I can sum up my problem with socialism and communism with but a phrase.

If there's someone getting something they didn't work for, there's someone working for something they aren't going to get.

Now, I'm not going to defend completely willy-nilly Capitalism. Because that's even dumber than thinking it has no virtues.

I like Social market economies, which is basically putting limits on the grasp on capitalism without putting limits on people.

The Earth-rape factor of Capitalism is also heavily influenced by whatever the Intelligencia deems allowable. That being said if turds like the Tea Party had a consensus in institutions like NOAA, EPA, etc.. we would all be in some serious doo-doo. And if Al Gore controlled what businesses could do, we'd suffer a serious economic backlash.

The problem in our system of Capitalism can basically described as a two-part problem.

#1. Corporate Socialism, our system has determined that Corporations are people, and the wealthiest Corporations are very important people. It determines that they are more important than everyone else, and will do anything and everything under the Sun to keep them running.

#2. Profit sharing corruption, the ability of wealth to influence power is pretty easily understood. But in our "Laissez-faire" system, money goes where money pleases and from wherever money wishes. There have been very few checks on keeping money from one realm out of another, for reasons of preserving integrity.

Both of these are human problems, just as Socialism/Communism has lead to a small group of people abusing the system at the top, making a killing while others suffer. This is, unfortunately, human social nature.

Real world Capitalism, is the ideal system to work with that. Because it fits human nature much more accurately, it simply has to be tweaked to manage the system and keep it honest. This can never be done with a static system, as changes will always be coming at us. It has to be a systemic set of controls that can be changed and adjusted as it does. This does mean it technically be altered to abuse power, but the idea would be to try and keep abusers out of the system.

First off, usury, and pretty much the entirety of related business practices we use. Along with the giving of value to intangible things. Are very ignorant and very dangerous ideas.

I've often wondered what is a stock option? It's imaginary, it doesn't exist.

Much like giving people money on the basis that they will incur debt and have to pay it. Is betting on things that are not there, you only think they will be there. Which is the entire basis of student loans, mortgages, and virtually every other loan as well as our currency system.

I do like materialistic capitalism. Meaning money is worth something, not possibilities. Which works in the reverse as well, that being possibilities are worth nothing, only somethings are worth something. Now this is an economic model, meaning they have no capital value. It doesn't mean investment becomes impossible, it just cuts away it's absurd capital profit capacity.

A lot of people make fun of the concept of the gold standard. The problem isn't that our money isn't based on ingots of precious metals. The problem is it is based on absolutely nothing, a Fiat system. It's worth is based on what economists can figure it to be worth, all the while diluting it's worth to high hell in a pyramid scheme of sorts.

A materialistic system, while seemingly primitive; removes that problem because it's very hard to fake gold, silver, platinum, etc.. etc.. They will also have value. Even in a world with carbon nano-tubes, they will be very hard to use for making circuit board connections, while gold and platinum are less efficient, they are much easier to work with. Just because we can make cars from titanium doesn't mean we do, because the difficulty of working with it, makes it less profitable to produce. It obviously doesn't have to be based on precious metals, but substance is the point.

Now, I support a Federal system that runs on a flat income tax. And people often wonder why I don't support a progressive tax structure, and that's because it influences the freedom in the market for people to move. If you always pay a 10% income tax (for argument's sake), then the Federal Government no longer really becomes a concern so much as just a fact of life. I also think the Federal system should tax estates and corporations, but doing that doesn't effect labor freedom, it just hampers Capitalistic abuse. That being said, I have no problem with a State instituting it's own progressive tax system to finance it's own Government and programs.

The very idea of material finance-social market economies are pretty ideal to me. It's the concept of having an economy that best serves the society, while keeping meritocratic controls, competition, and ingenuity; while hampering cronyism, usury, fraudulent practices, etc.. etc..

What is the basic concept of this market structure? (mostly with regards to corporate business)

The very wealthy are people who achieve it, and create possibilities like large corporations. They get money because their businesses provide goods and services.

The middle class are the technical work force who provide highly refined goods and services. In many cases the nervous system to the body of large corporate entities.

The working class are the backbone of labor on which the corporations are based.

Now some of that structure obviously changes depending on the field of business a corporation is based. If we are talking a computer technology group, there's isn't going to me all that many entry-level jobs, unless it provides hard services like physical installations. And if it's a medical research organization, the middle class of folk, which would include medical professionals off the high end, and certain members of the "elite" if you will, like hospital administrators and pharmaceutical manufacturers (because medicines have to be producible).

With smaller business, basically working class and middle class capital become that backbone. Banks, that is financial institutions, can issue loans; but they cannot be forced by Government to give loans to people they normally wouldn't. Giving a loan is an investment, telling people they have to invest in everything is a very stupid move. Which is what forcing banks to issue loans on investments they normally wouldn't take, amounts to. They'll know a good investment when they see one, otherwise they won't remain in business very long.

Now without allowing a great number of the financial practices, you might think banks will find the market not profitable enough. I would disagree (and not just because interest on loans is lucrative), because a social market economy would want to see banks do well, as arbiters of small business and working/labor and middle class socio-economic freedom.

Corporations would be denied this service, as they should be based on surpluses, not inherent debt; because that places a responsibility on people who shouldn't have it placed upon them. Meaning a Corporation should never be able to get into debt, because if it doesn't make money, it shuts down.

I also like the idea of eliminating the "stock" market entirely. Corporations should be forced to split profit shares in a basically socialistic/communist way. Everyone (employees) gets an even slice of the profit pie, because all worked for it. This still leaves room for CEO's and executives to have lucrative salaries and retirement bonuses. But all that lucrative rewarding will be based on egalitarian success as everyone would be getting wealth to create the environment that allows that.

Corporations would also have to keep clear and concise business records of all transactions as public record (free for any Joe blow to read). Otherwise they lose their business license, easy as that. This pretty much means illegitimate business practices become nonviable, and thus never a problem.

Reducing complexity in things like business law and tax codes are also a big goal that Federal Government should have, to streamline it's job and keep it cost effective. Because if it costs more money to enforce business law, than the illegitimate profits it stops, it's totally pointless. It also becomes exponentially successful by forcing business and corporate transactions to be entirely transparent to the public. Business and Corporations have no right to privacy.

These are just some of my ideas rambling in my head. I'll probably get into this topic some more at another point.