Opinion of distributism

[politicus]

Probably the ideology that is closest to my views on economics, all though moderated by environmentalism and a more positive view of public welfare. Guess I am a left distributionist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

[New_Conservative]

Strongly against this ideology.

[RI]

Ignores returns to scale, natural monopolies, and other welfare enhancing benefits of capital centralization. It's rather poor economics, unfortunately, which puts me in a rough place as both a Catholic and an economist.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HI^1000.

[SNJ1985]

On the whole, I think it sounds pretty good.

[Deus Naturae]

The ideas regarding property ownership don't sound that bad in theory and while returning to a society where everyone was a farmer, business-owner, or independent artisan might be nice, it would also result in a reversion to a pre-industrial economy incapable of mass production. Some might find such a society preferable to the one we live in now, but given the reduction in living standards such a return would entail, it's hardly justifiable to force their desire for a less-developed economy on everyone else via government policy.

Banning interest is a moronic suggestion that would also result in lower living standards (societies become wealthier when resources are invested in expanding production and developing a capital structure rather than immediately consumed...this would become significantly harder when saved funds couldn't be profitably loaned out for these purposes). You'd also see a return to a more stratified society where people could only acquire property via inheritance rather than borrowing capital to launch their own enterprises.

The guild system is another terrible idea and contradicts the claimed opposition to monopolistic cartels. Guilds promote "harmony" to the extent that their members act harmoniously to restrict entry into their profession and charge artificially high prices/rates for their goods/services.

So, overall I'll definitely go with HI.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HI^1000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[AggregateDemand]

The endeavor is reasonable, and we still pursue widespread property ownership as a foundation for societal equity. However, arbitrarily assigning property is of no use, especially since the means of production and wealth change so rapidly. At the beginning of the 20th century, family farms were still an integral part of building wealth. Today it's financial instruments and intellectual property.

Government can only provide people with the tools. They can't distribute property in a meaningful or equitable fashion.

[GaussLaw]

Pretty positive, but as realisticidealist pointed out, it ignores some economic realities.  It's certainly better than either current party's economic platform.

[traininthedistance]

The ideas regarding property ownership don't sound that bad in theory and while returning to a society where everyone was a farmer, business-owner, or independent artisan might be nice, it would also result in a reversion to a pre-industrial economy incapable of mass production. Some might find such a society preferable to the one we live in now, but given the reduction in living standards such a return would entail, it's hardly justifiable to force their desire for a less-developed economy on everyone else via government policy.

Banning interest is a moronic suggestion that would also result in lower living standards (societies become wealthier when resources are invested in expanding production and developing a capital structure rather than immediately consumed...this would become significantly harder when saved funds couldn't be profitably loaned out for these purposes). You'd also see a return to a more stratified society where people could only acquire property via inheritance rather than borrowing capital to launch their own enterprises.

The guild system is another terrible idea and contradicts the claimed opposition to monopolistic cartels. Guilds promote "harmony" to the extent that their members act harmoniously to restrict entry into their profession and charge artificially high prices/rates for their goods/services.

So, overall I'll definitely go with HI.

I... basically completely agree with this.  Stop the presses.  (I guess I'd add the caveat that there are legitimate restrictions on "lending for interest" in the name of preventing exploitation i.e. subprime and payday stuff, but that's not really ruled out by what you've said here I don't think.)

I do like their implicit goal of making markets work fairly by making sure that everyone has enough seed capital/security to participate in a non-coercive manner, but that would be better achieved with a universal basic income instead of their methods.

[Boston Bread]

I suspect it wouldn't be better, but at this point it's worth the risk to try an alternative to the current system. If supporters implemented this in some jurisdiction and it works, I would change my mind on it. And I would like it if religious political movements went for this instead of a morality police.

[Mr. Smith]

I like the angle, but ultimately it seems like something that would evolve horribly in the wrong direction. Sort of like how Marxism is supposed to gradually go stateless and classless but ultimately just leads to an autocracy or oligarchy.

This seems like it wants to become an old-fashioned socialist co-op (despite the definition saying otherwise), only to eventually fail somewhere along the line [probably with the guild idea].

While it makes more sense than the "voodoo economics" the Democrats and GOP of today fight for, or unfettered capitalism, it's still almost at the extreme other end from them.

Ultimately if it's not Keynesian, it's bunk.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HI^1000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

What is this trying to say? That because one economist suggests that human nature, which has undoubtedly been corrupted by the pursuit of materials brought on by the implementation of Capitalism, can't live in a world unless they own property? I think that's pretty foolish.

[TNF]

Utterly reactionary.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's basically not so much a system of thought, a series of thought-inspired wish statements from early 20th Century/late 19th Century Christian (Mostly Catholic, when being explicit) thinkers. Thus it has the advantage of weighty moral tomes and rhetorical grandeur without ever needing to define what precisely it means.

[H. Ross Peron]

Certainly more understandable than those on the Christian Right and in the Reconstructionist movement who think Austrian Economics are taught in Scripture. Still, like "sustainable" and "localist" movements on the left, it naively rejects the benefits of economic centralization, modernity and globalization.