Bridges Between Us

• It is a known fact that unbridled capitalism leads to concentration of wealth, resources, and power in the hands of a few, exploitation of workers and producers, disenfranchisement and disempowerment of the populace, stifling of competition, increase in poverty, and widespread social malaise. Thus, over the past century, regulated capitalism has tapped the drivers of productivity and innovation that are associated with capitalism – such as profit motive, self-fulfillment, and other evolutionary inherent human motivators – while mitigating and controlling the negative trajectories of capitalistic processes. And over the past century regulated capitalism has shown itself to be superior to other systems, particularly socialism, when considering the combination of productivity, innovation, social well-being, and societal advancement. To what extent the victory of regulated capitalism over socialism was achieved through fair practices and to what extent subversions and other unfair practices played a part may be a point of debate for some or many. But the fact remains that regulated capitalism has been shown to be superior, and pouting about that will benefit no-one.

• Regulated capitalism, with all its faults, is still the best economic system that we have and very likely can have in the near future. This includes the numerous variants on regulated-capitalist systems across the world – such as the blend of free-market capitalism with government regulation and social programs in the U.S., social democracies with greater functions of the welfare states in Europe, and state-run capitalist economies of China and some other countries. But should we be satisfied with the current systems and be relatively passive towards the slow evolutions and changes among these variants of regulated capitalism with the assumption that superior variants will take hold and be adopted where best applicable? Or should we take a more active stance, try to identify an appropriate path forward, and, to the extent we can, nudge and push social transformations along that path. This is a very important question that all of us, with the help of experts, need to address.

• An argument for a more active stance is implicated by the statement “regulated-capitalism, with all its faults, is still the best economic system”; these faults in our current systems have serious negative consequences and thus more robust efforts to transitions to less faulty systems (which may still be some form of regulated capitalism) seems to be logical. Perhaps regulated capitalism is like having a rhinoceros pull your cart instead of a horse where you are always needing to crack the whip on either side because the rhino can turn around and charge at you at any time – the rhinoceros and horse in this analogy represent human beings’ internal drives.

• Consider also the facts that during the past 50 years we have seen the replacement of socialists economies by regulated-capitalisms, various transitions within regulated systems as to forms and extents of government and private sector involvement, substantial expansion of the non-profit sector, rapid technological advancements, substantially improved healthcare capabilities, and continued increase in production. During the same 50 years, there has also been a concentrating of wealth unto fewer people, widening disparities between the rich and the poor, widening disparities in income and in consumption capacities, several shocks to the markets, increased polarization of the population with substantial vitriol and violence, growing discontent with the economy and government among large sections of the population, outbreaks and continuations internationals conflicts and wars, a rise in racism, intolerance, and demagoguery, and a growing fear in the population about where the current trajectories in society are leading it to. Civil societies and governments are trying to grasp and address these concerns while needing to navigate through a shifting geopolitical landscape, a changed set of global rivals, continuing buildup of arms capable of mass annihilation, changes in impact potentials of various players, changes in social interactions and social dynamics brought on by technological advances, and new or changed impending threats. How all of these matters play out will, for better or for worse, and to some degree or a substantial degree, be impacted by the existent socio-economic systems.

• In my view (the view of one ordinary citizen, who is concerned, and who tries to find out what experts and knowledgeable persons are saying about these things), the path forward should not be to drastically, or even substantially, replace regulated capitalism, market driven production, private ownership, and profit motive with alternative such as wide-scale transitions to public sector production, meticulous wage determination, or radical curtailment of wealth accumulation, whether or not such alternatives are potentiated by popular will and political power. The path forward should be enable alternatives to competitively update and, where indicated, replace current production and distribution processes – where and to the extent those alternatives prove to be, are seen to be, and are accepted to be better in terms of productivity, innovation, social well being of the populace, as well as social advancement – all being considered together. Thus, it is important to ensure a fair playing field where alternatives that are actually better are able to take root and thrive. It is important to encourage, support, and facilitate the search for, development, and controlled experimentation of alternatives and their monitored adoption and expansion if they do prove to be better. Along this path, more aggressive steps should of course be considered and implemented, when and where needed, to mitigate or redress rapidly evolving threats. However, in general, steps along this path can include:
  • Actively ensuring the robust presence and functioning of the government, the private sector, and the non-profit sector, as three parallel and coordinated modes for production and service delivery. As representatives of the entire populace, all traditional government functions such as societal governance, legislation and law enforcement, national security, should of course remain only in the realm of the government. The government’s robust role of maintaining a social safety net must also be preserved. However, services, social programs, as well as manufacturing, should have relevant involvement of all three sectors, to varying and changing degrees predicated on productivity, quality, innovativeness, efficiency, alignment with public needs, desires, and demands for the products and services, and the impacts on societal as well as employee wellbeing. Guided by these predicates, the changing and changeable infrastructure should encompass experimentation, piloting, adoption, and expansion.
  • Reviewing and reforming government organizational structures, policies, and procedures and making evidence-based changes to improve transparency, remove corruption and gaming of the system, ensure accountability, enhance staff performance, and establish management and direction by intellect and commitment to public good.         
  • Facilitating the formation and empowerment of workers unions where there is adversarial situation between labor and management, where there is relevant disconnect between the means of production and the producers, where there is limited employees’ influence and control over work related policies, particularly related to wages, benefits, and work related processes, where employees are not integral and mobile participants in the span of decision making, management, and oversight, and where there is lack of standardized and broadly accepted policies and procedures that negate the need for unionization.
  • Developing, implementing, and expanding evidence-based policies and programs to support small entrepreneurship startups, partnerships, cooperatives, and establishing them as sustained components in the production chain, metered by productivity, quality, innovativeness, efficiency, impacts on societal well-being.
  • Robust policies and support from government and efforts from civil society to substantially expand the presence of the non-profit sector in service delivery and manufacturing. Such expansions should be monitored and tuned by productivity, quality, innovativeness, efficiency, and impacts on societal well-being. Government actions in this regard should include Targeted grants and loans, tax incentives, opportunities for public and non-public partnerships, procurement preferences, and regulatory streamlining. Civil society efforts can include such things as philanthropic and foundational investments, advocacy and awareness generation, the development of collaborative platforms for sharing data, knowledge, and know-how.  
  • Government interventions and actions ensuring that the production potential generated by Artificial Intelligence are not controlled and monopolized by a few corporations. Government oversight and regulations in this regard will be needed to ensure that everyone can affordably and easily access the latest chat-boy models and APIs and large data resources (including appropriately reflective synthetic ones, where needed).  Government oversight and regulations will also be needed to prevent the AI development and marketing resulting in increasing accumulation of economic, political, and social power by a few individuals, the stifling of competition, and the thwarting innovation arising from the populace.
  • Iteratively developed and robust steps to reduce the societal wealth gap through income taxes, estate taxes, and corporate taxes with dedicated and compulsory reinvestment of substantial parts of additional revenues, through grants, loans, trainings, research, subsidies, and other means, to increase overall productive enterprising. There should be continuous monitoring and tuning of these policies’ net effects on productivity and innovation.
  • Maintaining well administered means-tested programs for food, housing, transport, and childcare support tied with support, training, and requirements for productive engagement, wherever appropriate, and the transitioning off from support.

References that likely support these ideas:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QPrmjEmFt6IvxbkY17ptmktlSmZgQaIF/view?usp=sharing