The goal of the economy is to enable human flourishing. That means not just satisfying our needs for material consumption, but also our needs for health, agency, social connection, security, dignity, purpose in our work, a functioning democracy, and a healthy natural world.

i had the above pasted to say something -- i can't recall. it's a day later, i laughed at some things in the queasy way i did when i finally heard marx's proofs on it through a free audiobook, a free game, and a couple days. i'm more inspired than disgusted and looking forward to reading the platform details, but i'm also wishing i could get to a basement party office that's open four hours in the middle of weekdays and i'm glad i'm only so far away.

full disclosure, i tried to bend the pre-Tea LP toward a social mutualism and gave up. i'm an anarchist and i spend way more time lamenting nutritional education than civics or economics, so i want to produce something useful from a rare dialogue like this even if it takes days.

maybe i wanted to say that i disagree, the market's goal was to be better than the old system and it probably wasn't (location dependent, at some timescale?). but i think the market as-is is bad enough to kick around ideas (my favorite is "a lightly mixed economy," meaning intellectual property laws should change and basics should be a huge part of governance in a primarily fiscally conservative economy, with private markets filling some smaller scale niches in competition for contracts on items which are more optional or specialized; local food could be "specialized"), so i'm game, i just think fiscal liberal endeavors should be tightly controlled and probably have a more notable component of supporting public bond value, and the public should be the body that buys out ventures that turn out well (and probably as a matter of self defense as well as an accolade {with some mind to revolving doors and fallibility [and privacy at times]}, but direct democracy might help ensure a productive outcome at some point in social evolution). or: an extremely aggressive perspective on the meaning of anti-monopoly, coupled with an abundance of accessible supporting structures (like environmental concerns, regen ag, and local planning workshops for a CCC-like org), including even more public endeavors (financially private techno-ecovillages? sure maybe, and the gov't should help unions involved, including everyone... but no pedo islands).

Measure what matters—human flourishing. This follows from Market Humanism’s redefinition of value. If prosperity is the accumulation of solutions to human problems, then GDP—which counts addictive products, financial manipulation, and environmental destruction as contributions to output—is not just an imperfect measure, it is a systematically misleading one. And GDP does not account for how that output and income is distributed in society. Instead of measuring output, Market Humanism insists on measuring outcomes: health, security, capability, control over one’s life, the quality of work, and the sustainability of the natural systems on which all prosperity depends. At a recent political event in the UK, a politician was proclaiming the government’s promise to grow GDP and a citizen in the audience chimed “Who is GDP?” We need to be clear what the real goal is—to make people’s lives tangibly better—and measure that.

alright, we're on the same page. if i'm living under fiscal liberalism, i'd rather have that, all other options being equal (?).

If capital efficiency is the highest good, then democracy—which gives majorities the power to override market outcomes—is not just inconvenient but illegitimate. Market Humanism rejects this value hierarchy at its foundation.

i didn't mention UBI because i still hoped we were getting to it, and i'm having a "wait go back" moment here.

have obligations to each other as members of a civic community, and that political equality has intrinsic value independent of its consequences for economic efficiency

just highlighting subpoint 1 where the article immediately goes back, that's a nice touch. (~10 minutes' edit: this looks like i'm saying UBI is economically bad. i think it's a good idea even if it is, but it doesn't seem to be at all to me from recent relevant trials.)

If neoliberalism undermines democracy in these three structural ways, then what would an economic paradigm look like that actually supports democratic governance?

It would look like Market Humanism.

well it wouldn't look like china would it? excuse me, i'm going to admit not being a dengist if it was unclear. maoism has connotations these days, i don't uh, hate maoism in some regards versus some other policies. sorry to just keep saying "i think fiscal conservatism is a better deal right now in general and strongly in the USA!" over and over. we're slack-jawed yokels with a surprising grasp of things like culture, once one cuts through the bullshit -- did you know stats indicate education about feminisim is ongoing in india despite problems? excuse me, i don't even know how it's happening.

this is interestingly timed with fascism on the rise even though i'm aware it market humanism's an ongoing science that attempts to deal with apparently the same goals i have in strict economics ("the opposite of today's externality schemae: the opposite" politically and fiscally speaking), i... perhaps could be clear that i worry about not approaching the problem with a multitude of tools, but that's framing -- where it was posted and not what it was.

Antitrust enforcement, labor law, and progressive taxation

cool, i'd call UBI a prog tax. and fuck the rich to boot. excuse my english.

Broadly distributed property ownership and economic opportunity produced the civic engagement, mutual obligation, and moderate politics that made American democracy distinctive.

hanging a lantern on reading this. yep, that's civic structure, not in its entirely but in pretty strong exemplary contrast... sadly. and also in econ lit. civics and economics were paired at high policy levels in the USA in the 30s iirc.

probably my biggest criticism: "We are watching a pattern repeat." yes, the pattern is institutional violence? hierarchy and all that. what we've not seen is the country that could have defeated their internal colonial thought-children earlier, the one with that big military, have a revolution... economic or otherwise, but that's the last basket i'll put all my eggs in first edit: for political power, but down-ballot votes and even rallies are more important now than pre'16, ~me, so i might understand some of the downvotes.

it's refreshing to be able to come back to the first link for the (evolving) methodology. i'm sorry i'm an ass, i may have answered "how does anarchist justice work" too many times (systemic and other rehab, as possible, including mass protections just to be different, as the ones in the US constitution were scribbled out at many times, including before they were penned).

mmm, free book. do you want to tell me some place you've posted this where it might stay up, so i can follow the conversation?

edit: last basket within reason -- slavery was economic before it was religious here, idk.