participatory economics...Could it EVER work?

Not a titter huh?...ok then.

I'd love such a system.

Me too...but the question is, could people adapt to such a system, how would we get it started, and how many would have to die to make it happen?

It could never be put into play with the mindset this world has.

The people with the most control over such economic plans would never approve.

The people with the most money and power would never approve, because their jobs are "low risk".

It'd turn our current world on it's side, and the world would suddenly make sense... That won't work.

HAHA! Good point!

@Big Jon
could people adapt to such a system? of course
how would we get it started? this looks like it a little
and how many would have to die to make it happen? it's the number of game players on main stage ;)

@-Anti--
"It could never be put into play with the mindset this world has." - that is too strong to say.

"The people with the most control over such economic plans would never approve." - you're right.

"The people with the most money and power would never approve, because their jobs are 'low risk'." - "high risk" might be a better understood term.

"It'd turn our current world on it's side, and the world would suddenly make sense... That won't work." i'll take me tea hat off for sense.

would Be nIce...
bUt...
Same cHAnce foR tHat as For coMMunisM oR fRee maRket cApiTalisM...
sory...
We neeD to get oUr coLlectiv Head froM ouR coLLectiW aRseS
anD starT treAting onE anOther aS Equal Human BeingS-)

unTiL tHen...



nD A

it worked quite well for at least a thousand years for the
early sumerian civilizations under the guidance of
the priestesses of the temple of the moon, . .then
came the solar/phallus worshiping tribes of the
warrior god cults interested only in ravaging the
wealth and abundance and supplanting a slavery based
trickle down system of economics.

Give me a break - firefighters already make too much!

No, its often the private construction trade that has high risk and lower pay. Compare that to a fucking banker!

Yeah, our hierarchical society sucks for 90% doesn't it.

moRe liKe foR 100% oF uS...
u tHinK that 1% on tHe toP nJoy...tHey liVe iN fEAr as resT 99%...diFerenT feAR buT saMe sTaTe of MinD...

I dont THINK it could work. I KNOW it could work.

Paticipatory economics is a great system of economy and an excellent way to establish and maintain wealth equality in any nation.

Yes, I believe it's time for a planned rather than a haphazard economy.

Here are my thoughts from a different thread.

-----------

I don't think anyone can deny that capitalism has allowed a great deal of creative enterprise and choice to flourish, but sometimes it gets to be a bit overkill.

Sometimes the variety of choices for a single item can be overwhelming and bewildering, and often reaches the point of diminishing returns. I'm all for entrepreneurism, but there seems to be little to no planning involved in the market. There are too many goods produces of one kind, and a lot of "stuff" that just isn't necessary, or is even dangerous in it's use of resources and waste production. It's taking us to the brink of devastation and collapse by sucking the natural reserves dry, and it has the population running around in a sort of hamster-wheel of production and consumption.

If there were only some kind of market oversight and planning that took place in the production process.

I liked the idea behind the Venus project, where there was a consumer center where producers could demonstrate their products and the consumers would vote on which products they would like to see produced, rather than so many resources being deployed to just "put stuff out there" and see if it succeeds or fails. It's too wasteful. Think about how many products bomb.. so what if people were "gainfully" employed in the process.. companies should not be such silos, and competition encourages market silos and waste of resources. A managed, planned form of production would result in greater consumer satisfaction, and less waste. Products that are likely to be rejected in the market would be "failed" in the prototype stage rather than completing the entire market cycle and ending up in the junk pile in the end.

Here's a "cut and paste" excerpt that summarizes the idea. Rather than just "failing" this whole plan because you don't buy into the entirety of the concept, we could select the principles that would make sense to deploy in short order.

-----------------


. Fresco argues that the world is rich in natural resources and energy and that, with modern technology and judicious efficiency, the needs of the global population can be met with abundance, while at the same time removing the current limits of what is deemed possible because of notions of economic viability.
Fresco provides an example of this confusion in the following quote:
"At the beginning of World War II the U.S. had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war."[16]
Fresco states that for this to work, all of Earth's resources must be held as the common heritage of all people and not just a select few; and the practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to the survival of human civilization.
One of the key points in Fresco’s solution is that without the conditions created in a monetary system, vast amounts of resources would not be wasted unproductively.[17] Instead Fresco’s contention is that without the waste of resources on ends that would become irrelevant there would be no scarcity of necessary products such as food and education.

i disagree.

the whole point of the market is satisfy the wants/needs of the individual.

who are you or a group of people to say what is good or bad for the individual?

only i know what i want and only i can act on that thought in my mind to attain that end.

the reason we are so wasteful is because we have a third party - government - getting involved with their special privilages for some & punishment for others by way of regulations and a tax code which stifles any productivity.

until we realise this and deal with it then worse than what we are experiencing now.

What you are advocating is a one size fits all system which is the mantra of socialists past and present.

And as for scarcity, its a fact of life and thats another reason why the market economy exists. Its deals with scarcity in the most efficient and cost effective manner - to the demands of the consumers.

There is no such thing as 'overkill' in a capitalist society, because the consumers will deal with that by not buying that good or service.

What you are calling for is dangerous to individual liberty and humanity as a whole.

I gotta go to work, back to this later this evening.

Bump

1. who assesses the value?

2. ok... so now firefighters make the most money. That means firefighters would then have the most power. Then firefighters would start to bend all the laws to favor firefighters. Same shit.

OK.. I want to share an example from our office Xmas party last Friday.

The training and development team had us all participate in a little team building game, wherein each table was given the same limited raw resources, and asked to design a container for a raw egg that would enable it to withstand a drop from 8 feet without breaking. That was it.. no additional rules. Everyone had to work by the same stopwatch.

After the game was over, and each design was tested, only two eggs out of the five tables survived the drop.

Then came the post-game analysis, the psychology of what had just happened.

Several assumptions were made by the participants in regards to "rules" that were not actually stated.

Assumptions:

1. This was a competitive game. Each table was competing against the other tables to see which one would "win."

2. There was to be no sharing of ideas or resources, nor brainstorming between the various tables.

These false assumptions that were held be the employees resulted in an unsatisfactory number of broken eggs. Clearly some designs were better than others.

As the group facilitators pointed out, when we have competition in the workplace, it doesn't always result in the best outcomes overall. When employees feel as though their competing with others for promotions, recognition, etc.. they tend NOT to share ideas that might benefit the company as a whole. The fact is, if everyone had cooperated by sharing resources and pooling ideas, EVERYONE could have "won."

But what happened instead was a lot of wasted time and resources, and broken eggs, that could have been used for an omelet.

I like the idea of worker self-determined enterprises (WSDE's for short). They combine both cooperative and capitalistic principles successfully, when done right - Mondragon corporation is a great example. I only wish there were more in the US, I would very much like to work at/own part of such an enterprise. I checked out the growing list at DemocracyAtWork.info, but there aren't any yet in my neck of the woods. If I had the start up capital, I'd start one myself, but alas, I'm broke.