"Regulated Capitalism" aka "Regulatism" I introduce my partial plan (incomplete)

IN A GENERAL STATEMENT, THE FOLLOWING WRITINGS DESCRIBE A BETTER WAY OF ADMINISTERING WEALTH.

INCREASE THE FUNCTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME THROUGH THE LEGISLATION OF CORPORATIONS.

PEOPLE CANNOT CONTROL THEIR GREED, THEREFORE REGULATIONS MUST BE IN PLACE IN ORDER TO ENFORCE CONTROL AND HELP RELIEVE THE SCOURGE OF GREED IN SOCIETY.

The following is incomplete. Notes have been left throughout the writings in order to remind myself where to expand on what I've written (when I have the time)

These writings are theories that have blatantly occurred as being an answer to the many challenges and imperfections of previously constructed theories by many of the most intelligent post-renaissance minds. Realistically these concepts are very practical; however for them to succeed fully, most of the world will have to adopt these principles, which may have to happen after the next Great War. Following an impending third world war, a form of utopianism will advance through the earth, as the world learns to live as one. In any case, I am fortunate enough to have been an outside observer and person of general interest into the history of political movements and sociological change. The American juggernaught of imperial capitalism is at my doorstep, and luckily for me my parents are Canadians who kept me in this country, thus allowing me to observe as a close party, the evils of my southern neighbour, and the propaganda that they perpetuate onto their own people and the international community. This is also the same for most westernized capitalist states. The total lack of concern for the continuation of the human species in even the near future is a form of camouflaged social anarchy (anomie). Forms of anomie have plagued societies throughout the 10,000 to 13,000 years of human civilization. Not only through the general meaning of societal anarchy, but through the disrespect of the planet that we live on, and the utter consumption of natural resources with no regard as to the eventual consequences of those actions. People need to learn to live in harmony with the planet.



Marxist thought has always been that of liberated human potential, and the integration of a classless society. Basically, humans are used as units in order to create greater income and profit for the people who got them those jobs. Unfortunately, the cost to create a certain product, including wages, is generally much lower than the amount asked for when sold to consumers. In a developing society, humans are exploited and are used as a paltry factor of production. The income distribution is not justly proportionate towards the employees, and so they suffer at the expense of themselves and their governments. Communism was deemed to be a socialist way of correcting the wage gap, and removing social class. Although, before human nature intervened by its selfishness and temptations of greater power, it seemed like a solution to a suffering society caused by the control of the bourgeoisies, and religion, and state. Marxism did lack specific detail about certain issues, which led to differing political interpretations as to what was meant, which is probably the ultimate reason as to why human temptation led to the lack of success of modern communism and socialism.



Capitalism is also a failure, at least partially. The reason it is a failure is because it runs on materialistic non-necessities. No longer does a person create and find a solution to their own necessities; instead people are driven by luxury. This drive for luxury has created the degradation of our planet and created a society in which only 20 percent of the population controls 80 percent of the worlds wealth. Although to a first world citizen, this seems like not such a bad thing, as their standard of life is so high. What needs to be implemented is an educational system that informs the ignorant populace of this problem, and informs them of a way to correct this issue. The American Dream is to create a living, meanwhile maintaining a way to always be able to access all the things your heart desires, through entrepreneurship and the free-market. There is nothing wrong with charging money to someone who is willing to pay, however when too much of the money is going into one place and becoming unproductive, meanwhile causing additional suffering to humanity, something has to be done. Also the concept of supply and demand means that when a person is lacking an essential necessity, another person can raise the price on that something to an amount the buyer will pay, even if the purchasers opportunity cost is even higher than it should be. This same concept is prevalent within the strategies of charging interest.



The world runs on credit. Its as simple as that. Essentially what that means is what you cant afford to buy right now, will be given to you anyway. Youre going to have to pay a lot more than what it was originally worth, and in doing so, you are going to make as much money as possible for the creditor, even if it ends up surpassing the value of the initial purchase by ten times. Due to the nature of giving away something that is yours to help someone else succeed, interest is an understandable fact of life, but greed should stop controlling the overall perpetuation of it. The world would be better off if the allowable rate of interest was lowered to a more productive level. Although if interest rates are capped, investment returns will be lowered as well. Therefore, only certain types of interest should be capped, such as on credit cards. If the credit companies do not appreciate the move to cap interest, they will have to make their billions of dollars in unproductive money somewhere else. We understand that some things are out of our means, and that a loan is sometimes necessary, but the gauging of consumers is unfair and not conducive to the betterment of the standard of life. Humans are also not meant to endure the amount of stress that modern people endure. We were not meant to worry about financial matters such as how long it will take to pay off a home (when we are fortunate enough to reside in a country where that is even remotely possible). At the beginning of an average 25 year mortgage, out of each monthly payment, roughly only 10 percent of the payment is actually put towards lowering the principle. Because the monthly payments remain the same, the amount per payment applied to the principle increases as the debt is lowered. This is only possible if the interest rate remains fairly constant. Regardless of the mathematics involved, the system needs to be changed in order to allow regular citizens and consumers to retain the value of their time and earn more spending power. Interest (and especially high interest) is a black-hole of debt that people, small business entities, and governments are forced to endure. Governments may also need to govern the loaning of capital for essential purchases, in order to ensure the proper and fair treatment of its citizens by private entities. The world as a whole would benefit from such capping of interest, especially such states as America. With the spending habits that it is maintaining, it will be spending more on interest out of its entire gross domestic product, than it spends on any essential services that would be considered a necessity to any developed country, within just a few decades. Non-governmentally, the amount of overall income revenue from interest, as determined through the average functional distribution of income, is roughly 6%. As a percentage this remains surprisingly constant over time. Although 6% is a seemingly low percentage, it is a large chunk of cash in a dollar amount that could be more effective when used more appropriately. Having interest rates roughly always proportionate with the rate of inflation (1-5%) would suffice, and still be considered productive as long as the rate remained just slightly more than the rate of inflation.



Labour income consists of 68% of all functionally distributed income. This seems like a pretty large percentage of overall revenue to be spent on wages. However if it were as large as it seems, we would not be enduring the poverty as a society that has stricken so many communities around Canada, and nations around the world. A possible solution to this problem lies in spreading the amount of income profit to employees on a larger scale, and in forcibly lowering the allowable amount of corporate income (profit), which currently lies at an average of about 18% of the functional distribution of income, to a more appropriate amount of 5%. Although it seems implausible, it can be implemented by giving legislative authority to the government to be able to put a cap, in a dollar amount, on how much actual profit can be made by corporations after all wage and other expenses are met. For example, if the legislative cap were a maximum of $200 million in allowable profit per quarter for a corporation, then a company that would normally make $1 billion per quarter would have to share the $800 million difference with its employees as bonuses, each quarter. It would still retain the ability to make money for itself, just not so much of a large amount. The fact that there is a cap on profit would prevent any chance of greed being mistaken for need. The problem with this idea is that many companies may not feel the inclination to remain in a country whose government forces such policies. In order to combat this, a larger cap than $200 million will most likely have to be negotiated, probably up to $1 Billion a year in profit, or $250 million per quarter. Also, in order to combat executive greed (executives giving themselves larger than proportionate bonuses), a legislative cap on the amount of bonus an executive receives would have to be instituted as well. Even so, the fact that executive incomes will increase due to these bonuses will also be a lure (to executives) to remain in a country that practices such profit-sharing.



Dividends are issued to shareholders as a percentage of the profit, or whatever amount the board of governors agrees upon within a firm. They are usually issued every quarter, but are not necessarily obligated to. Remember that within the profit-sharing ideology only a certain amount in profit can be made before sharing as bonuses the additional amount earned. The primary theorem is that after bonuses have been issued, that still leaves a large sum of money to be divided among shareholders. Take for example a company that makes $400 million in one quarter. $400 million is $150 million above the profit-sharing line of $250 million, which means that after bonuses are paid to employees, it still leaves $250 million in retained profit. If for example, the dividend amount is 10% (agreed upon by the board of governors on the date of disclosure (?)), then $40 million would be issued to shareholders, still leaving the firm with the hefty sum of $210 million in their retained earnings account.

The secondary theorem of dividend issuing is issuing dividends first. If the same company that made $400 million in one quarter was to issue 10% to dividends, they would do so right off of the $400 million as they would normally. However, that would only leave $360 million, and thus only $110 million to be shared among employees. In the primary theorem the employees earn more. In the secondary formula the firm retains more.

Regardless, dividends will not be affected as long as corporations maintain the manner in which they distribute dividends to both common and preferred shareholders. The same can be said for income trusts.



Because of the legislation, companies would not subject themselves to raising prices in order to make up for the lost profit attributed to higher wages and bonuses, because they would have no way or need to make up those profits due to the hypothetical legislation in place. The government would also be able to raise minimum wages without causing inflation. The extra cash in peoples pockets would then raise the standard of living. This way, money will not be stuck in the coffers of big corporations meanwhile people die of starvation in even the richest countries of the world. The government would also benefit from this new form of economy because they could raise the tax rate for individuals who receive these large bonuses and earn more money for health care or the military. Doing this would not even affect the larger proportion of the population receiving profit-sharing because their standard of life would actually go up so significantly that the high tax rate on bonuses wouldnt matter. A profit-sharing economy would allow enough income to go into the government to pay for social services, and other necessities, thus taking care of its citizens.





If companies voluntarily pay higher than average wages excluding bonuses, then





Additionally, research and development funding could be subsidized by the government so there would be no chance of a halt in technological advancements due to a lower cash flow for some companies. People cannot always be trusted to make the proper decisions for the good of the world, due to envy, greed, and selfishness. Therefore that means this change will probably never be allowed to happen due to the powers that be. However, if it were to happen somehow, these laws would be implemented as a control that will eventually change the social thought process.



This new form of economy cannot be considered communist because there is no dictatorship-type party in place running the government. Democratic voting would still remain as the way to decide heads of government and state. Private ownership of land is also historically forbidden in communist societies. China is an exception, because recently they have made concessions to allow some reforms in the laws relating to the otherwise unheard of aspect of privately owning land, as opposed to the notion of the communal sharing of land. Chinas variant of communism is called Maoism, named after the Chinese leader who led the revolution to communism in 1949. He varied communism by creating self-sufficient communities throughout the country. But after a short few years, it became impractical. In a profit-sharing economy, private ownership of land and proprietorships would still remain, thus not stifling the inventiveness of entrepreneurship and capitalism. In a communist society, due to the human nature of greed, everything has been done for the good of the state, not for the good of the people. Therefore citizens became expendable, which is a shame because communisms original focus was to liberate the working class in order to liberate full human potential.



A profit-sharing economy cannot be considered entirely socialist either. Although a socialist governments intentions are usually for the good of the people, the problem is that decision making is centralized and doesnt allow for the creativity that is associated with capitalism. Socialism has often been brought about by violence and revolution, rather than through democratic reformist ways. The pressure on the socialist government to be able to afford all necessities, after taking control of most public services, usually leads to a poorer nation, and eventually bankruptcy. With a profit-sharing economy, enough money will go around to support a nations individual citizens and households, as well as feed the government with the necessary amount of money to be able to properly care for all of its citizens. Therefore, less money will be in the accounts of the large corporations, just sitting there being unproductive except for gaining interest. More money will be able to be properly productive by giving more individuals spending power, by making the money in corporate accounts more available to share. And more money will go to the government, to share with the less fortunate.



Furthermore, the fundamental freedoms of a democracy will differentiate profit-sharing from a communist or socialist society. Using profit-sharing would enhance society and allow for more money to be spread around with ordinary citizens and workers, and disallow corporations to compensate for the loss by raising prices on most of everything, although still allowing for competition and an amount of profit to be made. Because of retained privileges such as freedoms of speech, right to choose leadership and right to earn a profit, competition would still remain a viable aspect of the economy. The freedom to earn a profit will merely be regulated. This form of society should be termed either a Profit-sharing society, or something else appropriately named (Allanism?). This form of society will be like a type of regulated capitalism (or even open socialism) promoting fairness of trade, and so Regulatism is apt.



The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will always be the core foundation of Canada, even if it were to adopt this new form of government and economy. Freedom of religion must be tolerated; however the government must be secular. The futility and irony of fighting to the death over whose prophet is right, and over whose values are the right ones, is obvious. Humans must learn to accept the morals and lessons taught by prophets of the past, but also differentiate between what was metaphorically meant when they taught what they did, and what has been altered through the ages by men in order to suit their own needs. These concepts should all be followed through with because the meaning of life is to help our species survive, all for one, and one for all. We must stop being a parasite to this planet, and living off of it until its eventual accelerated death, and we die along with it.



We, as humans, were put on this planet to carry on the gifts of self-awareness, intelligence, creativity, communication, and positive energy that is created by ignoring our animal instincts that normally tempt us to do negative things. We should not be counter-acting our purpose by systematically eliminating our natural resources. Doing so is essentially our anti-purpose, which will cause the eventual demise of prolonged human life on this planet. A profit-sharing society will allow for the continuation of the advanced way of life we currently maintain, meanwhile aiding those unfortunate souls and states who suffer through and by our misguided capitalistic planet. Japan and many European countries (such as Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands), and especially Canada are, although being capitalist, excellent examples of champions of human rights. All countries must take a more assertive role in demonstrating their beliefs on equality and respect for mankind, and the mother Earth. The Canadian flag should fly everywhere as a synonymous symbol of equality and fairness, but also as a bastion of creativity in a marketplace. Lets build on this by improving life by spreading the wealth and working a way to create energy in an efficient manner meanwhile saving our natural resources in their entire splendor, with a profit-sharing (regulatist) way of life.

Add information on natural energy sources a government should partake in.



Education and healthcare are the two most important factors to any society. Western, and otherwise rich nations should maintain funding for these programs at home and for abroad. They should especially start investing in these countries meanwhile ensuring the corporations who use their workers treat them fairly. We must start controlling homegrown firms who abuse their power and add to the problem of abuse in second and third world countries, with legislation at home. Profit-Sharing (Regulatism) will allow less advantaged countries who have been effectively ripped-off by capitalism, to have the opportunity to receive revenue at a comparably more appropriate rate. However, in order to entice corporations to remain in those countries once the firms are forced to be more humane, the citizens will have to be well-trained and educated. Achieving a higher quality education in such countries will require something new to change the digression of civility and maintain an appreciation in the standard of quality for education. A long-term vision must be achieved. Instead of continuously pumping money into corrupt and badly-run countries (led by individuals who pilfer the money meant for their citizens), why not build a large educational complex in Canada and bring children over at an approximate age of 12 years old or older. Opportunities should be given to even the least fortunate of children; if not just to educate, but to prolong their lives as well. They will stay and reside in this complex from a year to several years in order to be educated on such fundamental subjects as international affairs and human rights, and languages and math. This will help create a greater knowledge filled world society, and allow them to knit a copasetic accepting relationship with the other children of different cultures and races. This complex will be self sustained with greenhouses, and nurses or doctors, so as not to be a burden on its host country. I suggest that the complex be run by a new organization somewhat like a boarding school, which would chaperone students and allow them to experience their host country. Doctors may be supplied through doctors without borders. This will also help the doctors who may be apprehensive about doing work in a war-torn country. Educators can be the paid employees of this organization. And although many of the students will not originate from similar climates, the greenhouses will allow for the students to eat and supply for themselves. Not only will this be an invaluable learning experience for them, but a form of monetary waste reduction and ecological efficiency. It would in essence be showing them how to fish instead of just giving them the fish.

Add a rebuttal to those who believe it is inappropriate to bring someone out of their culture to this complex because that individual may lose their traditional culture due to assimilation.



Also the governments will have to ensure an appropriate internal governmental system is in place with slightly lower than average tax rates. These nations will have to use a greater percentage of tax money for non-military purposes such as increased education for the least fortunate. Post-secondary institutions should receive more money in these countries too, in order to increase their level of human capital with scholars and professionals, and especially health professionals who could take up a practice.