Stakeholder Capitalism in opposition to Shareholder Capitalism

 
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  109
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
01 September 2020 08:44
 

A very interesting modern and more practical alternative to Socialism is Shareholder Capitalism.  Check out this article and comment whether
you agree or disagree with the authors premise.

https://complexsystems.org/576/shareholder-capitalism-vs-stakeholder-capitalism/

 
 
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  109
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
01 September 2020 14:58
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3147
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
04 September 2020 00:15
 

Simply for guaranteeing a minimum function of infrastructure, banking, food supply and transport, housing etc., a basic level Socialism is what is needed to harden societies for crises: we need a backbone of companies that operate on a “requirement to provide” services instead of profit maximization, and that requires state funding.

 
 
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  109
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
04 September 2020 02:02
 
Twissel - 04 September 2020 12:15 AM

Simply for guaranteeing a minimum function of infrastructure, banking, food supply and transport, housing etc., a basic level Socialism is what is needed to harden societies for crises: we need a backbone of companies that operate on a “requirement to provide” services instead of profit maximization, and that requires state funding.

Interesting… is this referring to funding States from the Federal level or providing intra-State funding to the ‘backbone’ of companies?

My understanding of a more contemporary Socialist response to a multitude of attacks on Shareholder [Global] Capitalism, which is a competitive and fragile economic model, is to begin to form sustainable local economies within each State by encouraging the recirculation of dollars locally [Ethical Consumerism].  By reinvesting in local businesses the flow of a persons dollars can stay within the local economy and recirculate up to 7 times before it returns to the global economic base [‘Slow Money’ concept].  An example might be at a Farmers Market a person buys carrots, and that carrot vendor uses the dollars to buy eggs from another vendor and that vendor does the same.  The result might be a more resilient / robust economy able to withstand crises better.  Over time the sustainable local economies could form sustainable regionalism which could then cross-pollinate with other regions doing the same.  An example of this might be redesigning transportation / freighting to meet the demand for the food system and eventually expand this model of using sustainable principles to include commerce.  This would give global connectivity the particular purpose of making the system (or market economy) sustainable by enacting sustainable polices / laws; like say an Eco Tax. But for this to happen it must be initiated in the reverse as described; first Internationally (applying to all International Companies that have no regard to the value of ‘sustainable regionalism’) and then apply the Eco Tax Regionally and finally to the sustainable local economies or small businesses in which it pertains.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3147
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
04 September 2020 04:42
 

You can do “buy local”, but you have to “think global”, too.
There are some very cool vertical agriculture companies that have set up in old skyscrapers that can supply the big city they are actually in, thereby eliminating a lot of transport and vulnerable bottlenecks.
Buy local for stuff that is hard to ship is clearly the right thing to do.

BUT.

For most products, buying them from a developing nation is one of the best ways you can support the economic development of said nation, and with it the standard of living of the workers. And the faster underdeveloped nations escape poverty, the faster they reduce their rate of reproduction, increase level of education and reduce environmental footprint.
Trying to buy green locally can and does lead to more pollution elsewhere.


What I am thinking of is a principle of the States’ obligation to protect its citizens, not just from war but also from dramatic shock due to disaster, climate change or cyberwar, as well as making sure they can be competent market participants.
For example, every State needs a state-supported bank that is required to give everyone an account, so they can be part of the legal economy.
Nowadays, everyone should be able to have a cheap smartphone and budget cell plan, because, again, you can’t be part of today’s economy without.
Public transport should be cheap. Basic housing should be, too.
The state might have to take a stake-hold in the power grid, cell tower grid and to avoid the embarrassing blackouts that are caused by private companies not being willing/able to keep the infrastructure functioning.


All of this might sound like socialism, but it is actually just setting up the playing field for Capitalism to function properly: any entrance barrier to participate in the market is decidedly anti-capitalistic.

[ Edited: 04 September 2020 04:44 by Twissel]
 
 
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  109
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
04 September 2020 06:06
 

Take Fair Trade International and Fair Trade USA.  If market demand for both Fair Trade certified products were to increase it might bring together the two divisions again??

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8176
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
06 September 2020 08:07
 

twissel:

All of this might sound like socialism, but it is actually just setting up the playing field for Capitalism to function properly: any entrance barrier to participate in the market is decidedly anti-capitalistic.

Are you making the radical claim that in order for economies to flourish consumers must be financially healthy enough to purchase goods?  big surprise

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  358
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
06 September 2020 10:30
 
Twissel - 04 September 2020 04:42 AM

All of this might sound like socialism, but it is actually just setting up the playing field for Capitalism to function properly: any entrance barrier to participate in the market is decidedly anti-capitalistic.

In another thread we were discussing the differences between capitalism and free markets.  I would point out that barrier’s to entry aren’t anti-capitalistic, they’re anti-free market.  Capitalism is the organization of the economy/political structure around ownership, and barriers to entry actually protect the status quo on ownership.

Moving more to the point of this thread, one of the major economic barriers are state borders.  The US has gone a long way towards making the flow of goods over borders fairly free, but it has not opened up borders to people.  In contrast, Europe has made huge gains in opening up their borders to both goods AND people.  The UK had a backlash to the latter, but for as long as I can remember US-based economists have been predicting the downfall of Europe’s economy, but it has actually grown significantly and maintained one of the dominant positions in the world.  One theory is that by opening up their borders to the movement of people they have both improved the living conditions of hundreds of millions of people, but also increased productivity and competitive advantage.  Companies don’t have to relocate to other countries, they can just attract new workers.  Countries with aging populations don’t have engage in massive debt spending IF they can attract a new younger workforce.  Germany is a wealthy country that continues to be a manufacturing powerhouse… and they’ve also taken in millions of immigrants, something close to 1/5 of their population are immigrants.

Open borders also encourage states to be more responsive to the needs of their inhabitants, otherwise they’ll leave for greener pastures.

 
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  109
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
06 September 2020 10:56
 

If in transitioning from Shareholder Capitalism to Stakeholder Capitalism as a response to the new paradigm of the era of Climate Change it could be hypothesized that Shareholder Capitalism was only an intermediary step (developmental stage of our global economy) in reaching the inevitable development of the superior form Stakeholder Capitalism which is in actuality a cooperative model as opposed to a competitive one.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  358
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
06 September 2020 11:06
 

I would caution against such a narrative.  A very large number of narrative views of history and/or economics have been proposed over the millennia and basically all of them have failed due to a lack of imagination on what happens next.  No one has been good at predicting the future yet, and for a narrative view of progress to work, it must be predictive.

It also locks you into a certain explanation, making it harder to accept information outside of that explanation.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3147
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
06 September 2020 11:12
 
weird buffalo - 06 September 2020 10:30 AM
Twissel - 04 September 2020 04:42 AM

All of this might sound like socialism, but it is actually just setting up the playing field for Capitalism to function properly: any entrance barrier to participate in the market is decidedly anti-capitalistic.

In another thread we were discussing the differences between capitalism and free markets.  I would point out that barrier’s to entry aren’t anti-capitalistic, they’re anti-free market.  Capitalism is the organization of the economy/political structure around ownership, and barriers to entry actually protect the status quo on ownership.

Moving more to the point of this thread, one of the major economic barriers are state borders.  The US has gone a long way towards making the flow of goods over borders fairly free, but it has not opened up borders to people.  In contrast, Europe has made huge gains in opening up their borders to both goods AND people.  The UK had a backlash to the latter, but for as long as I can remember US-based economists have been predicting the downfall of Europe’s economy, but it has actually grown significantly and maintained one of the dominant positions in the world.  One theory is that by opening up their borders to the movement of people they have both improved the living conditions of hundreds of millions of people, but also increased productivity and competitive advantage.  Companies don’t have to relocate to other countries, they can just attract new workers.  Countries with aging populations don’t have engage in massive debt spending IF they can attract a new younger workforce.  Germany is a wealthy country that continues to be a manufacturing powerhouse… and they’ve also taken in millions of immigrants, something close to 1/5 of their population are immigrants.

Open borders also encourage states to be more responsive to the needs of their inhabitants, otherwise they’ll leave for greener pastures.


State Borders are bad.

What is worse is when you allow the free flow of capital and goods, but NOT the free flow of labor.