In hard-hit Spain, bartering becomes a means of getting by [Distributism...]

[TEPO]

Hey TEPO,
For some reason, I can’t quote your post…

Anyway, we can postulate imaginary, non-existent problems occuring down the road, but what’s the option? If you are happy with the way things are, then that’s fine, but i am not. I don’t like that there are corporations with more money than some nations, that there are corporations who are not under anyone’s control because they are transnational, that we are all considered nothing more than economic units, good for nothing more than we can contribute to the GDP or vote, that everything is driven by money and the latest fad.

You know all that pristine green energy? While the Western nations are becoming paradises of cleanliness, China is becoming a cesspool due to the mining for the special metals needs for “green” equipment. So much for AGW mitigation–we’ve just spent massive amounts of other people’s money so some people can feel good about themselves.

The UN is not inspecting towns to check out their pollution, so why would you postulate something so outlandish? What is more likely to happen is that 1st, the people in the town will buy rubber mallets until they have enough, then stop buying them. So the Smiths will
then turn to some other line of work, one which does not involve burning rubber.

Altho now that I think about it, they would probably melt the rubber, not burn it…

Francis,

I don’t think the problem is our economic system per se. The problems that we face boil down to our political gridlock -the same gridlock that exists in Italy, France, Spain, the UK and every other western nation.

The fact that we’re all facing the same problems IS the root of the problem… Globalization is the culprit and the UN is the source. I say divided we stand, united we fall.

I hope our new Pope condemns UN operations, the source of the ‘fall of the West’.

The global economy is the source of all greed!

 

[flameburns623]

The book “The Servile State” argues that capitalism and communism are each driven by their internal logic to a totalitarian order.

Distributism has indeed tended to present itself as a “third way” or “third position” between the other two dominant economic theories of our age.

Belloc, Chesterton, etcetera, did base their ideas on Catholic social teaching, but even in it’s early years, Distributism has always had it’s non-Catholic, even it’s secular proponents.

The introduction of the “United Nations” as a ham-handed totalitarian entity introducing itself into a Distributist community to enforce environmental concerns is fear mongering. An organic, community-based localised economic unit is going to be made up of people likely to be MORE concerned about the ill effects of pollution, not less so. And such local units would likely be linked to larger political entities.

It is a point well taken that Distributist theory doesn’t take into account the problems caused by corruption.

Neither does capitalism, which produced Upton Sinclair’s “Jungle” of meat packing plants where even hapless workers were sometimes rendered for human consumption, Nader’s cars “unsafe at any speed”, & the deceptions of Big Tobacco.

A capitalism so corrupted by lobbyists that it continues to allow fast food venues to make food which is tasty but ultimately unfit for human consumption.

It takes statist intervention to circumvent such evils, a fact that libertarian economists prefer to evade if possible.

Not that communist statism is any better. The corruption of Soviet communism, the moral bankruptcy of Chinese communism, is well known.

We could use a workable ‘third position’ between the two obverse faces of statism, if someone could address the legitimate concern of corruption endemic to most or all human organizations.

The bigger problem for Distributism is it doesn’t know how to get where it wants to go. It has a few strategies: home gardens, co-operatives, and bartering systems. And it looks backward to some of the better aspects of the medieval economies for some ideas.

But it really doesn’t know what a modern Distributist State would look like. And so it can’t really figure out how to get there.

 

[TEPO]

The introduction of the “United Nations” as a ham-handed totalitarian entity introducing itself into a Distributist community to enforce environmental concerns is fear mongering.

Wouldn’t there need to be some type of enforcement to combat the climate change issues that the scientists of the UN have brought to all of our attention?

An organic, community-based localised economic unit is going to be made up of people likely to be MORE concerned about the ill effects of pollution, not less so. And such local units would likely be linked to larger political entities.
.

That depends. If they have nothing to fall back on, and are in ‘survival’ mode, then environmental concearns would be meaningless.

 

[flameburns623]

What world would we be living in, where all local, regional, state/provincial and national government would have utterly collapsed and only an international body has sufficient resources to govern?

Distributism, as envisioned by Chester/Belloc and subsequently, assumes some sort of normal governing system. As an economic theory, it could operate under a constitutional monarchy, a republican democracy, or under some other system of political superstructure.

Most contemporary theorists seem to hope for a re-weighting of current political order so that things are decided more from the bottom up, from the family, kindred, and local community outward, rather than giving most political power to the largest and wealthiest entities and governing top-down.

But this is as much a fond hope as anything, and Distributism as I read it is not inextricably wed to such idealist notions

 

[St_Francis]

…But it really doesn’t know what a modern Distributist State would look like. And so it can’t really figure out how to get there.

I think the main reason that Distributism doesn’t know what a distributist society would look like is that it would be more of an organic growth rather than an imposed structure. It might look one way in a city, and another way in the country. It might look very different in another country. And so on.

 

[St_Francis]

Oh, and I forgot to say that I think corruption would be minimized in such a small-scale society.

 

[TEPO]

What world would we be living in, where all local, regional, state/provincial and national government would have utterly collapsed and only an international body has sufficient resources to govern?

Distributism, as envisioned by Chester/Belloc and subsequently, assumes some sort of normal governing system. As an economic theory, it could operate under a constitutional monarchy, a republican democracy, or under some other system of political superstructure.

Yes, but as with the European Union, it is a governing political body above the European nations… The UN is in the business of governing all nations through “international law”… It has and will continue to write up more drafts as time goes on -such as “agenda 21” for example.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

 

[Seamus_L]

They’ve been bartering in Greece already for sometime. It’s going to happen in alot more places. If the government tries to step in and prevent it, people will begin learning the true meaning of the word ‘parasite’.

 

[TEPO]

They’ve been bartering in Greece already for sometime. It’s going to happen in alot more places. If the government tries to step in and prevent it, people will begin learning the true meaning of the word ‘parasite’.

There’s nothing ‘cutesy’ about bartering, as I’m sure you already know -what it boils down to is an economic mix between a Flea Market and a Farmers Market, filled with only the bare essentials for survival… The only thing they’re missing are the mud huts.
worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/15/12234560-people-need-some-way-out-bartering-takes-hold-in-austerity-wracked-greece?lite

If that’s what Distributism is all about, then thats out of the question for me… I’ll stick with my Capitalism thank you very much.

 

[flameburns623]

There’s nothing ‘cutesy’ about bartering, as I’m sure you already know -what it boils down to is an economic mix between a Flea Market and a Farmers Market, filled with only the bare essentials for survival… The only thing they’re missing are the mud huts.
worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/15/12234560-people-need-some-way-out-bartering-takes-hold-in-austerity-wracked-greece?lite

If that’s what Distributism is all about, then thats out of the question for me… I’ll stick with my Capitalism thank you very much.

I think you missed an enormous lot of what I’ve been saying and I doubt you’ve followed my links to the Distributist Review.

Distributism is NOT a return to primitivism. It is often accused by capitalists of resembling socialism, while socialists and communists think it is too capitalistic.

Distributism would have a monetary system, cash, etcetera. Many Distributists have explored ideas such as Social Credit banking systems, cooperative enterprises, so-called “hard” or gold-standard currency systems.(So have some libertarian free-marketeers btw: Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged gave honorable mention to gold-based money because it represent “real values” as opposed to subjective value).

But none of these ideas are intrinsic to Distributist thinking.

And bartering as a means of exchange of values has existed in capitalist and (usually illicitly) in communist economies. It provides a more personal human interaction than a flat exchange of abstract cash for concrete value, which is what gives it appeal to those inclined towards Distributist thought. But barter is not a medium of exchange unique to Distributism nor central to Distributism. It is just one strategy for achieving subsidiarity and solidarity among several possible strategies.

Hope some of this is helpful.

 

[flameburns623]

Wouldn’t there need to be some type of enforcement to combat the climate change issues that the scientists of the UN have brought to all of our attention?

That depends. If they have nothing to fall back on, and are in ‘survival’ mode, then environmental concearns would be meaningless.

I get that you are very supportive of environmental issues and very concerned that the United Nations represents an undemocratic and potentially autocratic force in modern times. I don’t believe these concerns are germaine to a discussion of barter and Distributism, in Spain or elsewhere.

Understand that Distributism is not a variant of Marxism. It does not share with Marxists a vision of an apocalyptic collapse of social order which serves as a sort of “engine” driving humanity to reinvent the economy.

Distributists make their arguments for their theories based no on some “invisible hand” guiding things toward what are ultimate goods for all participants. Neither does Distributism hypothesize that modern economies are rife with inherent contraditions which will cause capitalism to crash while thrusting the Proletariat forward to be the creators of a new system.

Distributism argues for its ideas based upon what is morally just and right, which will lead to a more human or humane social order. You may agree or disagree with the ideas, you may, as I do, query as to how Distributists think they can achieve their goals without a clearer vision of where they want to go.

But introducing objections irrelevant to this thread won’t move this conversation forward productively.

!

 

[Megan7]

Link

This would be an example of distributism riskng as large-scale, centralized capitalism begins to collapse. The Spanish government has been unable to prop up the economy by giving poor people aid, so the people are working out ways to make it despite a pretty generalized collapse.

Thank you

 

[St_Francis]

There’s nothing ‘cutesy’ about bartering, as I’m sure you already know -what it boils down to is an economic mix between a Flea Market and a Farmers Market, filled with only the bare essentials for survival… The only thing they’re missing are the mud huts.
worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/15/12234560-people-need-some-way-out-bartering-takes-hold-in-austerity-wracked-greece?lite

If that’s what Distributism is all about, then thats out of the question for me… I’ll stick with my Capitalism thank you very much.

This is not what distributism is all about, as has been pointed out. This is an example of the failure of the two systems most accepted throughout the world, and how people are rising to the occasion.

Obviously bartering is not sustainable. Money is a sensible solution to the difficulty of differences in value and differences in need. Money allows the shoemaker to buy bread every day.

But what I see happening here is a foundation. Señor Gomez currently barters vegetables he grew every day for milk from a cow-owner, for bread from a lady who bakes bread, for a bit of sausage from a butcher. Soon a system of money will be set in place so he can buy a new pair of shoes without overwhelming the shoemaker with too many vegetables. And someone will suggest to Señor Gomez and a couple of others like him that they sell to a shop which will sell the vegetables for them so they have more time to grow more vegetables or to spend more time with family, or to engage in other exchanges.

But this will all be small-scale, local, and *that *is what distributism is about.

I know a man in Latin America who had no money, and he started baking bread in his oven at home and selling the still-warm loaves on the street. Wow, can you imagine the uproar that would occur in this country (the US), where kids starting lemonade stands without permits have faced legal problems?

 

[TEPO]

Understand that Distributism is not a variant of Marxism. It does not share with Marxists a vision of an apocalyptic collapse of social order which serves as a sort of “engine” driving humanity to reinvent the economy.

Distributists make their arguments for their theories based no on some “invisible hand” guiding things toward what are ultimate goods for all participants. Neither does Distributism hypothesize that modern economies are rife with inherent contraditions which will cause capitalism to crash while thrusting the Proletariat forward to be the creators of a new system.

Distributism argues for its ideas based upon what is morally just and right, which will lead to a more human or humane social order. You may agree or disagree with the ideas, you may, as I do, query as to how Distributists think they can achieve their goals without a clearer vision of where they want to go…

interesting point, although what’s going on in Spain seems to indicate otherwise… But I’d like to give Distributism the benefit of the doubt -that it could evolve into a future economic system without sparking interest surrounded only by the collapse of other economic systems, and offer some of my own ‘self’ for the good of the cause.

For instance, why is it unpopular that there be competing economic and monetary systems within the boundaries of a nation…? …What if there were a group of people in say, Nevada for example, who began to work together building homes and businesses and products, all of whom use a new monetary system of money…? its not illegal you know… Say they built an entirely functional Distributist economy and everyone who lived there used only that money well call it “tepos”. Whenever an outsider came into town with “dollars” and needed to purchase gas or appliances or whatever, there would be ATM type machines located in various spots that would turn his dollars into tepos…? Perhaps this little economy would draw national media attention and the idea would spread nationwide, until eventually, there were multiple monetary systems within the United States? That would be good considering that the value of the dollar is expected to fall, and rather than having people compete, we could move the competition to the systems themselves, in order to gain ‘real’ insight on what comes naturally. I think ultimately people would be surprised to find that variety is the spice of life.

…That’s one way that Distributism could become introduced without involving itself as a “replacement” system or an alternate system… Perhaps multiple systems could all work in parallel within a single nation…

Sometimes, it makes more sense to acknowledge that dividing one into many creates options -which is good. Its not always true what they say: “united we stand divided we fall” -not in every situation anyways…

But introducing objections irrelevant to this thread won’t move this conversation forward productively.

I think its important to weigh-in criticisms just as much as it is to weigh in positive feedback, but if you don’t think that environmental issues have any sway on peoples opinion in regards to economics or systems of -then maybe Im barking up the wrong tree.

 

[TEPO]

For those with a broad imagination -blend this thread with this one — forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=745618

…Now that’s what I’m talking about…

(or maybe the multitude of systems wouldn’t be compressed into regions -maybe they’d be splashed everywhere across the nation… who knows, the possibilities are limitless.)

 

[St_Francis]

interesting point, although what’s going on in Spain seems to indicate otherwise… But I’d like to give Distributism the benefit of the doubt -that it could evolve into a future economic system without sparking interest surrounded only by the collapse of other economic systems, and offer some of my own ‘self’ for the good of the cause.

For instance, why is it unpopular that there be competing economic and monetary systems within the boundaries of a nation…? …What if there were a group of people in say, Nevada for example, who began to work together building homes and businesses and products, all of whom use a new monetary system of money…? its not illegal you know… Say they built an entirely functional Distributist economy and everyone who lived there used only that money well call it “tepos”. Whenever an outsider came into town with “dollars” and needed to purchase gas or appliances or whatever, there would be ATM type machines located in various spots that would turn his dollars into tepos…? Perhaps this little economy would draw national media attention and the idea would spread nationwide, until eventually, there were multiple monetary systems within the United States? That would be good considering that the value of the dollar is expected to fall, and rather than having people compete, we could move the competition to the systems themselves, in order to gain ‘real’ insight on what comes naturally. I think ultimately people would be surprised to find that variety is the spice of life.

…That’s one way that Distributism could become introduced without involving itself as a “replacement” system or an alternate system… Perhaps multiple systems could all work in parallel within a single nation…

Sometimes, it makes more sense to acknowledge that dividing one into many creates options -which is good. Its not always true what they say: “united we stand divided we fall” -not in every situation anyways…

This is much more the way I see distributism developing–little by little, people acting together and locally in small ways.

I think its important to weigh-in criticisms just as much as it is to weigh in positive feedback, but if you don’t think that environmental issues have any sway on peoples opinion in regards to economics or systems of -then maybe Im barking up the wrong tree.

Inasmuch as people are concerned aboit the environment, they can get involved in that area, locally. So, some people ijna town are concerned about the pollution emitted by a business? Then those concerned and those involved can discuss it. A far cry from an imaginary UN committee coming in and imposing their ideas from on high.

For example, it always used to get to me that people who were so concerned about the environment would use electricity to power their stereo systems, use gas to go to rock concerts where huge amounts of electricity were used, etc. This was before Al Gore’s momentous hypocrisy…

If local people are talking to each other, then they can educate each other: the business owner can explain that the people’s bills would rise if this or that were done, etc, and those concerned about the pollution could express their concerns about living next to a lake which smells worse each year, and the other people in the community could be involved and a more workable solution could be worked out. I see this as each side needing to make sacrifices rather than just imposing a solution from “on high.” All too often it seems like the solution is not community-oriented, that some of the people do not have a full understanding of the situation, and there is just political bullying happening which generally ends up hurting the people of the community.

 

[Hamlet123]

Link

This would be an example of distributism riskng as large-scale, centralized capitalism begins to collapse. The Spanish government has been unable to prop up the economy by giving poor people aid, so the people are working out ways to make it despite a pretty generalized collapse.

I am greatly looking forward to this …

 

[Hamlet123]

Hey TEPO,
For some reason, I can’t quote your post…

Anyway, we can postulate imaginary, non-existent problems occuring down the road, but what’s the option? If you are happy with the way things are, then that’s fine, but i am not. I don’t like that there are corporations with more money than some nations,

What is wrong with someone, some family, some business or some corporation have more money than some nations; other than causing envy

, by Nathan Rosenberg & L.E. Birdzell, Jr.

that we are all considered nothing more than economic units, good for nothing more than we can contribute to the GDP or vote,

A good businessman who loves his employees and family will look at his market in economic terms but he will not nor do I know of any that look at them as ONLY, NOTHING MORE than economic units. In fact, most of my customers who are areliogious seem to have a particular interest in people. This is one reason they are successful. Rule One to Sell: become genuinely intersted in others.

that everything is driven by money and the latest fad.

WHAT?

[/QUOTE]

 

[St_Francis]

Hey Hamlet,
The way to close a quote on this board is like this:

St Francis;10398213:

Hey TEPO,
For some reason, I can’t quote your post…

Anyway, we can postulate imaginary, non-existent problems occuring down the road, but what’s the option? If you are happy with the way things are, then that’s fine, but i am not. I don’t like that there are corporations with more money than some nations,

What is wrong with someone, some family, some business or some corporation have more money than some nations; other than causing envy

Business is an undefined term here, so let’s stick to families and corporations.

I sort of doubt a family could, using completely honest and fair means, accumulate more money than a nation has.

As to corporations, the problem I have with them to begin with is that the diffusion of moral responsibility within them and the laws under which they operate in the US are such that they are a-moral actors in our society. Doesn’t mean that everything corporations do is immoral, only that some of what they do is not moral, or in the best interests of the area or the local people in which they do it.

[qute]

One of four reasons that the West grew Wealthy at such a rapd rate versus the rest of th world, that the poor rose exponentially out of “the gutter” was the progeny of autonomy - lesser and lesser government interference. May I refer you to "How the West Grew Rich - the economic transformation of the industrial world

, by Nathan Rosenberg & L.E. Birdzell, Jr.
So you think transnational corporations are ok, but you are referring me to a book to make your agument for T/N corps? Because I don’t see how the first part of your response relates to what I said.

that we are all considered nothing more than economic units, good for nothing more than we can contribute to the GDP or vote,

A good businessman who loves his employees and family will look at his market in economic terms but he will not nor do I know of any that look at them as ONLY, NOTHING MORE than economic units.

It is true that most business owners who manage their own business and have direct relationships with their employees are very nice to their employees. However, that type of situation is not always the case.

Moreover, employees are not the only persons involved in a business. Customers are also people, and sure, the local grocery store appreciates its customers, but Walmart does not, unless their bottom line would be affected. There are many business practices which are not illegal, but which do not respect the dignity of the person.

In fact, most of my customers who are areliogious seem to have a particular interest in people. This is one reason they are successful. Rule One to Sell: become genuinely intersted in others.

And I have known salesmen who seemed to take a very sincere interest in their customers as they were selling them the equivalent of the Brooklyn Bridge.

that everything is driven by money and the latest fad.

WHAT?

Hmmm, you must be a man. Consider the selling of women’s clothing for a blatant example. Every 3 months a new set of clothing, every year year a new set of fashions. If a woman wears very odd clothing–very out-of-date, or very different from the usual–it definitely sets her apart.

A very small example: you can’t get toes to match those bought more than a couple of months before, they change them so frequently. And by match, I mean go with, not having to be exactly the same.

Sheesh, my daughter wore a scarf over her head to Mass and a woman whispered (loudly) to her companion something about Moslems coming to Mass.

Additionally, corporations can be sued if they do not sufficiently maximize profits for the shareholders. Of course, this is rare, what usually happens is that people simply sell off their stock, and if too many stockholders do that, the price of the shares goes down and the company is Unhappy with the person who made it so. Thus, the bottom line rules, and a short-term bottom line at that.