt the model eventually making it ecumincal in the sense of definition 1 of Merriam Webster on line.
Can you describe some of the more central Differences between our current Capitalist model and what you call a Social Capitalist model?
How do we get there? We could begin by introducing and 'practicing' tolerance, acceptance and kindness toward everyone....and of course; we could start condemning GREED, HATE and INTOLERANCE with every opportunity and despite personal risks....
We could......? ...but we won't....
Social Capitalism is an emerging business model so be forewarned that my definition is only an opinion. I don't pretend to be the sole definer.
Originally Posted by Ernest
Business law mandates that corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholders value without regards to the social consequences.In this model, the social consequences are deemed externalities. An externality is a cost or benefit to a third party that did not choose to incur that cost or benefit. This mandate means that businesses organized for profit must, within the framework of the law take each and every action to realize a profit. Joel Bakan, the author of "The Corporation" likens them to zombies. The subtitle of his book is "The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.
A corporation organized as a social welfare organization under 501(c)4 with a mission statement to achieve a public benefit is alleviated of that mandated and is restricted from excess benefits. In my model of social capitalism, the enterprise would be organized as such with each member of the corporation owning one share. It's mission statement would be develop and implement a system of ekistics that minimizes mankind's carbon footprint.
So, in my model, social capitalism is when the means of production are socially owned and the purpose of the organization is either to achieve a public benefit or to benefit the organization with consideration for public consequences.
> each member of the corporation owning one share.
Is that share transferable ?
Does it expire ?
Is it only available to people who are employed by the corporation ?
What is the definition of a member ?
> Business law mandates that corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholders value without regards to the social consequences.
Do they, I never read that before, do you happen to have any links about that.
I always thought businesses was compelled by competition to maximise profit simply because if they didn't, their competition would and thus put them out of business by offering a cheaper product which the consumer would buy instead.
A member is a shareholder. I use the terms to distinguish between this and the current model. An employee is one who is used as a corporation needs them and sent packing when it is no longer profitable to retain them. A corporation of this nature would not use people like that. For example, once automation made their position redundant, the corporation would find other work for them. If enough people were idle it would be advisable to launch other enterprises to make good use of their time.
Originally Posted by YouTuber
Good questions, thank you for asking.