but there is still some market capitalism and profit to be had to assume risk and investment
When socialism assumes the risk, it’s because that product serves s need in a society. It would seem outside of that (legitimate need), it’s a want that drives mindless and destructive consumerism, from my perspective. I can’t think of any product or service outside that scope, but I’m listening.
Hard to know if pc or smart phone proliferation or widespread internet access as an example would’ve ever occurred in that alternative universe, and who is the arbiter of determining what is such a need versus luxury?
At the same time will one argue these aren’t needs, but mass communication and aggregation of all human knowledge at our fingertips is certainly the next step from the Gutenberg Press. Liberation of communication and knowledge to masses certainly is pursuant to a need in my mind, yeah?
Such things weren’t necessarily known needs until they manifested through innovation in the first place, right?
But should we all simply revert back to Hunter-gatherering aborigines with the lowest impact possible?
So maybe we get phones and games and musical instruments; but just lower the ceiling a bit as other nations with the highest life satisfaction in the world have shown can be done. That’s the other nice thing about mirroring these models; they’re actually tangible and proven to work at a nation-state scale.
Might certain inventions or discoveries become so positively consequential to society they become nationalized and in the public domain? Take starlink for example, or 5G cellular that gives rural and city access alike to communication and knowledge and therefore potential and opportunity.
I’m not going to argue against any of that. The least wealthy should have access to sports, theatre, symphony, art exhibition, both as participants and spectators, once basic needs are met. Clothing even. The same factories producing the most expensive goods produce the least expensive, and those factory workers and society can benefit from it as much as the designer slapping a label, ostentatious or subtle, and fire exits can be unblocked. If needs on the lowest level of Maslow’s heirarcy of needs remain unmet, that’s the starting point, then onward and upward. People in Iran and California should absolutely have clean drinking water, unpolluted earth for food production. Tuna and sea turtles deserve a clean, cool enough to survive habitat. Air should be breathable. The world is abundant enough to meet every need; but not every greed.
Sounds good to me! I think people get nervous when they hear only “needs” and not necessarily wants or desires. If I understand you correctly, needs and wants can both be fulfilled — within reason, of course. No billionaires for starters.
When socialism assumes the risk, it’s because that product serves s need in a society. It would seem outside of that (legitimate need), it’s a want that drives mindless and destructive consumerism, from my perspective. I can’t think of any product or service outside that scope, but I’m listening.
Hard to know if pc or smart phone proliferation or widespread internet access as an example would’ve ever occurred in that alternative universe, and who is the arbiter of determining what is such a need versus luxury?
At the same time will one argue these aren’t needs, but mass communication and aggregation of all human knowledge at our fingertips is certainly the next step from the Gutenberg Press. Liberation of communication and knowledge to masses certainly is pursuant to a need in my mind, yeah?
Such things weren’t necessarily known needs until they manifested through innovation in the first place, right?
But should we all simply revert back to Hunter-gatherering aborigines with the lowest impact possible?
I guess in my mind we all have musical instruments or video games our toys be it dirt bikes, etc., which are certainly luxuries of the modern era. The constraints should of course be limited by whether we can (a) take care of the poorest amongst us, (b) be the best stewards of our environment as we can, and © ensure justice and equality is applied to all.
So maybe we get phones and games and musical instruments; but just lower the ceiling a bit as other nations with the highest life satisfaction in the world have shown can be done. That’s the other nice thing about mirroring these models; they’re actually tangible and proven to work at a nation-state scale.
Might certain inventions or discoveries become so positively consequential to society they become nationalized and in the public domain? Take starlink for example, or 5G cellular that gives rural and city access alike to communication and knowledge and therefore potential and opportunity.
I’m not going to argue against any of that. The least wealthy should have access to sports, theatre, symphony, art exhibition, both as participants and spectators, once basic needs are met. Clothing even. The same factories producing the most expensive goods produce the least expensive, and those factory workers and society can benefit from it as much as the designer slapping a label, ostentatious or subtle, and fire exits can be unblocked. If needs on the lowest level of Maslow’s heirarcy of needs remain unmet, that’s the starting point, then onward and upward. People in Iran and California should absolutely have clean drinking water, unpolluted earth for food production. Tuna and sea turtles deserve a clean, cool enough to survive habitat. Air should be breathable. The world is abundant enough to meet every need; but not every greed.
Sounds good to me! I think people get nervous when they hear only “needs” and not necessarily wants or desires. If I understand you correctly, needs and wants can both be fulfilled — within reason, of course. No billionaires for starters.