I guess my question here is at the risk of coming up with statements describing current economical reality … what are the best ways of combating modern day cartels/monopolies who don’t have the best interests of the common man as their driving principle…

Brand loyalty is one way to combat cartels - the members would havta compete then, to win over customers i.e. offer the best at reasonable prices. I dunno!

what are the best ways of combating modern day cartels/monopolies who don’t have the best interests of the common man as their driving principle… — Deus

A long-term plan to get rid of money, starting with a UBI(universal basic income). So, we move towards economic parity for all and then get rid of money and switch to something like a resource-based economy.

and then get rid of money and switch to something like a resource-based economy — universeness

I think it could not be possible. It is interesting your point but if we get rid of money or monetary terms, the things themselves would lose their real value. For example: you pay X number of euros in a new car because the object actually deserves it.
Resource-based economy is a good intention indeed and I respect it. But it is impossible to avoid money exchange.
It is interesting to see that we always put a price on everything, right?

What do you think of points such as:
The Mesopotamian shekel – the first known form of currency – emerged nearly 5,000 years ago. The earliest known mints date to 650 and 600 B.C. in Asia Minor, where the elites of Lydia and Ionia used stamped silver and gold coins to pay armies.

5000 years is 11.43 seconds in the cosmic calendar. Money as a system of exchange is not that old, when we consider how long humans have existed on the Earth.
You might be correct that we cannot completely get rid of money, but it is already being irrevocably changed. It's becoming fully electronic for example, no paper and no coins really required anymore.

So, do you think we could get rid of all national currencies and just exchange goods and services using numbers/credits?
We could also do that now, yes? So, what would we be left with if all paper and coin money was globally withdrawn?
A 'total,' that would go up and down in your bank account, based on your 'earnings' and or benefits/pensions/investments etc. How far is it from there to effectively, no money. In other words, a resource-based economy. Technology seems to me to be taking us inexorably in that direction whether we want it or not. I think that future tech may offer us more and more ways to reduce the need for a concept such as money and be able to offer all humans the services they need free, from cradle to grave based on their willingness to contribute to the society in any way they are able to and based on what that society needs humans to do for its maintenance, security and growth. Why do we need wealth hierarchy? Has that system produced more good or evil for the human race in the past 5000 years?

So, do you think we could get rid of all national currencies and just exchange goods and services using numbers/credits? — universeness

National currencies are also tools for pursuing safety. One nation is capable to exchange goods and services using credits because their credibility allows them to do so. For example: Japan; UK; Eurozone; USA, etc... Have the so called reserve currency. Economists debate whether a single reserve currency will always dominate the global economy. Many have recently argued that one currency will almost always dominate due to network externalities, especially in the field of invoicing trade and denominating foreign debt securities, meaning that there are strong incentives to conform to the choice that dominates the marketplace.

How far is it from there to effectively, no money. In other words, a resource-based economy. — universeness

I understand. Nevertheless, the interactions are very complex to reach a resourced-based economy. If we implement this doctrine how would you pay to your workers? (for example). Imagine you have 5 workers in your office and you pay them 1.000 € per month because you consider it sufficient in terms of hours of work, tasks, benefits, bonuses, etc... But how can you measure all of these factors with resource-based economy? You will always need a basic number or digit to do it.

If we implement this doctrine how would you pay to your workers? (for example). Imagine you have 5 workers in your office and you pay them 1.000 € per month because you consider it sufficient in terms of hours of work, tasks, benefits, bonuses, etc... But how can you measure all of these factors with resource-based economy? You will always need a basic number or digit to do it. — javi2541997

Exemplification is always a good place to start. The idea of an 'office,' as somewhere you travel to for your days' work, is diluting and changing. Teleworkers are becoming more and more common. The idea of 'Your office' and Your workers,' and 'You pay them,' is also not chiselled in stone.
In a resource-based economy, you would have local, national and international issues that need to be dealt with at a local, national and international community level. As many systems and services as possible, would be as automated as possible. Humans would fill in the gaps where required, they would do the jobs that needed doing. Who would do what? Well, I have my own socialist/humanist ideas of how I think people could live day to day in such an economy and how production, distribution and exchange would function. I doubt that any of them are original, and I don't have expertise in all the areas I would touch upon, but I am sure you agree that technology is changing the means of production, distribution and exchange, in many significant ways and I do not see any benefit to maintaining the status quo.
I agree with how vital personal freedom is and that all individuals must be as free to do what they want as is possible within the restriction of the existence of 'other people' who also want to be free to do what they want. That's the biggest issue. Your freedom cannot prevent or subjugate another's.
I have not figured out quite how to achieve that without causing dissent somewhere in some people.

I guess my question here is at the risk of coming up with statements describing current economical reality … what are the best ways of combating modern day cartels/monopolies who don’t have the best interests of the common man as their driving principle… — Deus

Teach common man enough self control and foresight not to empower corporations with their slave-like devotion to materialism. Start with getting people to stop exploiting child slaves by shopping at Walmart cuz its cheaper.
Good luck.

The idea of 'Your office' and Your workers,' and 'You pay them,' is also not chiselled in stone. — universeness

Well, that's true the space of working completely changed since Covid pandemic but I think offices are still important and effective.

I am sure you agree that technology is changing the means of production, distribution and exchange, in many significant ways and I do not see any benefit to maintaining the status quo. — universeness

Agreed. Technology has changed all of those factors of production. Nevertheless, I still cannot see "production, distribution and exchange" as "priceless". To be honest, if we don't put some value on them, the people would waste the mechanism. Whenever I read your arguments I imagine you as a good reasonable person who acts with common sense. But, sadly, not everyone understands how complex is to redistribute all the chains of the "status quo". I see that many people would confuse resource-based economy with "free" because it doesn't have monetary value.

I agree with how vital personal freedom is and that all individuals must be as free to do what they want as is possible within the restriction of the existence of 'other people' who also want to be free to do what they want. That's the biggest issue. Your freedom cannot prevent or subjugate another's. — universeness

To be honest, seeing these difficult times (Ukraine war, inflation, covid, etc...) I prefer to choose security rather than freedom. If this act would reduce my "freedom" it is ok I will not get mad because I am scary. I am perceiving that most of the people do not respect the rules or public order. Whenever a police officer ask to "please don't disturb the people in the streets" those savages say "it is Fascism we deserve more freedom"
It is a shame. We live in an era where the youngest generation doesn't know what is the freedom and how to respect it

still cannot see "production, distribution and exchange" as "priceless". — javi2541997

We used to be nomadic hunter-gatherers; we had no use for money then. We learned we could stay in an area if there were enough resources nearby, we learned how to farm and how to barter with other settlements, we needed no money then. Small groups merging to become large groups meant local resources could no longer support the human populations involved and barter became too inefficient and impractical for trade purposes. Money was therefore invented. That's all it was ever meant to be, a practical exchange mechanism but it became a horror. A way to support the concept of a chosen few who by birthright or law of the jungle or level of intelligence etc felt entitled to live highly privileged, self-indulgent, narcissistic lives by means of 'the money trick.'
Now, instead of paper money and coin for your labour, you get numbers in your bank account.

To be honest, if we don't put some value on them, the people would waste the mechanism. — javi2541997

Surely the value should be put on the person not the resource. A human can ask and answer questions, they can work and create things. They can give meaning and purpose to the existence of the Universe. A wheat field, a tree of apples, a herd of beef cattle, 100 tonnes of gold and diamonds can't do any of those things. You can't eat money or plant it.
The past 5000 years of using it demonstrates very clearly that it causes many more problems than it solves. I am sure there were wasteful people in the settlements that existed before money existed and we seemed to have survived them, so we just need to learn how to make a moneyless resource-based economy work.

Whenever I read your arguments I imagine you as a good reasonable person who acts with common sense. — javi2541997

Thank you for those kind words I hope I can live up to them.

But, sadly, not everyone understands how complex is to redistribute all the chains of the "status quo" — javi2541997

It is complex and only the most technically advanced country and imo, only the country closest to achieving a humanist/socialist political system will be the first to switch to something akin to a resource-based economy, or at least a much fairer system than we have now.
Other countries will follow suit over time if they see the first country to do it, flourish.
At some point after that, we may finally become a united planet and start to leave the nest and become truly interplanetary.

Now, instead of paper money and coin for your labour, you get numbers in your bank account. — universeness

But that's only how the transfer of money has changed in the last decades. I still see it as a "value" of my job each month whenever I accomplish it.

only the country closest to achieving a humanist/socialist political system will be the first to switch to something akin to a resource-based economy, or at least a much fairer system than we have now. — universeness

Hmmm. I don't think so. I live under a socialist country and I don't see any kind of intentions of changing all the mechanism. Rather than trying to develop a resource-based economy, they are getting rich doing literally the opposite.
To be honest, your arguments of resource-based economy could only be applied to small countries with reasonable citizens. It is impossible to implement this in big chaotic countries like India or Mexico. They depend a lot on monetary values and their governors are always obsessed with "buying" reserve currencies like American dollar or Euro. It is a very complex situation which seems to be irretrievable

I live under a socialist country and I don't see any kind of intentions of changing all the mechanism. — javi2541997

Well, I don't think you do, there is no socialist country in the world at the moment imo, but that's just a problem of labels and definitions and interpretations. Most socialists argue vehemently amongst themselves, about what actions or policies are or are not socialist. If:

Rather than trying to develop a resource-based economy, they are getting rich doing literally the opposite. — javi2541997

is true, then that is not socialism.

To be honest, your arguments of resource-based economy could only be applied to small countries with reasonable citizens. It is impossible to implement this in big chaotic countries like India or Mexico. — javi2541997

I fully appreciate that point of view. All truly socialist/humanist systems are more difficult to maintain as the population gets to a number like 8 billion globally. I think such a system would always creak at points and the protections may even fail at times, perhaps only ever locally but perhaps sometimes on a much larger scale. I am not naive enough to suggest that we can create an impervious, fair, sociopolitical system where 'all individuals are equal,' every moment of every day, but I am fully convinced, that we can vastly improve on the human condition as experienced right now by the vast majority of those who currently experience it. I am also convinced that the capitalist 'money trick' imposes great harm on our species and on our planet, and it is a clear and present danger that must be effectively dealt with for the sake of all future generations.

It is a very complex situation which seems to be irretrievable — javi2541997

Before your generation ends, I hope your fellow humans provide you with some positive surprises as good examples of what humans can do to make improvements on how they live. Humans love to understand complex systems, and many are compelled to retrieve that which some claim is irretrievable. I am happy to wear the 'wishful thinker' t-shirt fashioned for me by @Tom Storm.

:up:

Before your generation ends, I hope your fellow humans provide you with some positive surprises as good examples of what humans can do to make improvements on how they live. — universeness

Nah, I am pretty sceptical on such scenario :mask:

is true, then that is not socialism. — universeness

Nobody even tries to put it into practice. Most of these debates end up in doctrines or theories at universities of political science. Everything we both are debating is good and worthy to our lives. But all of these mechanisms need to be practical and the authorities responsible for making this "happen" tend to not do anything to pursue it.
It is so frustrating, doesn't it? There are a lot of people trying to improve the world but the politicians do not care. This is why I don't want to be a public representative.

I am also convinced that the capitalist 'money trick' imposes great harm on our species and on our planet, and it is a clear and present danger that must be effectively dealt with for the sake of all future generations. — universeness

Believe it or not, it is the better possible system. The different generations have tried different systems of organisations along the centuries and most of them end up failing except capitalism. It is true it is a flawed system but it is not that bad because most of the people tend to win under it.

It is so frustrating, doesn't it? There are a lot of people trying to improve the world but the politicians do not care. This is why I don't want to be a public representative. — javi2541997

It's an interesting point you raise here. I tried to become exactly what you are describing from around the age of 18. I was a member of the labour party, the young socialist party and the cooperative labour party here in Scotland. I also felt many politicians did not care which is why I wanted to be one as I really did care and still do. I just did not know enough about enough at that time to progress within the parties I was a member of.
Now I know a lot more, I am against the existence of political parties and believe that representation should be based on individual local independent candidates and not a political party. I can't now join a political party and be true to that viewpoint.

Believe it or not, it is the better possible system. The different generations have tried different systems of organisations along the centuries and most of them end up failing except capitalism. It is true it is a flawed system but it is not that bad because most of the people tend to win under it. — javi2541997

Words are limited to express how much I utterly disagree with your above quote.

Now I know a lot more, I am against the existence of political parties and believe that representation should be based on individual local independent candidates and not a political party. I can't now join a political party and be true to that viewpoint. — universeness

Good point :up: It is difficult to change the political rules and system because as how it works it feeds a lot of people's interests.

Words are limited to express how much I utterly disagree with your above quote. — universeness

I respect your thoughts. Nevertheless, I don't know a financial system which actually works apart from capitalism. :chin:

I don't know a financial system which actually works apart from capitalism. — javi2541997

I could start to describe past and present examples and attempts and then we could discuss the pros and cons involved but that would probably be quite tedious for both of us and is more the purpose of the PM system on TPF. Suffice to say, I hope this can be demonstrated convincingly to you, within your lifetime but you have already responded to that with:

Nah, I am pretty sceptical on such scenario :mask: — javi2541997

So, that's about where we are for now!

I know I sound as a neo liberal or capitalist cheerleader. But I am not even close. I am just sceptical about financial regimes around the globe and I still don't see socialism as a real solution to get resource-based economy or a redistribution of wealth. Most of socialist countries end up failing. Yes, I know capitalism is not the solution neither. But at least it is a system who (more or less) works in the Western world and some Asian countries as Japan or South Korea.

I think your viewpoint on this issue is shared by many people. It's up to those, such as me, who label themselves using words like humanist and socialist etc to develop and create the system they envisage and then seek permission from the voters they represent to be in power and DEMONSTRATE that their system can do what they promise it will do. The burden of proof that socialism/humanism is the best way forward for the human race, is with all true socialist/humanists, not you, unless you use the same labels to describe your own personal politics.
If we cannot convince the people, then we cannot even try to gain power much less stay in power and that's the way it must be. Then, the people are left with what they currently have or any other alternative on offer. That's simply the reality of how human democratic politics must function.

Russia, China, USA, UK etc are all basically plutocracies.
In the case of Russia and China there is less democracy and personal freedom, but the main controls are in the hands of a privileged plutocratic few in all these countries. Russia and China simply have an autocrat at the top of the hierarchy, but imo, that's the only main difference between how the hierarchy of power in each of the countries above are structured and function.
Money is the main force behind plutocracies, so that invention, has to be reinvented or disposed of, if we are ever to rid ourselves of the horrific imbalances that the majority suffer, due to living under a plutocratic system.

Then, the people are left with what they currently have or any other alternative on offer. That's simply the reality of how human democratic politics must function. — universeness

Agree. But, paradoxically, socialist countries tend to be the less democratic possible. That's a fact we have to accept. Just look at China, Cuba, Angola, Venezuela, Belarus, etc... They are not democratic. The citizens of those countries cannot vote if they want socialism or not. Their dictators just imposed it.

if we are ever to rid ourselves of the horrific imbalances that the majority suffer, due to living under a plutocratic system. — universeness

It is true that those systems are not perfect and there is some imbalance. But please do not forget that at least you can vote to elect the next president in UK or USA. Not like China and Russia. Plutocracy is bad but is not so dangerous as living in a military dictatorship as North Korea for example.

Agree. But, paradoxically, socialist countries tend to be the less democratic possible. That's a fact we have to accept. Just look at China, Cuba, Angola, Venezuela, Belarus, etc... They are not democratic. The citizens of those countries cannot vote if they want socialism or not. Their dictators just imposed it. — javi2541997

You have named some interesting examples. How much do you know about the history of Cuba or Venezuela?
Venezuela if you study its history was one that was closest to a serious attempt at establishing a socialist/humanist system. The initial moves were very good imo, but the attempts to consolidate were crushed by outside plutocratic forces.
The details involved would again, take a long time to present and evidence and there would be a lot of fake claims to the contrary. That's the main problem we have. The rich and powerful plutocracies are not incompetent idiots; they are very powerful and very able. They have dynastic level historical practice at preventing humanist/socialist systems from getting established anywhere and they are ever vigilant/paranoid about losing their privileged status and will do anything and commit any atrocity, to maintain their dynasties.

Venezuela if you study its history was one that was closest to a serious attempt at establishing a socialist/humanist system. The initial moves were very good imo, but the attempts to consolidate were crushed by outside plutocratic forces. — universeness

I disagree. Venezuela never gave a real try to implement humanism among the society. It is absurd to always find guilts outside the country. Plutocratic forces is just a random speculation to just don't assume the fatalities of the State of Venezuela. Maduro and the rest of socialist commanders of Venezuela also play the card of "we are bad because of Spanish empire stigma". Well, I completely disagree... They got their independence 200 years ago. Two centuries is a lot to get rid from Spanish yoke.
In the other hand, why some plutocracies would be interested in Venezuela? Yes they have oil but it is managed by a state owned company...

The evil of such corporations is when they start dictating the terms of how much you should pay for everyday essentials through the creation of Monopolies. — Deus

The formation of a monopoly is anti-competitive and illegal even in the most capitalistic of countries, except in limited circumstances, and then they're highly regulated. In any event, what monopoly are you complaining about, your local power company?

The government!!!

The government!!! — Deus

If you consider the government a monopoly, then we're not speaking the same language.

The term we usually use to describe a situation where you have multiple governments within the same jurisdiction, each competing for political control is "war."

It was meant as a joke. No monopolies in mind … well perhaps a certain high street/pub chain. Without naming names they sued the insurers for lockdown for lost earnings during those covid inconvenient lockdown.

Edit: It was the insurers. Though I wouldn’t have put it beneath them if they’d gone for government.

Maduro was a leftover who turned gangster!
Hugo Chavez was the main instigator but like Casto's revolution etc it was attacked from all sides by outside plutocratic forces. The rich global elites like to punish all peoples who try to knock them off their perch and they always will. They have been doing so since we came out of the wilds but its a lot easier to do it to socialist movements in countries such as Cuba and Venezuela. Not so easy to do it to the large, politically progressive humanist/socialist movements currently growing in the UK and many other countries in Europe. A group called Compass in the UK is making some strong in-roads at the moment. Another group called momentum is also still doing very well.

A group called Compass in the UK is making some strong in-roads at the moment. Another group called momentum is also still doing very well. — universeness

So interesting! Are they capable to finish the bilateral system?

Are they capable to finish the bilateral system? — javi2541997

If by bilateral you mean two-sided politics, then combatting such, is certainly part of their agenda.
Both groups are certainly left wing imo but they are trying to attract as many people from as many political leanings as they can, on the basis of 'what are your biggest priorities/concerns?' and 'What common ground can we occupy to help change things for the better?' I fully support this approach.

'what are your biggest priorities/concerns?' and 'What common ground can we occupy to help change things for the better?' I fully support this approach. — universeness

It seems they really care about people and not maintaining the status quo. I wish them the best. These are the public representatives we truly deserve. Someone who ask us how to make the things better. It looks like the citizenship can take more part in it.