|
Post by lvl100 on Jan 31, 2009 17:02:49 GMT -5
Ah.. ok. But in Greece, when we say Socialism it is given that this is inside a democratic regime. "Social-democracy" does not exist as a term in Greek. We use only the word "Socialism"... like "Capitalism" and "Commounism". The tottalitarian goes only to "Commounism" not to "Socialism". Yes , its usually a frequent mistake. To avoid it in the future, a few very simplistic explanations : Social-democracy - capitalism with a very high degree of state intervention in economy (Sweden its the best example, but most of the European countries are based on it) Socialism - the disparition of private property . The workers are controling the means of productions. But because the system still bears the marks of the former capitalism, the workers are leaded by a vanguard party. (what the former "socialist block" tried but failed) Communism Its the final phase of socialism. With time, the socialist state withers away and finally dissipates forming a : stateless , classless , moneyless society based on "gift economy" ( so there is no such thing as a "communist state", its a dichotomy) Anarchists - most of them basically want to jump directly to a communist like society, skipping the "socialist" phase
|
|
|
Post by Kassandros on Feb 2, 2009 14:28:33 GMT -5
So... I am a social-democrat... and I dont want real socialism ever to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Feb 3, 2009 13:04:50 GMT -5
If no one desires drywall services then surely you're not suggesting a system in which people are forced to 'want' it? Actors in the market merely shift resources that would be used in drywall ( which no one wants in this scenario) into something people want. Its false to assume a drywall carpenter would have an alternate menial job. No, in a system of voluntary exchange , both have something the other wants ( some good , service , or money) or else they wouldn't voluntarily trade. The market is comprised of individual actors. In any society the individual is the largest 'minority.' Only the market can accurately demonstrate what it is that each individual in society desires as opposed to democracy, marxism , or any other collective system. It is rather ludicrous to say the market is anti-individual when it is predicated on the actions of individuals. It doesn't matter what society you live in, acquiring sustenance like food is a biological imperative. No matter what society we have, people still have to exhume labor to get the materials they need to live. Its not as if once upon a time food and all necessities were super abundant and along came the free market and took that away from everyone. If anything , the productive power of applied free market principles increased average lifespan, created a surplus of food in many nations ( not all), and avoided the Malthusian trap as population grew exponentially and people weren't dying by the millions from starvation. You're false dichotomy doesn't make any sense. There is no reason to assume that if you don't profit from the work you most enjoy that you will be regulated to doing work you least enjoy ( abandoning drywall for dog washing) Believe it or not actually, there are people that want to groom dogs. I mean if no one wanted to, no one would've ever started a business that caters to that. No, all anarchists are in a way or another "individualists" ( no authority, remember ? ) Then putting the collective before the individual makes no sense as promoted by the much of the anarchist Left. Sure, there are issues that ancap will have to deal with just like any other system. However, ancaps believe having a monopolized police force funded through coercion isn't the best way to curb sporadic and isolated incidences of petty violence ( in this context I mean being held up for your wallet as opposed to all out war.) Such incidences are more likely with a largely unarmed populace. Private protection agencies or Dispute Resolution Organizations ( + other proposals in ancap theory) are not necessarily the best alternative. They are merely theoretical with some empirical backing as alternatives to monopolized and institutionalized violence. Ancaps understand that the State is largely funded through coercive means and that there is no legal competitor to the State justice system. The costs of losses generated by the state system are not internalized to the rulers of the state but rather forcefully externalized to the rest of society ( people are forced to pay for the state whether they like it or not.) This is another reason states are able to fund wars. A private dispute resolution organization would have to internalize all costs of bad performance. Going to 'war' with another D.R.O. would be extremely unprofitable as most people wouldn't voluntarily pay for war. How would a communist society propose to deal with these issues? Sorry, I should have defined this better as it can be a bit nebulous. The 'will of the state' is another way of saying the desire of those in power ( directly in government or through proxy corporations) and their willingness to use force to get what they want. Germany was ruled by more people than Hitler. Hitler was the snake's head but not a one man government. Hitler couldn't have done what he done without other people with power supporting him or without the support of the general population. The corporations Hitler allowed to conduct business were only those loyal to him and would produce for him whatever he needed. If they refused to comply with his government, they would be shut down. I do agree with you somewhat about the U.S. Corporations have a lot of power but that's only because of the existence of the corrupt U.S. government. Indeed , politicians do cater to special interests , which many of them are corporate. Corporations as we know them today cannot exist without a government but that doesn't mean that a free market cannot exist without corporations. In fact , the existence of statist 'legal' entities such as corporations inhibit the free market. In the legal language of government-statist legislation, corporations are granted 'rights' as if they are considered individuals themselves. There are two primary ways to acquire wealth. One is through voluntary exchange of value and the other is through (political) force. In the first scenario , consumers like you and I are masters. The producers cater to our desires. ( i.e. if a company generates a product that people like and are willing to buy.) In this scenario a company that does not produce what consumers want are driven out of business or change production to fit with the wants of consumers. The second scenario is when a company has the status of a 'legal corporation' and uses the machinery of the state to become wealthy. It uses the state to crush competition ( anti-trust laws, copyrights, etc) in the form of subsidies and are bailed out for poor performance by the tax payers through the force of the state. The companies in bed with the state are shielded from the judgment of consumers. Eliminate the state and the companies are totally vulnerable to 'consumer's wrath.' The costs then become internalized. In order for any company to hire a 'private army' or private force in order to wage a 'war' would cost the company billions, if not trillions. The probability of success is even lower and consumers would not willingly pay more to the company ( they would just do business elsewhere.) Only a state, through coercive taxation and central banking, can fund wars. A 'gift economy' works great on the small scale and is preferable in some markets , even by producers which earn wealth through other means such as advertising. What you think of as gift economies are not moneyless, they have merely figured out a more efficient way to make money through other means rather than direct trade. However an economy with a near infinite amount of inputs requires some form of organization such as price system and money ( which can be any commodity that fits specific criteria such as scarcity, intrinsic value , easily divisible , measurable , etc.) Yeah but Marx wasn't that intellectual. He wrote of the working class literally from third hand experience. His works were funded through the inherited wealth of Engels' father. Marx opposed the very way he funded his writings. Marx unified Hegelianism with his own theory of 'historical materialism' and made predictions that never produced any fruit in reality. On the one hand Marx wrote that the destruction of the capitalist system was inevitable and that material forces of history would cause it. On the other hand he agitated for revolution as if no changes would occur without forcing a revolution ( therefore, discrediting his own inevitability theory of capitalism's destruction.) His economics were not sound as he could never prove his labor theory of value and tried his hardest in not one , but three volumes of Capital. ( the latter two are less known because Marx really bungles his theory and the Left tried to not pay attention to it.) Keynes and Lange , both of which deeply respected Marx's legacy, were merely apologetics for central planning ( statism) and didn't make any real positive contributions. Keynes' spend-all , no private savings, multiplier theory made incorrect predictions and never accounted for the phenomena of stagflation which was the result of Keynesian mechanics. Lange's 'socialist market' model was merely trying to 'play market' under central control. There was no accurate price system as prices were literally made up by people in power with no power to calculate. All three , Marx , Lange , and Keynes were thoroughly discredited by experience and economists such as Eugene Bohm-Bawark , Ludwig Von Mises , and Frederich Von Hayek. ( I can reference you some free reading material if you wish.)
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Feb 3, 2009 13:17:43 GMT -5
More on this. Surely we can recall a time when horses and buggies were a popular means of transportation in the pre-automobile era. During this time horse shoe makers and buggy producers were at the top of their game earning a healthy income.
But then, along came the automobile. This shifted the economy drastically. People no longer wanted horses and buggies so the producers of these goods lost revenue. Shall we blame the evil automobile inventors of the decline of the horse shoe business?
Even when automobiles first came out, there was no assembly line right away. Cars were handcrafted tediously and , therefore , in short supply. It was the short supply relative to demand that made the early cars expensive, not just the labor inputs. However, the car makers made a good chunk of change. Then along came the assembly line in which capital was invested into the production of cars and manual labor became less demanding. The result was a higher output of cars and the price tag went down.
Now true , hand crafted cars went out of business but more people, even with average incomes , were allowed to enjoy the utilities that cars offered instead of just a rich upper class. This was a revolution but should we blame the evil assembly line for the destruction of the hand crafted car industry?
My point is this. Industry changes with new technology and capital. Thus, human capital must also change. What I mean is this, human labor must further improve its skills and make itself more adaptable to shifting demand relative to technology. We lost a steel industry but we've gained a software industry.
If , by some brilliant entrepreneur, the drywall industry becomes automated where human labor is less required, the result would be that houses would probably become cheaper for most people but the drywall labor business would dry up. The drywall experts would then have to shift their skills to other functions in the market or adapt to the new situation ( maybe help the programming language of the automatic drywall 'bots.')
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Feb 3, 2009 13:48:39 GMT -5
Ah.. ok. But in Greece, when we say Socialism it is given that this is inside a democratic regime. "Social-democracy" does not exist as a term in Greek. We use only the word "Socialism"... like "Capitalism" and "Commounism". The tottalitarian goes only to "Commounism" not to "Socialism". Yes , its usually a frequent mistake. To avoid it in the future, a few very simplistic explanations : Social-democracy - capitalism with a very high degree of state intervention in economy (Sweden its the best example, but most of the European countries are based on it) Socialism - the disparition of private property . The workers are controling the means of productions. But because the system still bears the marks of the former capitalism, the workers are leaded by a vanguard party. (what the former "socialist block" tried but failed) Communism Its the final phase of socialism. With time, the socialist state withers away and finally dissipates forming a : stateless , classless , moneyless society based on "gift economy" ( so there is no such thing as a "communist state", its a dichotomy) Anarchists - most of them basically want to jump directly to a communist like society, skipping the "socialist" phase Well lets get on the same page. Social Democracy : A 'mixed economy.' The degree of free market mechanisms and statist controls vary. In some societies one drastically outweighs the other. Countries like Sweden and Denmark are socially statist but economically more free market. Business tax is low , tariffs are low or non existent , barriers for new business entries are low, but they have a heavy income tax. Aside from income tax though , private property rights are highly respected ( relative to other states) in these social democracies. Unfortunately these countries tend to stagnate due to the competition between statist society and free market mechanisms of the economy. ( i.e. the more productive society is, the more the government takes.) I agree , it is state capitalism with state welfare. Socialism : All means of production ( capital) are owned by a centralized state. Property rights are non existent. Workers do not control the means of production, the politicians in power do. Ideally, the goal of socialism is to have the working ( or proletariat) class run an all encompassing state and plan the economy. Eventually this 'proletariat dictatorship' will set the conditions for communism through the 'superior' productive power of proletarian socialism. After post scarcity has been reached , the 'proletariat' government will relinquish its power and dissolve itself into a statless communist society. Communism : Nobody owns anything. All is shared and scarcity rarely exist ( it assumes a post scarce society). There is no money or trade in the traditional sense. People just take what they need and give what they produce. Real communism assumes a stateless society in a world full of cooperative communes run by peoples' councils. As far as crime , it would be virtually non existent. The social and economic formula of communism would be so perfect that virtually all desires to commit crime would dissipate ( everyone has everything they could possibly want - according to some prior socialist planner anyway). Utopian. They could be no system of efficient economies in a post scarce society. Economics is based around scarcity. The actual definition of 'economizing' is the ' rational allocation of scarce resources.' Every individual has their own rank of wants and aspirations and their achievement must be predicated on incentive. No perfect society can be centrally planned by a few for the benefit of many since the planners would necessarily be adding their own subjective aspirations ( and not others) to the equation. Anarchism : Classical Anarchism ( Leftist) aspires for a communist-like society. Other anarchists ( Market Anarchists or libertarian anarchists) aspire for a more libertarian society. Leftist Anarchists largely accept postmodernism as part of their culture. They are revolutionaries and are more interested in boots on the ground revolutionary anarchist activity. They prefer to 'skip' Marx's state socialist 'stage.' Market Anarchists are far more interested in the philosophical and psychological implications of anarchism. They are less interested in immediate revolutionary activity and seek to raise awareness in peoples' minds about the immorality and inefficiency of the state. Where socialist anarchists would accept violence as a means of crushing the state , in immediate revolution, market anarchists oppose the initiation of violence as means to achieve 'freedom' and prefer to revolutionize peoples' minds to the point where the majority of the population would 'silently secede' from the state and ignore it until it became completely obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Feb 3, 2009 14:25:55 GMT -5
Notable figures in history that influenced the emergence of the following philosophies :
Social Democracy : Epicurus, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, John Maynard Keynes, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Socialism: Karl Marx and Frederich Engels ( of course), Charles Fourier, Plato, Vladimir Lenin , Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong, Castro , Hugo Chavez , Oskar Lange, Tito ( Tito can be considered between social democracy and socialism.)
Communism : Marx & Engels, Jesus Christ ( no, I'm not kidding.), Hegel ( sort of), Peter Kropotkin.
Socialist/communist Anarchism : Bakunin, Proudhon ( sort of), Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, Ericco Maletesta, Kropotkin.
Market Anarchism ( and/or anarcho-capitalism , radical libertarianism) : Murray Rothbard , Frederich Von Hayek , Ludwig Von Mises , Benjamin Tucker, David & Patri Friedman , Rose Wilder Lane, Frederic Bastiat .
Feel Free to add.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Feb 3, 2009 16:48:03 GMT -5
If no one desires drywall services then surely you're not suggesting a system in which people are forced to 'want' it? Arthur, don't you see , your dissing one utopia and then you replace it with another . With socialism at least there is the "central planning" that, at least in theory, should make even the offer and the demand. But : At individual level , there is no such thing like "shifting resources". And i`m talking about "human resources" which are inelastic by nature. You cant "shift" those. Or at least not in most of the cases. So in ancap, doesnt matter what is your kind of specific service you are offering , there always be a someone to have a need for it ? Sorry , but that sounds more utopic than communism. You didnt refuted my argument, merely presented a theory. Market may be the sum of "individuals" , but its still the sum For example , one of the main factor who influences the prices is the demand. If too many people would want "small ballerina figures" , you will never have your "ship in a bottle" because no one will make it. Or most probably some will make it but because the demand is high and the offer its almost non-existent will ask a fortune for it. No matter what, the demand and offer , the trends ( this year wood is out of fashion, everyone wants plastic) and every other parts of the market are aggregates There is no doubt about the superior achievements of the "free market" principles. But you must not forget that : 1) the economies more closed to real capitalism had always more crisis than where the control of the state is stronger. Look at SUA , the bastion of capitalism it became almost like Sweden . 2) most of the economic inputs were made - either by sheer imperialism ( Spain earn a shitload of money from tourism, but in order that nice castles to exist, some populations from South America gone extinct , not to mention all the wars for democracy if you need closer to our times examples) - artificial sphere of influences ( some mean people made nukes all over the world , in order for me to quit buying Lada, Trabant or Wartburg and buy Renault or Ford) But i`m a coal miner. This is what i do and this is what i know. I dont care about grooming dogs. actually i hate the frigging dogs. How the market will take care of me ,and give me a non-menial job in a world who just switched entirely on eolian energy ? I just cant "shift resources". I`v been a miner of my life. Are you kidding me ? Thats the solution ? There wont be any abuses because they would be too expensive ? That wont work not even in a Borg society. Not to mention humans with their greed , wish for power , etc etc. The whole damn history its full off people risking their life, their fortunes, their families or their countries in order to accomplish what they thought is good for them. But now your telling me that there wont be any Private force that will try to abuse because of the possibility that the firm might go down 3 points on the stock market Sorry , but I was right. Your are more Utopian than the communists Again, the theory its nice, but its not so great in reality There is nothing to stop water providers or all road constructors unite and create a monopoly. What the "master" can do ? Make his own firm and build 500 km of highways or 1000 tones of pipes ? Move to another continent ? But every change had also gruesome birth pains ( the effects on population). Moreover those pains usually were eased by your enemy, the state as not everyone was capable to adapt fast enough to the changes. How is that compatible with the anarchist individualist tenet ?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Feb 4, 2009 1:16:51 GMT -5
ok lvl100, I've decided to continue our discussion. Please, in the future, do not attempt to be condescending. I have shown you nothing but respect. No I don't see that. I acknowledge scarcity. How does central planning gauge all demand in all markets? What do you mean by inelastic? A lot of labor is replicable and competitive. Humans are extremely adaptable to various tasks. Our evolutionary history is a testament to that as well. And only individuals can allocate and reallocate ( shift) resources from one project to another. Only individuals can consume. Strawman, and you didn't understand what I wrote. In any free economy the demand is met with production of goods and services, not the other way around. You have to know or have a good idea of what people are willing to buy before you invest into producing something, that is , if you wish to make a profit. Maybe you can rephrase your argument? I didn't understand that you really made one. What are you leading to with this 'sum' definition? True. I'm not sure if I understood your argument here. Are you saying that if product X is in high demand, product Y will never be produced? If that is the case, what is your reasoning behind this? How do you know? If you're saying there is a competition between X and Y for the same resources ( maybe wood) then yes , the price of both could go up because the cost of raw materials is more expensive. There is no way to show that Y would never be produced though. And besides , if most people want X , then what is the problem? I think by 'offer' you mean supply. But yes, it would be expensive if it is scarce relative to demand. Thats just a fact of reality. Getting hold of scarce resources requires more input resources. I don't know what you mean with 'aggregate' in this context. Perhaps you can explain it better? Do you have evidence for the claim that freer economies have always had more 'crisis' than statist ones? Can you define what you mean by crisis as well? For one and two , these activities are permeated by statism. I agree with you here. Well first of all , other people shouldn't owe you anything. You are not 'entitled' to my earnings just like I am not to yours. Thus, if you lose your job , I don't owe you anything and neither does anyone else. You misunderstood me. Switching a job doesn't always result in getting a 'worse' job than the first. Times and technology change, deal with it. No job is 100% secure. If people prefer to consume an alternate form of energy and not coal then what can I say? Should we just keep on producing inefficient coal energy so you can keep your job? The reality is, because of technology, the demand for your labor has decreased which makes it less valuable to society. You have several options ahead of you; you can learn ( however tough it might be) to work with the new kind of energy or you can get a job in another field. I mean there isn't much to say. Technology changes the market. I consider this a good thing as it gives consumers more utility ( and you are a consumer as well). If I had all the answers then I would be a central planner. I'd know how to plan out society in my head. Truth is, I am not. There are far more intelligent people to run businesses like dispute resolution organizations than me. But really think about it. Why would one want to risk everything on a low probability of success? I mean it would be feasible that a single company or a group of companies can want to 'wage war' but war has its costs ( wars today cost over a trillion dollars) Not even Microsoft has that much money ( their market cap is 160 bil). I can think of no business person that would gamble a trillion dollars of their own money. I don't think such a business person existed in history. However , governments , with their coercive taxation , can force citizens to fund such foolish wars. Please stick to topic and try not to be condescending please. Are you suggesting people are too greedy and lustful for power to know what good for themselves? Are you saying humans never behave rationally? If this is the case, then what do you propose as a solution? A state couldn't work by this logic btw. Because if humans are greedy and lust for power, then the most greedy and most lustful will assume control of the state since the state is an institution of massive wealth transfers and power. Surely you can't propose that a select group of greedy and lustful humans control everyone else? If you disagree then tell me what is it about 'government' that makes the humans that are in it NOT greedy and NOT lust for power? Again, I don't appreciate the condescending attitude. I never said that it would never happen. Rather , it is logical to deduce that most companies would want a situation of stability. Steady income from paying customers is preferable to an unstable society with warring protection agencies. Protection agencies would be entrusted to PROTECT people & their property from sporadic violence. Why then would people willingly pay an agency that does the opposite by constantly agitating for war? How many Americans, for example , would NOT pay for the war in Iraq if they had the CHOICE? Try to stay away from strawman arguments and actually read what I posted and then reply to that instead of your own spin on what you think I said. C'mon man, this is just ridiculous. Well I'll tell you one thing , if you oppose monopolistic entities that force people to pay for their 'services' then you definitely can't support a state. Do you honestly believe than nearly all suppliers are really out to slice the throat of consumers? But taking your scenario into account ( for funzies lol), the situation is highly improbable to emerge because you forget several important factors. For one , all markets are connected in some fashion. The road monopolizers would not only incur the rage of drivers, but of also countless other companies that depend on roads so consumers can commute to their facilities. They also depend on the roads to have supplies delivered. In effect, the road monopolizers would have to pay ALL of the businesses that the roads connect to in order to maintain high prices for commuters ( they would have to subsidize the loss of other businesses) and all this sudden monopoly doesn't seem to viable. And lets not even get into water! EVERYONE ( businesses and residents) uses water. The water monopolizers would have quite a situation to deal with LOL. Just to note. The state already monopolizes all the roads and people are forced to pay for them , even roads they don't use. Again, if you are against monopolies, you can't support a state. The state monopolizes most utilities and just think why bottled water sells so well. It might because people still get sick from the state purification plants and they are even willing to buy a commodity as common as water in portioned bottles! LOL. Doesn't have to be so gruesome. If you allow people to manage themselves you'll be surprised at what good things are possible. See, I always thought the state made the pain of transition even worse and inhibited progress. Remember , all markets are connected. The state with its anti-market legislation actually disrupts the supply curb which can really have huge consequences for everyone. The state, by keeping employed , lets say , unionized steel workers and subsidizing them with import tariffs on steel, are really damaging a lot of people. For one , the price of products that consume steel goes up for everyone, and this is particular hard on people like you and I that might be lower to middle class. And two , it doesn't help with any kind of 'transition' Its keeping around an industry that should have moved on or changed. That industry is consuming resources that can be used elsewhere for more productive purposes. I find it interesting that you think the state eases things for people. I mean it only goes to wars , inflates the money supply, and causes death and destruction everywhere. Wanna know how Wilson and FDR 'eased' major changes in the market? Yep, thats right , he sent 1/3 of the labor force to war to die. Sorry, I would rather take my chances with finding a different job. Statism is not compatible with anarchism. But I thought we knew that already.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Feb 4, 2009 5:23:37 GMT -5
ok lvl100, I've decided to continue our discussion. Please, in the future, do not attempt to be condescending. I have shown you nothing but respect. I apologies if any of my replies made you think so, but I must assure you that was not my intention , as i consider this discussion very interesting. Thats something that puzzles me. On one hand you are talking about how smoothly would all be connected guided by the invisible hand of the market , on the other hand you acknowledge the same problems that plagued the society in all its history. It does not. But at least have more a little more sense than.(that anarcho its from me, but the idea its the same) "(Anarcho)-Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men, will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
- John Maynard Keynes Of course it is. But its also true that due to human`s inertia , any social-economic changes will provoke destabilisation on a longer or shorter term. An coal miner can learn to be a shoemaker. But that will mean a lot of frustration and possibly starvation untill he does. You cant just press a switch to become a shoemaker. In social-democracy its the state and its welfare system. How ancap will take care of him ? That all those factors are a sum, therefore the market doesnt care about "individuals" as you claimed. For example : But thats the problem. My "ship in a bottle" isn't extremely expensive because of resources scarcity ( it might need more cheap work and materials than the "ballerinas". But because of the supply scarcity. ( the craftsmen are doing what the main demand want, and the demand ask ballerinas. This is a classic example of how a majority f**s over the individual, even on a free market Economic depressions. All the big one came from "more close to real capitalism" SUA not from social-democracies of Europe. Of course, the whole picture is more complex, to blame only the state or the free market would be to simplistic and naive. BUT , there are aspects of it that could happen any time in ancap too , like greediness of people in the consumerist society borrowing more than can manage and the creating social wide dramas due to their own stupidity. Yes they are permeated in order to support the market. In an ancap society, all of the western countries wouldnt be not even half as prosperous as are today Ok , you finally said it. You and your market dont give a rats ass for me or for any other "individual" who cant adapt fast enough. Your are using very simplistic example to sustain your theory. How about 2 big companies ganging up on third smaller one ? How much expensive is that ?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Feb 4, 2009 18:25:43 GMT -5
If you say 'utopian' one more time without any solid reasoning to back up that claim then I will disengage from this conversation. Did I say I envision a world without scarcity, a perfect society? I don't think I even suggested that once. I don't know where you're getting at. Scarcity is a 'problem' always which is why economics is a factor of human action. In a society of literally billions of actors competing for a finite amount of resources humans devise a system of coordination for rational calculation for allocation of those resources. Central planning fails because it is a near impossible task that a relatively small group of planners can know the needs and desires of billions. Spontanous order through a price mechanism helps regulate resources relative to demand. People organize themselves and this is demonstrable through the market. The market , like human biological evolution, is trial and error , not a perfect recipe. Built into the free market are mechanisms that respond quickly to shifting demand and surplus and depletion of resources. This is reflected in the price mechanism which is guided by supply + demand. This isn't some kind of utopian ideology, this is a basic factor of economics that you can learn in any introductory course. I would say this is a near perfect description of government, not the free market. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you can explain it better. Human capital, or improving your skills ( through trade school , university, etc) does take time. I agree with you it not an instantanous transformation, I never said other wise. Which is why it would really be beneficial to all workers if they had a relatively stable economy in which they can plan for the long term. They can actually have a positive savings rate. Imagine if the coal miner can keep all of his money instead of spending it on taxes from which he can't even track where the government sends over 1/3 of his income. Its up to him to save for the long term or perhaps purchase insurance for emergencies such as temporary unemployment. In an economy like we have today, where there are radical shifts in the stock market , fire sales ( for example Bank of America lost over 32% in just the last five days) rampet speculation, it is very hard for nearly any worker to plan for the long term. They do get hit rather suddenly with the threat of losing their job. The type of economy proposed by market 'radicals' does not resemble at all the current state-capitalism. Ancap or a total market isn't some abstract entity like 'god,' and 'government' that has characteristics of an individual. Often we here people say 'good government' or 'bad government' or 'loving god' when in reality there is no such thing as either. The market is merely comprised of individuals making voluntary transactions. Do not forget the philanthropic nature of human beings as well. Strangely enough, and there is evidence to back this up, when humans are able to keep more of their resources, they tend to be more generous ( higher surplus means less cost in 'giving away' stuff). There is no reason why private , voluntarily funded, organizations couldn't arise to help people fit in to the workforce. We even have it today with employment agencies which help fit people into work they are adept for ( in fact, this is how I got my job.) The worker would also be able to keep all of his own money that he earned previously giving him enough to save with. Lots of employers also spend a lot of their own resources in employees or perspective employees to train them for specific tasks. For example , with my job, I have already went through literally 10s of thousands of dollars worth of education and training for the company I work for. It increased my skills and made me more valuable. The company has a long term interest over what I can produce in the long run. But the point is this, there are no positive obligations. Why should I or anyone else 'owe' this individual anything? Why should we be coerced into giving money to him? Why can't it be our choice whether we want to help or not? What would you think if I held a gun to your head and demanded you give me $1000. After that I give 25% of that to some person poorer than me. Would you consider me a good and upstanding kind of guy? The market isn't some entity with emotions. It is merely another word for many individuals engaging in voluntary exchange. Where is your evidence that all of those individuals do not care about other human beings? Have you done empirical studies on this? Um, no not really. I would say its acknowledging the reality of scarcity (finite resources). When something becomes scarce relative to demand, the value of it goes up. This was all covered and discovered ( formally) over a century ago with a concept called marginal utility. Its probable you can still get your ship in the bottle actually cheaper than a ballerina. The reason is this, the ship in the bottles already in existence would hit market clearing prices. The supply wouldn't matter if the demand was near 0 ( because everyone else wants the other 'ballerina' product.) It would be the ballerinas that are more expensive. Its just that, very little future production would go into making 'ship in the bottle' if the demand was near zero. Its sort of like buying older cars. Car lots offer huge savings on buying older models because they have a surplus of those. Older models will no longer be made unless the demand curb shifted. The surplus gets cheaper until it is close to the demand, that is how you get market clearing prices. Again, doesn't matter what society you propose, scarcity is a condition of human life. It is rather absurd for almost anyone to think that they may take nearly no action and expect to have resources find their way to them. Most of us have to work in order to survive, free market or no free market , government or no government. Funny, I always thought the GD was the natural result of statist mechanics being forced on the economy. Might you want to explain in your own words how 'real capitalism' caused the GD? Help me understand. Sure, anyone is capable of making terrible economic decisions, even politicians ( believe it or not). In fact, especially people in government are infamous for making the most foolhearted economic 'calculations.' But its different when a private individual makes a bad economic move and a public official does. For the private individual , the costs are internalized. For the public official , the costs are externalized on to everyone else. We take collective responsibility ( by paying the bill) of bad decisions by someone like Bush where he takes very little personal responsibility. People tend to act more rationally when their own fortunes are on the line ( not always but typically). Politicians have no such incentive. The 'public purse' is just something to plunder. Bush made decisions that costs trillions ( not to mention the human suffering) because he knew at the end of it all he wouldn't have to pay for it, we would. Do you seriously trust people who aren't held personally responsible for billion dollar decisions to 'regulate' the economy? Um? How do you know? Do you have evidence for this? Didn't say that. Again, what leads you to think that nearly all suppliers are out to slice the throat of consumers? Why are you taking the consumers' input out of this? Have you ever head me call for a revolution? The only way something like ancap would ever work is if it becomes something people understand they want. It can't be forced on anyone without discrediting itself. I would say the state works more like a gun which is pointed at a largely unarmed population by the elites. I don't know. I suppose we get to see how much they really want their SUVs. If they are willing to pay more for their SUV then clearly they want it that bad. Other people will switch. Then why are you complaining about the emergence of monopolies? If you don't support or oppose it, why do you think someone should 'stop it?' If the tendency of capital is to improve and bring about new technology for better utility then why would you want to stop it? Don't forget about the competition new markets bring about. Only something as powerful as the state can literally manipulate competition and control it like pieces on a chessboard. Unfortunately the state doesn't work in the best interest of the 'people' like it propagates. The state power is used as a proxy to give particular special interests kick backs ( subsidies by crushing competition through legal mumbo jumbo like anti-trust) A stable market is certainly possible and even highly probable with a stable currency which we don't have today.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Feb 5, 2009 3:57:08 GMT -5
Central planning fails because it is a near impossible task that a relatively small group of planners can know the needs and desires of billions. Ancap its the oposite part of communism , not socialism And in communism there is no central planning. Not really "most of the wicked" doesn't refer to a handful of elites , but about anyone who is engaged in a "survival of the fittest" type society where homo hominis lupus est. As opposite what you think , the man is not so malleable, has a pretty high inertia to changes. Thats why every revolutionary change brought pain and misery first. Of course because all humans are cold blooded economists/statisticians who are making studies since they are 16 years old about the market`s trend on the next 50 years. 1) even with a relatively stable market , no one can really predict what will be THE job needed even 20 years 2) you know very well that are a lot of people who choose wrong or simply are too dense to comply with the market demand Who will make wise financiar decisions about their whole life ? The workers in Albania who because of their own greed lost everything they had and brought the country in civil war due to a pyramidal scheme scam ? The workers in USA who pawned to the banks even their unborn child in order to change the SUV in to a Humvee and put the put a 4th plasma tv in the kid`s room too ? Thats have nothing to do with goverments. But with sheer stupidy and greed. You are continuing to blame the state for things are not exclusively linked to it , like speculation. Even in ancap, there is nothing to stop a corporation, or " a high concentration of capital" if you dont like the former term, to - provoke artificial scarcity - or opposite, to flood a market with dumping prices in order to kill the other players I dont want to sound condescending, I really dont , but i cant take seriously a socio-political system that has as the only safe boat the kindness of human kind and hypothetical private charity foundations. See above about Albania and USA Its great to be young and have a decent job , isnt it ? The world is yours and only the sky its the limit The state has all the mechanisms to remove or even punish the bad elites. If they are used or not, thats up to the populations and their level of consciousness. Didnt strike you the coincidence that ALL first world countries have an absolute imperialist/colonialist past ? Even now , what will be Coca-cola or Renault or Panasonic if they weren't gained humongous markets marching behind American armies in the Cold war or in today`s "wars for democracy" ? Any successful economy was created by the state-free market symbiosis. I`m not taking out the consumer`s input. He wants to "slice the throat" of the suppliers too. In ancap the companies don't get bailouts and the consumer starves if he does not make the right choices. That`s the reason i called utopian too. The humankind its so far from the needed mentality , that it has the same value as communism. Communism also can work wonderfully if the people quit on what they did on the last 200,000 years or so , and adopt a new mentality The tendency of the capital its to improve itself not necessarily the market or technology. In a world dominated by 99% oil companies and their galactic sized financial power , the hydrogen engine car will still doesn't have a snowball in hell chance to breakthrough. With or without governments. [/quote] A stable market doesnt exist ( as in the posibility to make accurate prediction on a longer term) and cant exists because of the myriad of the factors , many of them are not even human related ( natural disasters , plagues etc)
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Feb 5, 2009 6:08:03 GMT -5
Socialism is the denial of property rights. It is a 100% centrally planned economy. Ancap or a true free market is the opposite of it. And in hypothetical communism, there would be no need for any kind of planning ( whether spontanously through a market or by a centralized state) Two reasons , in communism nobody owns anything so there cannot be a transfer of property rights otherwise known as trade. And communism assumes a post scarce world where economics are no longer necessary. Depends on how you define 'survival of the fittest.' If its in the neo-socialist anti-darwinian sense 'dog eat dog' ' slice your mother's throat for a dime' then explain to me how politicians are actually altruistic. 'Survival of the fittest' when applied by 'social darwinism' is a gross misrepresentation of what Darwin was saying in biology. Its used as yet another justification for a state. Darwin meant 'those most adaptable to change' in the purely biological sense. Anyway, it was rather funny you scraped up an anti-capitalist quote from the man who supposedly 'saved capitalism.' Pain and misery are a subjective interpretation. I highly doubt vaccinations , surplus of food, increasing lifespan , electicity, and purified water brought about all that much suffering. This is the typical Marxist misconception surrounded by his theory of alienation. Goes like this , once upon time people were happy laborers going about their business but then along came the greedy businessman with his interests and enslaved a previously happy population. Working in a factory during the industrial revolution was tough, no doubt about it. However, to assume life was much peachier for these people before the emergence of factory work is a misconception. They could've still lived in the countryside not compacting the cities in droves. They could've attempted to grow their own food and continue their meager existence. Even in the soot of a factory, they saw opportunity greater than their current situation. Revolutions in technology are not typically started with a regress. I find your use of 'cold blooded' here rather interesting.It reveals a bit about your mentality. Definitely an appeal to emotion. Explaining things in purely economical terms is the most rational and insightful way of getting to the bottom of things like poverty. Marx tried it but his economics really failed at explaining reality. Later Marxists would transmit marxism into culture where it can be viewed through the glasses of emotion and immediate perception. If you see a poor person, you assume someone has made him poor, most likely the rich man. Of course, going off the premise that all resources are social ( and private property is more or less immoral) clearly the rich man took existing wealth from poor people and this is why you have a social dichotomy. However, a more rational analysis shows differently and this is why economics are important to understand. The rest of this is a strawman argument. 1) Which is why central planning doesn't work, especially in less stable markets like today. 2) How do we know the central planners are not dense? Do they really have everyone's best interest at heart, even moreso than the people themselves? In a free market , even the 'dense' generate a specific kind of demand and they are supplied. Think of tabloids, psychics, astrology, and a whole host of goods most wouldn't consider rational. Some will make all the most profitable decisions , some will not. Most will make good and bad decisions and profit from the good ones and lose from the bad ones. Trial and error generates experience and people tend to act a bit more 'wiser' when the costs of losses are internalized to them and not externalized to the rest of society. How is a central planner 'wise' though? I mean common now, if these politicians were 'wise' about financial planning they wouldn't be politicians would they? They would be out making millions in some private industry. If I had to give my money to either Bill Gates or Barack Obama , and both promised me a profit of somekind for my money, I'd go with Bill Gates. If I can chose whatever, I'd chose myself and take my chances. Wow, this shows your poor understanding of how economics in today's world really works. Ever heard of fiat currency ( backed by the 'faith' of governments?) Central Banks? Forced monopoly on money? Fixing the interest rate of money? The biggest debtor being governments? And you're gonna sit here and tell me it has nothing to do with destroying savings forcing rampent speculation? Please, don't humiliate yourself. So you're saying only 'alturistic' central planners in the state can 'prevent' this? You're also saying the same central planners in the state do not do this themselves? There is no alternative? Now you really should explain your reasoning behind this. Also, if you knew anything about programs like the 'New Deal' in Great Depression America these very factors were created by the governments that swore to prevent them. Fact: In most private charities, about 75% of donated wealth gets to the intended recipients. 25% is absorbed into overhead costs. Conversly, government 'charities' like welfare see about 25% of 'donated' wealth go to intended recipients, 75% dissapears somewhere. We've had welfare and a 'war on poverty' for quite a while now and still have increasing rates of poverty. We've given billions to developing nations and still they are impovished. www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-1950-1980-Anniversary/dp/0465042333/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233830006&sr=8-5Read it. No seriously, you're kidding. Right? I take this as another way of saying I am unqualified to make statements about economics? 'Young and dumb?' or maybe I don't understand the working class? I am the working class. You didn't even bother to ask what experience I have in the field. I guess this destroys your 'nothing to do with governments' argument. These countries grew powerful because they allowed some degree of economic freedom to occur. A more productive society is one you can tax for more and grow your power over time. Zimbabwe is far more brutal than the US for the average citizen but it doesn't allow anyone in it's society to prosper, thus, the government can only take a limited amount of resources from the population. Again , it has everything to do with governments. Coca-cola doesn't have its own death squads , just soda with corn syrup. Point is there can be no lasting symbiosis. Eventually the state feeding of the productive power of free market forces within the economy grows too large to even sustain itself , even with coercive taxation. At this point it goes to wars to rouse patriotism and loyalty and to prove to the people it still has a purpose no matter how bad it is. Its purpose is to 'protect' us from 'terrorism' it instigates. And I wouldn't call the stagnating economies of today some success. Again, how do you know that he will starve? And also , how exactly does a consumer want to slice the throat of a supplier? Surely every consumer would then force a supplier to provide them with goods instead of purchase them. No, the consumer wants the supplier around so he can get what he needs as long as he needs it. The supplier and consumers are actually 'allies.' This is a nebulous statement and needs more clarification. Namely, what do you mean? 99%, evidence? How do you know a hydrogen based car would be more efficient than fossil fuel based car? Have you researched the topic? Nobody has a chance to compete with the oil companies because the state prevents it. Do you know how many barriers there are to entry in the energy market? Do you know what 'departments of energy' actually do? Again, do you have evidence to demonstrate no competition can arise in a stateless society? Again, this is rather nebulous not explained well. Basically you're saying its impossible to save in pretty much any concievable economy. Thats quite a claim and you should back it up.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Feb 6, 2009 5:00:23 GMT -5
in communism nobody owns anything so there cannot be a transfer of property rights otherwise known as trade. The communists are making a clear distinction between private property and personal property. So you basically you can own almost anything you want , as long you dont use it to exploit others. You have the right to own 2 cars , but you dont have the right to hire 2 drivers and make a small taxi company. Yes it is. On the other hand has more consitency than using humankind goodnes as a life boat for a system. I I didnt used the above quote in any derogatory form. But because , indeed "pain and misery" are extremely subjective , and not studying from all the POV cant make an objective dogma. Exactly , that's human nature . They were insane to leave a not peachy, but definitely a work where you didn't died as flies from the zero protection from toxic environment and 18/24 hours work ( as in factories) , they were irrational because there was little hope to succeed in new world, but rational enough to actually succeed. But that why I cant agree with a dogma thats based mainly on people`s rationality. In USA rationality prevailed , in URSS not. The outcome is always imprevisible as human nature is. Marx didn't failed necessarily because he was a lousy economist. But because of the same principle you are defending : The idea that a man smart enough can create a master plan , can decode the the social-economics constants and variables and really understand and give solutions. That`s of course true , until the point where the human comes and f**ks all your "rational analysis" And what about who dont get wiser or dont want to ? It seems that your paycheck is going to shrink a lot ( even more than in a statist system) paying all those private police to keep away the misfits. Strawman Embarrassing strawman. Please point my post were i said that the state doesnt support speculation. Please dont put words in my mouth. I never said the central planners are "altruistic" because I dont intend to replace your ideal believes with other ideal believes. Elites and common people they have both their own specific flaws. That`s why i consider the state as a buffer, who mediates between the elites ( who would lead the majority anyway, no matter of the system) and the average Joe. The relation of power goes both ways. That`s rather a biased interpretation with so much wrong things in it 1) I`m sure that those 75% of donations its a lot smaller than those 25% from the goverment, becouse there is much that a private person is willing to donate 2 BUT , lets play a game where the private donations have exclusivity. I emphasized on the private part for an important reason : private donations are given for private purposes. Lets translate this : from the total American donations -> 32.8% are for religious purposes and only a frigging 13.9% for education. Yes people are rational and basing on the individual donations its great. Who the f**k cares that you and other significant parts of the population is starving or you dont know to locate North America on a map ( as especially educations its an extreme problem in USA, especially to those on the lower stratum of society) , the donors decided that building a church and supplying it with candles its more important to the humankind. 3 The 25% from the state is a non-sense also. Many of the "extra" expenses are returning to the average Joe in a way or another. You are crying about the expenses on wars. Guess what, due to those expenses SUA has the ability to control the politico-economic world, and give you cheap gas prices, screw any other competitor who tries to impose restrictions and overall adding all kinds of inputs from which every citizen benefit. And thats only an example. 4 Back to the private donors. Another reason that the example is irrelevant is because its based on a non-standard example. USA is the biggest donor ( 1.17% of GDP), having a special popular mentality about it. But if we look to other economic powerhouses like France who has a pathetic 0.14%, this charity things overall looks thats is not even remotely a trait of the human specie. It distroyes nothing, as i said already that i believe in the state-free market symbiosis. And Zimbabwe its the best example for my case. It doesnt matter what system do you embrace. If isnt backed up by the state your screwed. When 2 markets collide , lets say the American and Zimbabwues ones, guess who is going to suck it up. Or you imagine that ancap , like communism also, it would really work only when all the Earth will embrace it ? Thats a very popular theory in modern Leftism too, that very developed capitalists states have a high chance to turn to fascism. Until now they were proven as being only cyclic crisis and I prefer not to interpret the signs in an alarmist Apocalyptic way. I didt said "slice the throat" literally ;D But when one side tries to do whatever he can to sell a product at the highest price with lowest expenses and the other one tries to buy cheap with highest quality, there is no such thing like "allies" The purpose of the capital its to concentrate and expand itself , not betterment of the humankind. If a progressive invention will bring money, thats ok. If recycling the same old chit will bring money , thats ok too. 1) the Hydrogen car is just a generic example of someting better than the actual technology ( if you dont agree with it, just replace it with something else, its the same idea) 2) again, your putting words in my mouth, and mix an energy market that i never mentioned about ( which is an impenetrable oligopoly ) with simple manufacturing ( cars, wo can use as a fuel alternative solutions that can be made easily in any chemical plant) . Which are easier to make but also easier to be buried by corporations with no help from government. Strawman
|
|