You do know that in India, private banks are doing well whereas other than SBI, the govt banks are mostly running losses.
1. Then all the private banks should be nationalized and all of them and then the other government banks should be under one name - SBI.
2. As I said the existence of a bank should be for one reason only - giving loan, that too on non-interest-basis. If you ask how will it "profit" then that should not be the reason for existence. The bank should exist within the larger progressive socio-economic system which I described in my thread. This will be further made more easy by modern digital wallet technology that is available on smart phones. Any transaction must be recorded by the bank system for security.
This is because without good incentives, the motivation to do well goes down.
What incentives ?
Even SBI charges interest on the loan it gives. Govt would not like to operate a loss making bank for too long.
The Islamic socio-economic system prohibited interest-based economics 1400 years ago. If such a system would have been adopted by India then those 300,000+ Indian farmers would not have committed suicide just between 1995 and 2015. And so many more before and so many after. Add to that other socio-economic elements like making compulsory the weddings to be only done in court with only five people attending ( bride and groom, two witnesses and the court official ), seriously punishing dowry taking and giving and prohibiting people from making two religious pilgrimages every four years and celebrating religious festivals all year round.
Is the Libyan banking system running on losses?
Well, I don't know about the Libyan banking system now because the post-2011 war is continuing but before the invasion the banking system certainly wasn't running on losses. The country didn't even have external debt yet was able to provide a welfare-based society to its citizens.
It is not just random shuffling. A good system requires intelligent shuffle in order that the wealth and welfare grows. If there is no incentive, then a lazy person would do half-hearted effort leading to failure of system.
1. "Wealth distribution" should be nothing but untroubled and free access to resources by the masses. Resources like basic food, housing, healthcare etc. This is what happens generally in Socialist societies and money is just a peripheral element for access to non-immediately-essential needs. Please read my thread to know more. This in other words will also enable a welfare-based society.
2. "If there is no incentive"... What do you mean ?
thats happens in real life too. that's basically what private-employee owned companies do. except the part where the payment comes out of the employee's pockets and everyone being a equal owner. because a company might need decisively action, you cannot run a company where every action requires the vote of every single shareholder, another company that can react faster will run you into the ground.
Well, most company decisions don't need real-time decision-making and can be done in consultation with all workers. In Libya the entire country was run on public debate through direct democracy system called Jamahiriya. From
a 2015 thread :
Under Gaddafi’s unique system of direct democracy, traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.
Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils.
The Basic People’s Congress (BPC), or Mu’tamar shaʿbi asāsi was essentially Libya’s functional equivalent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom or the House of Representatives in the United States. However, Libya’s People’s Congress was not comprised merely of elected representatives who discussed and proposed legislation on behalf of the people; rather, the Congress allowed all Libyans to directly participate in this process. Eight hundred People’s Congresses were set up across the country and all Libyans were free to attend and shape national policy and make decisions over all major issues including budgets, education, industry, and the economy.
In 2009, Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. The New York Times, that has traditionally been highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that
“everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.”
The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Libyan Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya all citizens were allowed to voice their views directly – not in one parliament of only a few hundred wealthy politicians – but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.
On numerous occasions Mr. Gaddafi’s proposals were rejected by popular vote during Congresses and the opposite was approved and enacted as legislation.
For instance, on many occasions Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed. Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.
Even Elon Musk wants direct democracy as the political arrangement for Mars colonies.
Also you use the word "vote". I think we must make clear that this should also involve not just a person saying yes or no but also qualify it with his reasoning and possibly provide some other idea. This is how I think it worked in Libya. I quote
a section from the Green Book which described the Jamahiriya philosophy :
Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Those who vote "yes" or "no" do not, in fact, express their free will but, rather, are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as they are not allowed to say more than "yes" or "no". Such a system is oppressive and tyrannical. Those who vote "no" should express their reasons and why they did not say "yes", and those who say "yes" should verify such agreement and why they did not vote "no". Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their "yes" or "no" vote.
Some days ago I read the sci-fi book The Precipice by Ben Bova which has a lot of the scenes set on a Moon colony called Selene. In one scene there is a decision to be taken that affects all of the permanent residents of Selene so these residents are called to the amphitheatre to appraise the residents and take their ideas.
But you tell me what kinds of real-time decisions have to be made that shouldn't involve the workers ?
so long as there are shortages, there must be money or something like it. only in a world like star-trek where all needs can be met, can we get rid of money. other wise you must trade and to trade efficiently there must be a medium of exchange.
Agreed and that is why I said "but I don't know how that can be done ATM". Though new developments like 3D Printing and Vertical Farming can reduce the shortages greatly.
china has not claim that its reached communism, only that communist is the goal they are striving for.
So 72 years since the founding of the People's Republic and neither has China initiated the "Withering away of the State" ( people's rule, direct democracy ) like happened in Libya nor has China presented an economic model where the traditional money system has been replaced or at least evolved ( like how I have done ). What have the CCP's party theoreticians been doing ?
nor is capitalism incompatible with that goal.
How ?
at most they said they were implementing socialism with chinese characteristics.
Never understood what that means.
then we agree, there are problems, everyone has problems. that is all.
So the Socialists and Communists of the world must link up, discuss and plan like in the older times.
