Distributism

[drkitten]

I just got lost, again, in Wikipedia and stumbled upon the article for Distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism).


According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

Thoughts? I could actually see a lot of advantages in this particular approach -- the avoidance of crony-capitalism and corporatism, more egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunity (with all the social advantages obtained thereby). I could also see a lot of disadvantages -- I'm not sure how "the means of produc[ing]" Honda Civics could reasonably be distributed among the general populace instead of being place in a single factory, but ownership of that factory could certainly be distributed....

The problem is that the Wikipedia article was a little light on actual content and I don't trust the links to go anywhere useful since these articles are notoriously written by axe-grinders.

[ThermionicScott]

Sounds good on paper (so to speak), and it seems like anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation are aimed at preventing "overcentralization". But like you, I kinda wonder how they would go further to achieve that ideal. I own part of Honda (and a lot of other big companies) but I have zero say in their operations because it's such a small part. Under distributism, how could companies like Honda function if all of us stockholders suddenly had a voice? :D

- Scott

[drkitten]

Sounds good on paper (so to speak), and it seems like anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation are aimed at preventing "overcentralization". But like you, I kinda wonder how they would go further to achieve that ideal. I own part of Honda (and a lot of other big companies) but I have zero say in their operations because it's such a small part. Under distributism, how could companies like Honda function if all of us stockholders suddenly had a voice? :D

Well,... and this is just off the top of my head, mind you,.... how about we vote on it? :D

Seriously, though. There are three things that have been identified as major problems with the current corporate control structure: the people who do the work are accountable not to the stockholders, but to the board of directors. The board of directors is typically not accountable to the stockholders, but only to the other board members (who are often incestuously linked through other boards -- "you have a seat on mine, I'll have a seat on yours") and to which access is controlled by the nomination committee controlled by the current board. Finally, even when access to the board is contested, it's typically contested by (and decided by) the "major" shareholders. (To use Honda for an example, about 10% of Honda stock is controlled by two individuals, each of which hold [through a trust] about 100 million shares, which puts your and my pitiful little holdings into perspective. Mitsubishi Corp holds about 150 million shares.)

On the other hand, there is no "board of directors" for the United States; there's a group of 500 or so legislatures elected via direct action on a one-"shareholder," one-vote system. It would be easy enough to copy this structure for companies; each individual shareholder votes for him/herself, irrespective of how many shares s/he owns, and nominations to the board of directors are done by petition of shareholders. The Mitsubishi corporation would have exactly as much say in how the company was run as you do, but a much greater share in the profits.

Of course, this would introduce many of the problems of government (including populism, short-term planning, and oversimplification of issues) into corporate governance.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I could also see a lot of disadvantages -- I'm not sure how "the means of produc" Honda Civics could reasonably be distributed among the general populace instead of being place in a single factory, [I]but ownership of that factory could certainly be distributed....

It already is. Tens of thousands of people (if not more) own the Honda factory.

[Twiler]

I think that decentralisation is better as an ideal, but it's harder to get it working.

I was going to say that increases in technology have led to power being consistently decentralised over the ages, but it then struck me that this simply isn't true. We began with smaller tyrannies which then gave way to larger tyrannies, and then, after many complications, to democracy (well, as close as we can get at present). But the actual control that the government possesses has varied within these periods.

I suppose it can go both ways. Technology makes greater degrees of centralisation and decentralisation possible.

[drkitten]

It already is. Tens of thousands of people (if not more) own the Honda factory.

Yes. And three hundredths of a percent of them of them own nearly 20% of the stock, which violates the tenets of distributism. From the OP: "rather than being centralized under the control of ... wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism)"

So the current state of Honda more or less defines the opposite of "distributed" in a distributism sense.

To put it another way, there are about two billion shares of Honda stock out there. Why are there only tens of thousands of shareholders?

[ThermionicScott]

Of course, this would introduce many of the problems of government (including populism, short-term planning, and oversimplification of issues) into corporate governance.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure (but don't have a source) that most stockholders don't know how to run a business*, so it would probably be a disaster for everyone involved if they suddenly could vote and propose actions.

- Scott


* Insert joke here about most corporate boards not knowing how either.

[drkitten]

I think that decentralisation is better as an ideal, but it's harder to get it working.

Well, the Adam Smith version of capitalism was designed in and only works in a distributed and decentralized environment (something that corporate apologists tend to forget when they're railing against some sort of government-imposed form of enforced decentralization). At Adam Smith's level of technology, industrial centralization simply wasn't possible, so the issue didn't really arise.


I was going to say that increases in technology have led to power being consistently decentralised over the ages, but it then struck me that this simply isn't true.

I'd argue the opposite; although not 100% "consistent," power and wealth have tended to coalesce rather than decentralize over the past five hundred years. Mao had greater control over the PRC than Louis XIV could ever dream of having over France, and Stalin did a much better job of controlling his multi-ethnic empire than Franz Josef ever could. And Lord Sainsbury had more control over what the Brits ate for breakfast than ever Churchill had (you can't eat what Sainsbury's didn't stock).

But how much of this is technology and how much of this is social development isn't clear. Certainly technology can lead to diversification, but it seems in the short run to raise costs, and therefore barriers to entry, which leads to centralization. I can't open a record company to compete with Virgin, for example; I can't burn CD's cheaply enough because I can't afford the equipment. I can't open an oil company and expect to compete with BP; I don't have the network of gas stations to sell my product. I can't even open a search engine to compete with Google, although Microsoft can --- because they can afford servers on that scale.

[Mister Agenda]

Wealth is built by acquiring assets, so I am favor of more people, especially the impoverished, having assets.

One of the things the article is unclear on is how the distributing would be done, which is probably the rub; but better financial education would likely increase the percentage who own significant assets.

[drkitten]

Wealth is built by acquiring assets, so I am favor of more people, especially the impoverished, having assets.

One of the things the article is unclear on is how the distributing would be done, which is probably the rub; but better financial education would likely increase the percentage who own significant assets.

Well, most of the proponents are from the early 20th century when social pressure combined to make the distribution process much more natural. It was very difficult to achieve massive amounts of assets in the first place, and death duties and progressive taxation were much stricter which tended to reduce the amount of wealth disparity in the first place. There was also a much greater social pressure to contribute to charities -- well, charities of the right sort, supporting the right sort of people -- so it was relatively easy for a poor white boy to earn a scholarship to Cambridge and enter the middle class.

Which doesn't answer the question. I agree it's unanswered in the article, but it's not hard to imagine changes in tax policy that would have the effect of greater distributing. One simple way, for example, is to return to the progressive taxation schemes (and estate tax schemes) of the 1950s.

If you read the opposition to allowing the inheritance tax to rise, they're all focused specifically on this problem -- Father has accumulated lots of assets which the children wish to avoid distributing.

Distributism argues the opposite. If you want lots of assets, gather them yourself.

[drkitten]

better financial education would likely increase the percentage who own significant assets.

Further to above : I'm not sure of this.

The problem with financial education is that it tells you what to do with assets if you get them.

If you can't afford a college education, for example, it becomes very difficult to get assets in the first place as most decent jobs require a college diploma.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

yes. And three hundredths of a percent of them of them own nearly 20% of the stock, which violates the tenets of distributism. From the op: "rather than being centralized under the control of ... Wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism)"

so the current state of honda more or less defines the opposite of "distributed" in a distributism sense.

To put it another way, there are about two billion shares of honda stock out there. Why are there only tens of thousands of shareholders?

80% > 20%.

[ThermionicScott]

Further to above : I'm not sure of this.

The problem with financial education is that it tells you what to do with assets if you get them.

If you can't afford a college education, for example, it becomes very difficult to get assets in the first place as most decent jobs require a college diploma.

Perhaps "financial education" has a more specific meaning, but I took it in the loose sense to include beginner-level classes on balancing checkbooks, preparing for emergency needs, advice against payday loans, etc. The kind of things that ideally help keep a person out of dire straits and put more investing money in their pockets. Obviously, we're not talking about sending poor people to Econ 201 classes. ;)

- Scott

[Almo]

80% > 20%.

Disorganized 80% < monolithic 20%

Just ask the Christian Right about this.

[Mister Agenda]

Perhaps "financial education" has a more specific meaning, but I took it in the loose sense to include beginner-level classes on balancing checkbooks, preparing for emergency needs, advice against payday loans, etc. The kind of things that ideally help keep a person out of dire straits and put more investing money in their pockets. Obviously, we're not talking about sending poor people to Econ 201 classes. ;)

- Scott

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. Help planning a realistic course in life to avoid poverty and maximize your chances of doing well from the place you're starting from.

[lomiller]

Two things immediacy come to mind. First, there can be more then one right way to do things so you still need a strong vision and leader to ensure you pick one. All to often things designed by committee are all over the map and don’t do anything well because there are elements of many different elements borrowed from incompatible visions.

The second, is that if you distribute ownership to widely you may end up with a situation where no individual owner can stand up to the operational leader who can then do pretty much whatever he/she wants with effectively no oversight.

IMO there needs to be some balance between broad ownership and large individual stockholders. This isn’t too difficult with the type of question political/national leadership countries have been wrestling with for years. There probably isn’t a “best” answer, rather a best answer at a given point in time for a given situation.

[drkitten]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. Help planning a realistic course in life to avoid poverty and maximize your chances of doing well from the place you're starting from.

But that's exactly what Distributism is against. Instead of maximizing your chances of doing well from a bad starting position, how about minimizing your chances of getting a bad starting position?

[ThermionicScott]

But that's exactly what Distributism is against. Instead of maximizing your chances of doing well from a bad starting position, how about minimizing your chances of getting a bad starting position?

Well, to fix the problem as it exists now, you'd want to attack the it from both ends. How about giving out stock options instead of food stamps? :D

- Scott

P.S. Now that I think about it, most would probably cash them in ASAP, but it might encourage some people to start thinking about the long term...

[drkitten]

Well, to fix the problem as it exists now, you'd want to attack the it from both ends. How about giving out stock options instead of food stamps?

I'm not prepared to dismiss that idea out of hand.

One basic problem is that "food stamps" (and government support more generally) rarely offer an actual living stipend, let along enough to start accumulating wealth. A study in the 1990s, (http://books.google.com/books?id=b4YmqGd3-TwC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=afdc+stipends&source=bl&ots=Nj4KDHBlCx&sig=0w_Ikc0-612ikaqH9uO4df7xU-w&hl=en&ei=2sV2TJi-C4L3nAfmweX3AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=afdc%20stipends&f=false) for example, found that combined stipends (AFDC/"welfare" plus food stamps) typically came to less 70% of the local poverty threshold.

Assuming that the definition of "poverty" is at all realistic (and many people have argued that in fact the poverty thresholds are set too low and do not represent actual costs of living), a typical poor person is not going to be able to accumulate assets. Training in which assets you-can't-buy-but-should will not help the situation, but giving them more money, enough to allow them to buy assets, would.

[PixyMisa]

But how much of this is technology and how much of this is social development isn't clear. Certainly technology can lead to diversification, but it seems in the short run to raise costs, and therefore barriers to entry, which leads to centralization. I can't open a record company to compete with Virgin, for example; I can't burn CD's cheaply enough because I can't afford the equipment.
That is one of the worst examples you could have chosen. The cost of burning CDs is so small a proportion of the retail price as to be irrelevant; on-demand burning and printing of CDs is entirely viable and the equipment costs are minimal - or you could just outsource that entirely.

I can't even open a search engine to compete with Google, although Microsoft can --- because they can afford servers on that scale.
I work for a small company (<20 people) that runs a profitable search engine business. We don't - can't - compete with Google directly; instead we target markets with very specific needs that Google and Bing don't cover. Even so, it cost a couple of million to get up and running.

[TubbaBlubba]

Assuming that the definition of "poverty" is at all realistic (and many people have argued that in fact the poverty thresholds are set too low and do not represent actual costs of living), a typical poor person is not going to be able to accumulate assets. Training in which assets you-can't-buy-but-should will not help the situation, but giving them more money, enough to allow them to buy assets, would.

One thing that I believe is central is also that many of these people have no education to speak of, and as such will never have anywhere near the chance of a typical western (or industrialized country, if you will) person will, regardless of the availability of assets.

[The True Scotsman]

I believe we are forgetting something here. The companies don't belong to us. We can talk about how we would split companies' ownerships up equally until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the companies still don't belong to us (barring people who bought and own stock in whatever company). For almost every privately held company, private funds were used to start it. If it uses a stock system, the company owner decided to trade part of his/her ownership for a return of money. If others wants to own part of whatever company, then they must offer something in return, not seize control by force or by way of persuading a strong force, such as the government, to steal stock for them.

As far as the statements regarding the difficulty of competing with a Google or various other large companies by offering the same or similar product, I ask why you would try. Offering the exact same or very similar product as an already large and established company would almost certainly end in failure. That is why one should attempt to create something new. Offer a product that is different from anything else on the market. Patents offer their holders a virtual monopoly on the given product for a given number of years.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Actually we do own the corporations.

Regardless, further distributing corporate ownership and other forms of wealth does not necessitate seizing property and redistributing it in a direct way. I think the idea behind distributism is that instead of central government collectivism, market and regulatory forces are created to encourage distributed wealth to happen naturally without seizure of property. The role of government is not to control the wealth but to encourage the distribution.

[drkitten]

If others wants to own part of whatever company, then they must offer something in return, not seize control by force or by way of persuading a strong force, such as the government, to steal stock for them.

Why? Forcible appropriation has a long history. Where I went to school used to be the part of the personal holdings of Lord Baltimore; later, it was removed from him (forcibly) by His Most Gracious Majesty George the [mumble] (actually, I think it was Wiliam III) and added to the royal lands; later to be forcibly removed from him.

If you're saying "they must" in the sense of physical possibility,.... demonstrably not. If you're saying "they must" in the sense of moral imperative,... well, history seems to be on the side of the appropriators.

[The True Scotsman]

Why? Forcible appropriation has a long history. Where I went to school used to be the part of the personal holdings of Lord Baltimore; later, it was removed from him (forcibly) by His Most Gracious Majesty George the [mumble] (actually, I think it was Wiliam III) and added to the royal lands; later to be forcibly removed from him.

If you're saying "they must" in the sense of physical possibility,.... demonstrably not. If you're saying "they must" in the sense of moral imperative,... well, history seems to be on the side of the appropriators.

Well, I mean to use "they must" as a moral imperative. When discussing the morality of an action, I see little use in delving into history, unless it is specifically relevant to the particular situation. I suspect that most businesses that exist today were founded through entirely legal means and were not financed by stolen property.

[The True Scotsman]

Actually we do own the corporations.

Regardless, further distributing corporate ownership and other forms of wealth does not necessitate seizing property and redistributing it in a direct way. I think the idea behind distributism is that instead of central government collectivism, market and regulatory forces are created to encourage distributed wealth to happen naturally without seizure of property. The role of government is not to control the wealth but to encourage the distribution.

To clarify, by "we", I mean the specific participants of this discussion, not "we" the entire population.

Secondly, I don't see how individuals of wealth are going to be persuaded to part with a large percentage of their wealth without either coercion or sudden philanthropic urges.

[The Fallen Serpent]

To clarify, by "we", I mean the specific participants of this discussion, not "we" the entire population.I figured for distributism to take place it would take more than "we" in the discussion.

Secondly, I don't see how individuals of wealth are going to be persuaded to part with a large percentage of their wealth without either coercion or sudden philanthropic urges.
Change the regulations and rules on how money changes hands. Also, philanthropic acts certainly qualify as non-seizure of property. I am not certain why that specific is lumped in as that is certainly one way of distributism.

[The True Scotsman]

Change the regulations and rules on how money changes hands. Also, philanthropic acts certainly qualify as non-seizure of property. I am not certain why that specific is lumped in as that is certainly one way of distributism.

While you are correct in that this system that you are proposing does not technically steal from them, it does impose a rather large and, in my opinion, undue amount of freedom restriction. I see no reason why those who have offered a service should not be compensated for that service (as that is the major way in which money is earned).

As far as philanthropic acts, I exclude them because I believe it is simply ridiculous to believe that they could somehow be institutionalized. They rely on voluntary consent and do not seem like things that would happen in a larger way than they already do.

[drkitten]

While you are correct in that this system that you are proposing does not technically steal from them, it does impose a rather large and, in my opinion, undue amount of freedom restriction.

And you're confusing your opinion with the opinion of everyone else in society?

[The True Scotsman]

And you're confusing your opinion with the opinion of everyone else in society?

I clearly qualified my statement with "in my opinion". I am in no way confused.

[Mister Agenda]

So, say we want to start a new social welfare program with the long-term goal of reducing the percentage of people in poverty by transferring assets to them. This could take the form of something like a 401 K with the government making contributions.

Or how about a similar account for every child born into poverty that they can use to pay for education, a home, or other assets when they graduate high school.

$20,000 at the right time can make a big difference in someone's life. One of the contrasts between a poor family and a middle class one is mom and dad paying for college and chipping in for that first house.

[drkitten]

So, say we want to start a new social welfare program with the long-term goal of reducing the percentage of people in poverty by transferring assets to them. This could take the form of something like a 401 K with the government making contributions.

Or how about a similar account for every child born into poverty that they can use to pay for education, a home, or other assets when they graduate high school.

$20,000 at the right time can make a big difference in someone's life. One of the contrasts between a poor family and a middle class one is mom and dad paying for college and chipping in for that first house.

I think the Republican/Libertarian argument against that is that the assets transferred to the people in poverty would have to come from somewhere, and since the Gubment has no right to take my munny even to hire puleece to protect me frum criminuls, it certainly has no right to take my munny to give to peepul to keep 'em from turning inta criminuls in the firstest place.

In a reality-influenced world, this would be very easy to accomplish simply by restoring reasonable levels of estate taxes.

[Mister Agenda]

You have a point about the argument that will be made against it, but I'm not a strict libertarian, more like a classic liberal. I'm not sure there is a political home for me that really fits. At any rate, I would consider it a wise investment in a better future, provided it gets results and we can dump it if it fails.

We could also accomplish it by reducing military spending. It seems a bit excessive to be spending almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined spends on theirs. I'm sure there are many more examples of money that would be better spent on reducing poverty.

[The True Scotsman]

I think the Republican/Libertarian argument against that is that the assets transferred to the people in poverty would have to come from somewhere, and since the Gubment has no right to take my munny even to hire puleece to protect me frum criminuls, it certainly has no right to take my munny to give to peepul to keep 'em from turning inta criminuls in the firstest place.

Who is this directed at? The majority of conservatives support taxes in order to pay for a police force. I know of no conservatives who don't subscribe to that view actually and the traditional conservative view is that taxes should only be collected for the purposes of justice dealing and citizen protection (ie courts, military, POLICE). As well, instead of portraying your opponents to be fools in an attempt to win by emotional appeal, why don't you make use of logic and prove your opponents wrong?

[Chaos]

Who is this directed at? The majority of conservatives support taxes in order to pay for a police force. I know of no conservatives who don't subscribe to that view actually and the traditional conservative view is that taxes should only be collected for the purposes of justice dealing and citizen protection (ie courts, military, POLICE). As well, instead of portraying your opponents to be fools in an attempt to win by emotional appeal, why don't you make use of logic and prove your opponents wrong?

I think that was directed more at Libertarians, who have indeed argued that police should not be financed by taxes, but should be a private corporation working on a for-profit basis.

That would mean, of course, that police protects those who pay the most, IOW the poor get the boot (or the bullet), but if any Libertarians ever had enough sense to think that far, it obviously didn´t bother them.

[Mister Agenda]

Libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchocapitalism. Someone making that argument may think they're a libertarian, but if that is actually their goal, they are anarchists. Anarchists tend to support Libertarians for reasons similar to why communists support Democrats: we seem to be going in the direction they want more than the alternatives.

[theprestige]

Training in which assets you-can't-buy-but-should will not help the situation, but giving them more money, enough to allow them to buy assets, would.
Why not simply buy assets on their behalf, and give them the dividends? That minimizes the risk (that the money will be spent on things other than responsible asset investments), and the cost (of training a lot of surplus investment bankers, when we already--presumably--have competent investment bankers on hand whose time would be better spent doing excellently what you're proposing they train others to do mediocrely).

[Mister Agenda]

Assets aren't just stocks and bonds. A college education or vocational training, a home, a car to get to work in, even a good attitude; are all assets. I know some might disagree about the car since it depreciates, but not having a car keeps a lot of people unemployed.

I'm not talking about making everyone an investment banker, I'm talking about able-bodied people of sound mind having the tools they need to stay out of poverty.

[stilicho]

I just got lost, again, in Wikipedia and stumbled upon the article for Distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism).



Thoughts? I could actually see a lot of advantages in this particular approach -- the avoidance of crony-capitalism and corporatism, more egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunity (with all the social advantages obtained thereby). I could also see a lot of disadvantages -- I'm not sure how "the means of produc[ing]" Honda Civics could reasonably be distributed among the general populace instead of being place in a single factory, but ownership of that factory could certainly be distributed....

The problem is that the Wikipedia article was a little light on actual content and I don't trust the links to go anywhere useful since these articles are notoriously written by axe-grinders.

Chesterton is linked there and I just read his little book. I've always had a fondness for Chesterton and Belloc because they see the developing modern world as a series of errors requiring correction. Their medicines are supposed to be taken to prevent socialism and to preserve the essence of what they think is catholic thought.

However, they don't seem to have any workable answer although the closest thing is anti-trust legislation. That's already in place so I can't see what more could really be done to "fix" things.

Distributism seems to be a step backwards from a technology and capital intensive economic system. Chesterton's book deals extensively with "peasants" and babbles on about why women shouldn't work in the office. I have few doubts that his objective is to keep both "peasants" and women where they are (eg. on the farm, in the home, over the stove, out of the democratic process).

In the end, I think, that's the real aim of most of these colloquial freedom movements. If we collectivise the means of production by placing assets under the management of guilds then there is less likelihood of all this chaotic social and economic displacement going on. Chesterton and Belloc were keenly aware of the transformations going on in their own time and modern distributists are likely the same.

[drkitten]

However, they don't seem to have any workable answer although the closest thing is anti-trust legislation. That's already in place so I can't see what more could really be done to "fix" things.

Oh, there are lots of things that could be done. In approximately increasing order of serious effect, you could try the following:

1) establishment of a fairly steep inheritance tax, which would prevent multigenerational accumulation of capital
2) establishment of a fairly steeply progressive income tax, which would prevent accumulation of large amounts of income in a relatively few hands
3) establishment of a steeply progressive wealth tax, which would prevent accumulation of large amounts of wealth
4) disestablishment of corporate personhood, which would force artificial collections of wealth to periodically redistribute themselves (as people's estates do when the relevant person dies). (E.g. Oxford University wouldn't be able to own 2/3 of Oxfordshire in perpetuity....)

[stilicho]

Oh, there are lots of things that could be done. In approximately increasing order of serious effect, you could try the following:

1) establishment of a fairly steep inheritance tax, which would prevent multigenerational accumulation of capital
2) establishment of a fairly steeply progressive income tax, which would prevent accumulation of large amounts of income in a relatively few hands
3) establishment of a steeply progressive wealth tax, which would prevent accumulation of large amounts of wealth
4) disestablishment of corporate personhood, which would force artificial collections of wealth to periodically redistribute themselves (as people's estates do when the relevant person dies). (E.g. Oxford University wouldn't be able to own 2/3 of Oxfordshire in perpetuity....)

1] I used to be a huge fan of inheritance taxes; less so the older I get. One of the obvious challenges is the transfer of wealth to surviving family members while retaining control of the decision-making. This is essentially what the wealthy do right now through the establishment of foundations which are frequently the domain of the heirs and heiresses.

2] Progressive income taxes are the only honest solution. Income is tangible and increasingly measurable. I think you can create public works easiest through this means. The maintenance of these public works is a feat in itself. I doubt the distributists are much interested in income taxes, though. Most of their core writings established the philosophy before income taxes were introduced.

3] I think you could argue this is already done. "Soak the rich" only goes so far, though. It might work if there were a One World Government. You risk penalising those who've accidentally struck it rich through hard work and selling out once their pensions were due. My own parents might be a victim of this kind of policy because they are thrifty and have accidentally accumulated substantial wealth. This is in spite of them having contributed over twenty per cent of their incomes to the church while they were working. They also hold the titles to properties rented at a lower-than-market price to other family members. In almost any sense of the word they are wealthy and yet they'd be penalised after exhibiting frugality, charity, and common sense. Not really the message you want to send.

4] I'd have to see just what the old and the new would offer. Can my timber lease be revoked without warning? How about trademark protection? Do we revoke it at will? Aren't we just playing around with the same alleged source of inequity? If Oxford lost its endowment, would it have to rely on a football team for its revenue like OSU does? Might be a good source of revenue for the NCAA.

So, of your solutions, I'll pick #2 but that's not really distributism. It's just enacting common sense laws that will have the least negative economic impact on the business community.

[drkitten]

1] I used to be a huge fan of inheritance taxes; less so the older I get. One of the obvious challenges is the transfer of wealth to surviving family members while retaining control of the decision-making. This is essentially what the wealthy do right now through the establishment of foundations which are frequently the domain of the heirs and heiresses.

Well, that "transfer of wealth" is exactly what distributism opposes, so I see no reason why they should want to help you solve your challenge. The whole point is that you should not be able to transfer your wealth to your family members; instead, your family members should be able to earn their living like everyone else.




2] Progressive income taxes are the only honest solution. Income is tangible and increasingly measurable. I think you can create public works easiest through this means. The maintenance of these public works is a feat in itself. I doubt the distributists are much interested in income taxes, though. Most of their core writings established the philosophy before income taxes were introduced.



3] I think you could argue this is already done.

Well, not successfully. Since there's a huge difference between a wealth tax and an income tax, as any stockbroker knows.

If I put $1,000,000 into a building, I pay real estate taxes on it every year. If I put that same $1,000,000 into Google stock, I pay nothing on it at all until I sell it (since Google doesn't pay dividends).


So, of your solutions, I'll pick #2 but that's not really distributism.

Depends on the level of the taxation. If we put a 90% tax on all incomes over $100,000 you would probably object. But that's classic distributism.

It's just enacting common sense laws that will have the least negative economic impact on the business community.

You're still not following. The least negative economic impact on the business community is not one of the goals. Distributism is trying to have a substantial negative impact on the business community.

[stilicho]

Well, that "transfer of wealth" is exactly what distributism opposes, so I see no reason why they should want to help you solve your challenge. The whole point is that you should not be able to transfer your wealth to your family members; instead, your family members should be able to earn their living like everyone else.

What? Which distributists are saying such a thing? In fact, the philosophical basis of distributism is a stable and permanent family unit as the core structure.

You're still not following. The least negative economic impact on the business community is not one of the goals. Distributism is trying to have a substantial negative impact on the business community.

I'm following quite well. I don't think the basic distributist philosophy is only negative but it also ignores the positive and creative impact of corporations. Most of that distributist stuff was written prior to income taxes and urged the shattering of the economic machinery that was on the verge of propelling Western society from the ghastly conditions of Dickensian industrialisation into our modern, mobile, technological, and relatively healthy society.

The problem is that the distributists (eg Chesterton) never saw it coming. They only saw increased and concentrated wealth along with social upheaval (Chesterton specifies urbanisation and broader democratic rights) and concluded that this would lead to things being worse for people. He would have had his socks knocked off to see that, today, with nothing more than a grade school education, someone could work at a menial job and save enough to buy his own home, raise a family, live almost anywhere in the world he chose, survive past the age of 70, earn a pension from both the Crown and his investments, and never have his children contract polio or tuberculosis.

I don't know what the neo-distributists want but I wouldn't put any of them in the same intellectual category as Chesterton or Belloc. And if both Chesterton and Belloc were proved incorrect then I'll bet the revivalists are wrong too.

[stilicho]

Depends on the level of the taxation. If we put a 90% tax on all incomes over $100,000 you would probably object. But that's classic distributism.

No that isn't classic distributism or even any sort of distributism. Distributism was developed prior to income taxes and certainly prior to including payroll taxes as a source of general revenue for the state.

Distributism precludes income taxes by making the private means of production "more" public--I don't know of a better way to define it. In other words, the "guild" will build the park or pave the highway. No need for a Public Works Ministry.

(Of course they won't because they didn't in the age of the guilds and there's no reason to believe they'd start now).

[AlBell]

In a reality-influenced world, this would be very easy to accomplish simply by restoring reasonable levels of estate taxes.
Your comments usually make good sense. This one seems suspect. Estate-Tax avoidance mechanisms follow new laws to the contrary basically instantaneously, as of course do income-tax avoidance mechanisms.

Pixy has mentioned your CD or google competitor ideas could be accomplished by those with limited budgets. Once you get into, for example, economic natural resource extraction, mega-mega-bucks are usually needed. I'm sure many other areas with very high initial capital requirements can be identified.

[stilicho]

Your comments usually make good sense. This one seems suspect. Estate-Tax avoidance mechanisms follow new laws to the contrary basically instantaneously, as of course do income-tax avoidance mechanisms.

Pixy has mentioned your CD or google competitor ideas could be accomplished by those with limited budgets. Once you get into, for example, economic natural resource extraction, mega-mega-bucks are usually needed. I'm sure many other areas with very high initial capital requirements can be identified.

Unfortunately that isn't distributism.

A better example would be setting up a Federal Interstate Highway Trust Fund which would be operated partly by elected officials, partly by corporate appointees, and financed by a revenue neutral dividend paid by the member corporation and offset with a discount on payroll taxes.

Remember that distributism is based on a world without payroll taxes.

[daenku32]

I just got lost, again, in Wikipedia and stumbled upon the article for Distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism).



Thoughts? I could actually see a lot of advantages in this particular approach -- the avoidance of crony-capitalism and corporatism, more egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunity (with all the social advantages obtained thereby). I could also see a lot of disadvantages -- I'm not sure how "the means of produc[ing]" Honda Civics could reasonably be distributed among the general populace instead of being place in a single factory, but ownership of that factory could certainly be distributed....

The problem is that the Wikipedia article was a little light on actual content and I don't trust the links to go anywhere useful since these articles are notoriously written by axe-grinders.

Well the Wikipedia article still works as a definition. And using that definition we certainly have and are headed into even less egalitarian distribution of resources, as they deal with reinvestment. The lie that is sold is that personal "investment" programs like 401k, stocks, etc, are making you an investor in the economy, even though you are really just giving the control of your wealth to someone else. Unless you are personally investing in the means of production you are just relinquishing that job to someone else. They control your wealth, and best you can hope for is that you get your dividend (the crumbs) if and when the investment pays off.

That most goods that we see are from major corporations just drives this home. Unless you have what it takes to go big, you just make a 'donation' and go home. You simply won't have any personal control of the direction of the business.

[tensordyne]

:boxedin:

1. If you really want a version of "distributism" that makes sense and has been shown to historically work (Hong Kong uses it supposedly to great economic effect), check out Henry George, the only economist I have read that makes any sense (except maybe sometimes Ricardo). One clear idea that comes from reading his work is that there are three factors of production, Land, Labour and Capital. Be careful he uses these words in a way you might not. The point is that Land/Rents should be taxed and resdistributed (as either revenue for the gov or as a dividend) while leaving Labour and Capital alone (not taxed that is). To me, Henry George found a third way that is different from the socialism/capitalism spectrum.

Read about his ideas here (http://www.henrygeorge.org/).

2. Public Corporations should really be outlawed. Aside from the rampant dishonesty associated with stock market manipulation, it simply has always seemed wrong to me that another person can "own" part of the profits associated with the efforts of others. At first it seems sensible, since there is risk involved and there is a need for startup money, but over time the moral reasoning for someone being able to profit from owning stock becomes strained. Owning the work of others goes by another name too, slavery. So, my suggestion is small businesses, leave 'em alone. Big business that is a corporation or the size of some midlevel corp, change it to a co-op, reimburse the stock-holders/owners and allow for bonds as the only outside investment.

Keywords you might want to look up (if for nothing else then self-edification):
"Henry George", "Cooperative".

3. Can't help it, change the money/banking system. I will not go into that though as it is off of thread topic.