That’s right. That’s what the title says. And that’s what the italicized text below describe. For those who think I’m too detailed and don’t look at the big picture, it’s because they only see me where I have to be the one to make things happen, and you can’t do that without details. You can’t build a car on concepts and vague ideas, in other words. For them, this should eliminate any of that. Fixing the economy, a huge problem, really only comes down to the 300 words below, which I could summarize in a sentence if I need to. For this, I’m sure many of these people who think I’m too much in the details will claim I’m naive. But you know what? I’ve gone through and grilled myself on the details of all this, what it would take to make it happen, and I’ve not been able to convince myself otherwise in the few years I’ve thought about this. If they really thought I were naive, I’ve got two words for them. Bring it! Try to win an argument against me on it! Otherwise, enjoy and let me know your thoughts if you were up to it!
Capitalism is obviously broken. It’s a competitive system, which explains why our competitive species likes it. That’s as long as we didn’t mind most people doing poorly, because in capitalism, we most often improve at the expense of others’ progress, not independently or all together. That’s why capitalism’s disruption must be applied here.
In life, we have needs and wants. Needs for survival. Wants for thriving. What falls into which category depends on how we define “survival”. Does “survival” mean something like being alive biologically, almost dead from starvation? Or does it mean something more humane, like having a place to call home, sufficient decent food, universal healthcare, utility internet access, and some free post-secondary education, to give everyone a reasonable shot at thriving? Currently, the global “survival” standard average is closer to animalistic than humanistic, leaving us lots of room to improve.
To improve the “survival” standard, we must expand its definition to include all practical needs, and increase the minimum thresholds of most needs provided, to give everyone a realistic chance to thrive in today’s world. Ban profit for items of need, or subsidize them with profits from luxury versions of these items. The rest, which is the vast majority of life and the economy, we can leave to capitalism as we know it.
Like it or not, government is who must disrupt capitalism to reset it. Sometimes, government will have provide these items of need themselves. Other times, government will have to require providers, or partner with providers, to do so. Of course, this will all be extremely challenging. However, given all the drastically unfair laws and policies enacted for centuries, often by a population minority, to enact just as drastically fairer laws and policies for humanity’s improvement, backed by an overwhelming majority, should be comparatively easy.
This was also an entry into a micro writing contest of 300 words or fewer. I think they were looking for stories, not visionary big picture outlooks. All the finalists were that, and my other entries were that. Regardless, this one didn’t make the short list so I am now free to share it. It could also have been because I thought the rules said 300 words rather than 300 words including the title. I don’t know what foolishness that was about but my bad that I didn’t catch that for this or a few of my other three entries, which I will save for other contests since they didn’t get a fair chance at it in this one.
Digital Citizen 
“Capitalism is obviously broken.” “Government is who must disrupt capitalism.”
I politely disagree with your statements. Capitalism is the only economic system, yet invented, that has brought more people out of abject poverty than any other. Governments are the entities that interfere and cripple it. (Mussolini learned that the hard way – he was hung by his own people.)
If you haven’t heard or read (the late) Milton Friedman, or Dr. Thomas Sowell, give them a shot. They might change your opinion.
Here’s a start.
Thanks. I have and have read some of their works, as well as heard discussions. Just because capitalism has brought more people out of abject poverty doesn’t mean it’s perfect or can do better, or that there are parts of it not suited for our needs. That’s where I see government having a part. I can put just as many people back in poverty if kept unchecked as it is now.
True, capitalism is not perfect; there is no perfection in any economic system. It is not “unchecked” as there are a plethora of government regulations already in place.
Capitalism promotes innovation, creates jobs and wealth, and rewards success.
Other systems promote mediocrity and stagnation, and reward failure.
The benefits of capitalism far outweigh the negatives.
Agreed, but I’m proposing capitalism with fixes, not other systems by default or majority. The necessities in life shouldn’t be anywhere near the majority of one’s spending, so if government only takes care of that, you’ve got capitalism the way most people think of it left for a pretty good majority of the economy. A lot of gov regs are in the wrong places so lots of regs is a bit meaningless. In fact, they’re constant trying to reduce regs and red tape, but a lot of it misses the mark. I’m a government policy analyst and have been in several major domains for many years. I’ve got an idea of regs and legislation’s “effectiveness”. A lot of it just comes down to lack of courage to put in something less than popular, and selfishness to stay in power rather than doing what’s best for society as a whole.
D.C.–
“The necessities in life shouldn’t be anywhere near the majority of one’s spending.”
Water, food and shelter are the basics and are relatively inexpensive – desired amenities can become are pricey, and those amenities vary widely, person-to-person, region-to-region. “Shouldn’t be” is the operative word here. Governments do not create wealth, yet they are very adept at creating poverty.
“I’m a government policy analyst and have been in several major domains for many years.”
Not sure what to make of that statement. Sounds like just about everyone I know.
And me. 😀
“…selfishness to stay in power rather than doing what’s best for society as a whole.”
BINGO. The trouble I have is that the people who think they know “what’s best for society as a whole” are often naïve, utopian and/or dangerous people. One size doesn’t fit all – and it shouldn’t.
I think we agree more than we disagree. Thanks for the chat.
Bunk
BTW, those WordPress hacks you posted months ago are lifesavers. The registered owner of a blog that I’ve been an administrator / contributor for years went dark, wouldn’t turn over the domain license, and didn’t renew it. Within days a UK porn site bought the domain name and all our links and redirects were corrupted. We recovered the blog data, moved it to a new WP platform and were back up and running.
Your WP hacks allowed me to search and repair thousands of internal links – one-by-one – in HTML. As tedious as that was, it would have been almost impossible to do it with the Gutenberg garbage in the way. Thanks again.
Glad it was helpful. Defer credit to a few people I linked to who gave the best tips. 🙂
Yes, thanks for the chat!