A
anon65111186
Guest
Go in peace
- Status
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
ŠŃŠ¾ŃŠ°Š¹ Š¼Š¾Š¹ Š“ŃŃŠ³
M
midori
Guest
No, distributism doesnāt redistribute anything that belongs to someone else.
But it says, āHey, I have a good recipe for baked beans. I think people would buy my baked beans.ā And so you and some of your friends pool your resources, buy a little lot with a metal building on it, and buy the equipment you need to cook and can your beans, and they get distributed into all the local grocery stores in, say, a 200-mile radius. And then you multiply that scenario five hundred times with five hundred other groups of friends who are confident the public would want to buy their baked beans-- and so instead of, say, Bushā s Baked Beans occupying 80% of the baked beans market, and having sales of $400 million, and Van Campās earning $65 million, and Campbellās baked beans earning $20 million, etc, you end up with 500 companies that get the $550 million baked beans market split between them, rather than just five or six companies that split the $550 million bake beans market.
But it says, āHey, I have a good recipe for baked beans. I think people would buy my baked beans.ā And so you and some of your friends pool your resources, buy a little lot with a metal building on it, and buy the equipment you need to cook and can your beans, and they get distributed into all the local grocery stores in, say, a 200-mile radius. And then you multiply that scenario five hundred times with five hundred other groups of friends who are confident the public would want to buy their baked beans-- and so instead of, say, Bushā s Baked Beans occupying 80% of the baked beans market, and having sales of $400 million, and Van Campās earning $65 million, and Campbellās baked beans earning $20 million, etc, you end up with 500 companies that get the $550 million baked beans market split between them, rather than just five or six companies that split the $550 million bake beans market.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Sounds like a bunch of beans to the Old Colonel.
M
midori
Guest
And then you getā¦ these guysā¦ 
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Who decides where the territories are for your baked beans, rather than someone elseās? What happens when Joe Schmo wants to open his little baked beans factory, 20 miles away from one thatās already open. Can he? And who decides the distribution territory? What if Joeās baked beans are bad, and people want their old baked beans? How many more inspectors would we need? How would online ordering mess this up?
T
tafan2
Guest
I am late to the discussion, but I will add a few thoughts. First of all, I would love the US to have a distributionist political party. Distibutism advocates wide spread ownership of property, and the means of production.
It does not need to rule out large corporations per se. But that doesnāt mean that the excesses of having large corporations could not be addressed. We could certainly have a corporate tax code that was progressive based on the size of the company. In effect, take out the incentive for corporations to grow past a certain size. There certainly modern industries that it is hard to imagine them being performed by anything approaching a āsmallā company. But we do not need companies like Amazon getting larger and larger, taking over more and more industries.
We should keep in mind that much of rural America followed a distributionism model until sometime in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Farms were relatively small, and family owned. Someone like myself grew up in one of these communities and even the local businesses were independent and family owned.
The idea of distributionism is not necessarily equal distribution of property/wealth, it is some level of ownership by all.
Corporate employee ownership should be encouraged by our tax structure and regulations.
We can move in the right direction. We are definitely moving in the wrong direction at this time.
It does not need to rule out large corporations per se. But that doesnāt mean that the excesses of having large corporations could not be addressed. We could certainly have a corporate tax code that was progressive based on the size of the company. In effect, take out the incentive for corporations to grow past a certain size. There certainly modern industries that it is hard to imagine them being performed by anything approaching a āsmallā company. But we do not need companies like Amazon getting larger and larger, taking over more and more industries.
We should keep in mind that much of rural America followed a distributionism model until sometime in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Farms were relatively small, and family owned. Someone like myself grew up in one of these communities and even the local businesses were independent and family owned.
The idea of distributionism is not necessarily equal distribution of property/wealth, it is some level of ownership by all.
Corporate employee ownership should be encouraged by our tax structure and regulations.
We can move in the right direction. We are definitely moving in the wrong direction at this time.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Okay ā how big is too big for Apple, Google Microsoft? How high are prices going to go for an iPhone, when Apple can only make, say 500,000 of them. Who is going to decide that? How will government decide that? The idea seems ludicrous in this day and age. The government would have to control everything related to manufacturing, transportation, supply chain, etc.
T
tafan2
Guest
Simply not true. The government would have to decide very little of the details of production. Distributionism would hopefully lead to a much more decentralized economy, not the other. Giant corporations are another form of centralized economics. Granted, they are more efficient than any government version could ever be, but they are that.
A modern economy does not need companies the size of Apple or Amazon. If a company, growing to a larger size, would have to pay a higher percentage of corporate tax, it would reach a point where the share holders would not want growth, they would simply demand income. Nothing wrong with that.
You might be able to make the case that industries such as automobile manufacturing requires very large corporations to be competitive, but certainly not in retail, or in mobile phone production, or many other of the industries. In the 80s and 90s most technological advances were made by companies much smaller than the giant corporations we see today.
I fail to see how anyone can think that Amazon taking over all of the retail industries is good for our society.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
I never said that Amazon is necessary or beneficial, but the remedy may very well be worse than the problem. Plus, donāt worry, Walmart.com may very well take down Amazon.
I donāt understand how Amazon continues to operate itās warehouses (OSHA regulations, if for no other reason).
I donāt understand how Amazon continues to operate itās warehouses (OSHA regulations, if for no other reason).
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
No, I brought up Amazon as an example. But you did it would require the government to control everything related to manufacturing, transportation, supply chain, etc. I am not proposing that at all. I am saying that we need to move to a less centralized corporate model. It seems to me that this would be part of any distributionist policy for American. My point is that a distributionist economy would be completely opposite of what you fear. It would be much more economically libertarian.
Everyone owns some level of their means of production. And no one controls too much (not the government, nor corporate execs).
Everyone owns some level of their means of production. And no one controls too much (not the government, nor corporate execs).
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
But, but, how will it be controlled? I think youāre assuming some kind of wonderful government that maybe doesnāt exist here on this planet.
T
tafan2
Guest
No, I am most certainly not assuming that. I am assuming all governments are flawed, so we want as much control dispersed as possible. The best way to do that is by means of distribution of ownership in society.
But I am not an absolute libertarian. There is a role of any government.
With regards to limiting large corporations: My proposal would be quite simple. If a company has less than X revenue , it is taxed at low rate. As the revenue grows to Y, its tax percentage grows. That continues through a few progressions, and any company reaches a level of revenue such that growth is no longer beneficial to the bottom line.
Look at it this way: we want to encourage free enterprise. Our economy is developing in such a way that there is little room for free enterprise. Can you successfully open a retail store (either online or brick and mortar) today? The likihood is you cannot. Amazon will crush you. You brought up Apple. Can a small group of very talented engineers get together and form a startup and develop the next great mobile device? No, but 20 years ago small companies were leading the way on technical innovation. We have lost that type of free enterprise in a very short period of time.
What about farming? Farms today, albeit still largely family owned, have gotten so large that they work on very small overall margins. It becomes very difficult for a small family farm to earn a reasonable living.
No system will be perfect, but an economic system built around giant corporations does not increase free enterprise, it limits it.
But I am not an absolute libertarian. There is a role of any government.
With regards to limiting large corporations: My proposal would be quite simple. If a company has less than X revenue , it is taxed at low rate. As the revenue grows to Y, its tax percentage grows. That continues through a few progressions, and any company reaches a level of revenue such that growth is no longer beneficial to the bottom line.
Look at it this way: we want to encourage free enterprise. Our economy is developing in such a way that there is little room for free enterprise. Can you successfully open a retail store (either online or brick and mortar) today? The likihood is you cannot. Amazon will crush you. You brought up Apple. Can a small group of very talented engineers get together and form a startup and develop the next great mobile device? No, but 20 years ago small companies were leading the way on technical innovation. We have lost that type of free enterprise in a very short period of time.
What about farming? Farms today, albeit still largely family owned, have gotten so large that they work on very small overall margins. It becomes very difficult for a small family farm to earn a reasonable living.
No system will be perfect, but an economic system built around giant corporations does not increase free enterprise, it limits it.
T
tafan2
Guest
Not only is an economy based upon giant corporations limiting to free enterprise. It is dangerous to the economy. Do we forget ātoo big to failā? Yet today, the 6 largest banks in the US own 67% of all banking assets (ie loans).
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Donāt you think it would be easy enough for Apple or Google to say āoh well, weāll just start another company, headquartered in this state, and we can hire enough lawyers to tie it up in court for years, or hide who really owns it, etcā. So instead of one big Apple, paying a relatively higher tax rate, you might have 20-50 Apples, all paying a lower rate.
Iām just saying our society is now too complex for this.
Plus, just wait until the robots take over, and everything else is outsourced to the lowest bidder.
Iām just saying our society is now too complex for this.
Plus, just wait until the robots take over, and everything else is outsourced to the lowest bidder.
T
tafan2
Guest
No I donāt. Hiding corporate ownership of a big enterprise would not be easy to defeat. And any subsidiaryās revenue would be rolled into the parent corporationās number for the purpose of determining tax rate. Lawyers canāt really tie up corporate tax bills in courts for years.
I will admit, my idea is just one way of doing it. It seems like the least government intrusive to me. I donāt want governments putting any hard limit on any given company /industry and making those type of economic conditions.
I will admit, my idea is just one way of doing it. It seems like the least government intrusive to me. I donāt want governments putting any hard limit on any given company /industry and making those type of economic conditions.
A
anon65111186
Guest
The problem with implementing distributionism is everyone is thinking in terms capitalism and socialism, and donāt realize it really is a third way, a different way of setting up everything. It isnāt a blend of the two or sitting neatly on the spectrum weāve set up, itās on its own spectrum.
The questions on this thread demonstrate this, who will control x, who decides x, how do you divy up land? etc
There hasnāt been anything like distributionism in America so thatās the only way we know how to think.
Obviously we all can agree that if you had to choose, capitalism is better than socialism but that doesnāt make capitalism good, only the best weāve tried. Distributionism is better than capitalism, but we havenāt tried it fully in America.
Usually the opponents of Capitilism were only communists or socialists, because they thought that better, when actually it was worse. New opponents of capitalism will be distributionists because it actually is better than capitalism.
Distributionism has its roots in Catholicism, and is taught and urged with authority by the Pope in his encyclical Rerum Novarum.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-x...nts/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html
That is one reason to trust it, among others.
The questions on this thread demonstrate this, who will control x, who decides x, how do you divy up land? etc
There hasnāt been anything like distributionism in America so thatās the only way we know how to think.
Obviously we all can agree that if you had to choose, capitalism is better than socialism but that doesnāt make capitalism good, only the best weāve tried. Distributionism is better than capitalism, but we havenāt tried it fully in America.
Usually the opponents of Capitilism were only communists or socialists, because they thought that better, when actually it was worse. New opponents of capitalism will be distributionists because it actually is better than capitalism.
Distributionism has its roots in Catholicism, and is taught and urged with authority by the Pope in his encyclical Rerum Novarum.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-x...nts/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html
That is one reason to trust it, among others.
T
tafan2
Guest
timothyvail, This is all based on memory, its been a while since I have read the Rerum Novarum, but I believe it is accurate. Leo XIII did not teach distributionism in Rerum Novarum. Belloc and Chesterton developed the idea based partly on the great encyclical and certainly wanted everything to be inline with that encyclical. Leo XIII did stress the universal right to own property and the need for property ownership to ensure human dignity. He also stressed the desire that all workers be able to aquire property.
Certainly this gives be a reason to go back and reread the encyclical again.
Certainly this gives be a reason to go back and reread the encyclical again.
A
anon65111186
Guest
He did not teach it as named, but the principles are one in the same.
He invokes his authority and the authority of Christ, and makes it binding on Catholics to try to implement the social teaching, which distributism is all about.
Code:
But the Church, with Jesus Christ as her teacher and leader, seeks greater things that this; namely, by commanding something more perfect, she aims at joining the two social classes to each other in closest neighborliness and friendship
Furthermore [the Church] strives to enter into menās minds and to bend their wills so that they may suffer themselves to be ruled and governed by the discipline of the divine precepts. And in this field, which is of first and greatest importance because in it the whole substance and matter of benefits consists, the Church indeed has a power that is especially unique.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
Consider this fact, the technological and economic expansion of the period between 1853 amd 1953 has yet to be matched.
Mark Steyn talks about this. Look around your house. You have 2 main items that were not in the average American home in the 50s. A computer and a cell phone. The man in the 50s looked around his house and every thing in it was different than what the man in 1888 had in his.
- Status