NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets keep it to civilian deaths as to decide what ideology caused death in war we have to then decide who's fault the war was.

But there wouldn't even be a market. It wouldn't exist in the first place...people would drive their Pulsars a bit longer and care less for them until they are lemons too, for that is the only way they can sell them and get some utility out of it.
If you start moving away from the simple linear demand and supply curves you get into situations where there can be multiple equilibria, and some can be suboptimal, yet remain forever without some sort of external shock.

So even if used car dealerships offered guarantees and free maintenance with their cars, and effectively removed the risk of purchasing a used car, the market still wouldn't exist?

That's one contention of evolutionary economics: That there is no such thing as an equilibrium. As you move from some point on the diagram, this movement itself causes the curves to change. The market will forever change, being in an area of disturbance, and the supposed efficiency may never actually come about. It's an interesting proposition to say the least.

You are really testing the limits of this finance major's intuition here.

So you are saying that there is no actual point where there is equilibrium because the market never catches up with changes, or are you saying that there is never an optimal equilibrium?

Well, what do you mean by more moral?

More just to the members of society.

Any society, whether government imposed or not, has a system of moral rules. Capitalism, as a form of society, is exactly the same. In Socialism, altruism and compassion may be primary, in Greeny-World it may be harmony with the environment and artistic engagement, in Capitalism it's work and determining one's own fate.

That is not how I see it. Capitalism says nothing makes no moral judgements about altruism, environmentalism, or even hard work.

It states that you own your own labor, and as an extension you own the products of your labor. If we assume otherwise, then we make men slaves.

So it states that people should determine what they work for, whereas all of those other ideologies seek to force people to work for their own moralities.

You can make millions in a capitalist society and donate it all or keep it all, depending on your morality. Under a socialist society, you have to donate it all because of government imposed morality.

I have to say here that I don't think there is a seperate "soul" or anything like that which may adhere, or want to adhere, to any ethical or moral principles.
We are a product of our environment, and of that only. If you are born into a communist world, you do not feel some morality imposed on you, it is simply assimilated and becomes part of your character. I guess in that respect you could call me a Marxist afterall.

So you are saying that under a communist government, you would not feel the effects of government's morality? Without getting into the economic and societal pitfalls of communism, can you say that people will not seek to improve their own living status, that people will give up a longing for material things?

That you would say "Capitalism" doesn't impose its values on people may just be a sign that you, like me, have accepted societal values and declared them somewhat universal, using them to judge other systems.

Once again, capitalism says that you are not morally obligated in the application of your labor, and it is the only economic ideology that says that.

How can that be an imposition of values?

That's not what I hear people say usually. Lazy people, or artists, or otherwise "unproductive" members of society only get by because the government helps them. At any rate, they are considered a burden either on the taxpayer or on their friends and relatives.

So the views of society are interchangeable with morals of capitalism?

Can you say that in a communist society that noncontributers will not be considered a burden upon everyone else? It seems to me that the reason they are considered burdens is because they are the recipients of socialistic policies, not because of capitalism.

The system does punish you (or others) for you not working hard enough, for not being careful with your money, for being unproductive. There may not be a law against it, but surely you can see that the system itself is tilted somewhat.

If anyone has problems from being unproductive, it is a result of the actions of the other members of society, not the system. Capitalism doesn't say that you have to fire lazy workers, it states that you are free to use your money in the way that you see fit, so you can continue to employ him or you can fire him, capitalism doesn't care.

Very, very small? I look out the window, and I see my neighbour driving his new BMW 1-Series away. Here, in my neighbourhood at least, money is a very central factor in people's happiness, and in the way others perceive them.

What are the other measures of wealth that you want, you have eliminated capital and consumer goods.

You can't help but think that in a different system, that may be different.

I have to think that in any system, people are going to want goods that offer them a higher utility than the goods they had before.

And that, incidentally is the same thing that Marx wanted. Ironically he went the exactly opposite way.
If you as entrepreneur/capitalist pig/my boss make money of my labour, and I don't receive the full profit made from it, then you are selling a part of me - I think that's how you could summarise it.

I understand the idea behind exploitation, but as far as I can tell it is the work of someone who saw people doing shitty jobs and assuming that the employer was using them, then went about justifying this idea by misusing Smith's and Ricardo's ideas.

Perhaps you can correct me.

Alright, this is where I wash my hands and leave this thread. I simply cannot stand the sterile-minded "debating" that's happening here.

1: You people need to read up on things.

2: You people need to read up on things, and

3: You people need to read up on things.

Seriously, I cannot say this enough: Your idea of Communism has been hopelessly skewed by Western (mostly American) anti-Socialist propaganda. It's not even close to what you think it is. I beg of you to open your minds... To see how things really are.

*walks away*

I'm not so sure about you, but I don't find Marx's (and Engel) idea of communism very appealing. I'm all for eqaulity and so on, but really..
I don't enjoy the idea of 'community wives'[explained-->Being married, usually results in offspring, which according to Marx and Engels are used for capitalist gain. In the time they were writing, the whole 'child labor' thing that I see argued all over the place was allowed, and children were in fact producing a goodly amount of the average family's income, semi-justifying the skewed thought process of Marx and Engels]

I don't know where all this argument is coming from, because 'communism' and 'capitalism' as we know it have changed very much since they were first concieved. Take college govt. (hopefully it's a good course with a good proffessor!) and you'll see how the ideas of 'capitalism', 'federalism', and yes even small amounts of 'communism' (obviously others as well, but most of them aren't very pertinent to the discussion at hand) have evolved in our 230-ish years of being a nation. (Welfare is not a very capitalist idea...just to provide an example)

So even if used car dealerships offered guarantees and free maintenance with their cars, and effectively removed the risk of purchasing a used car, the market still wouldn't exist?
Perhaps cars aren't the ideal example..but one could imagine that there are markets which are possible, but don't exist. Asymmetric information could be one reason for why that is the case.
At any rate though, this adds plenty of cost to the dealership's cost structure, and that might drive the price above $1000, so that there are no customers who'd actually be interested.
My lecturer used the example of a market for "good lectures". There is a market for lectures, yes, but there's no market for good lectures. I'm not sure I understood perfectly what he meant - nonetheless I would say that markets are not all-inclusive.

So you are saying that there is no actual point where there is equilibrium because the market never catches up with changes, or are you saying that there is never an optimal equilibrium?
Well, it is very complicated indeed...economic models become huge and suddenly need giant supercomputers to work out stuff.
On the positive side, my school of Econ here at UQ is apparently known worldwide for its evolution economists (http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/index.html?page=15870). It sounds like a good thing to get into.
But yes, I guess you could say both. Very simple, very quickly adjusting markets might have equilibria that they can actually reach.
Most markets might not - in the time it would take to readjust the market would already have changed, like an organism would. I guess it is primarily about thinking of economic processes as biological rather technical.
But I have seen models (like the endogenous growth model, although that hasn't got too much to do with what we're talking about) where there are multiple equilibria. We may never reach it, but forces will draw you there - and if you're unlucky, it might pull you into a bad situation. This may very well be what's happening in sub-saharan Africa.

More just to the members of society.
"Just", hey?

That is not how I see it. Capitalism says nothing makes no moral judgements about altruism, environmentalism, or even hard work.
People in capitalism, and capitalist rhetoric do though.

It states that you own your own labor, and as an extension you own the products of your labor. If we assume otherwise, then we make men slaves.
Slaves is a word that carries a lot of morality with it, isn't it? Slaves in ancient Greece were different from slaves in the US, and those were different from what you probably mean.

So it states that people should determine what they work for, whereas all of those other ideologies seek to force people to work for their own moralities.
Not necessarily. I don't think Communism has a morality everyone should be working for in theory. If everyone owns everything, collectively they are still free to determine what they want to do.
It's merely the definition of the individual that is vastly different, the rights (although there isn't much definition in the actual theory) of the individual as such remain pretty much the same.

You can make millions in a capitalist society and donate it all or keep it all, depending on your morality. Under a socialist society, you have to donate it all because of government imposed morality.
Socialism perhaps, not communism though. That being said, in practice (and democracy, but also in totalitarian states if you look at the longer term) the government does what its people want - and over time the people want what society accepts as "moral".
A self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps, but one that leaves most people as happy as they can be.

So you are saying that under a communist government, you would not feel the effects of government's morality? Without getting into the economic and societal pitfalls of communism, can you say that people will not seek to improve their own living status, that people will give up a longing for material things?
Well, I always thought the problem with Communism was this transitory phase (apart from the information problems of planning an entire economy). Once there, it might actually work - if education is handled accordingly, and kids never learn about stuff like "personal riches" and the like, there wouldn't be a problem. There are (or used to be anyways) many very primitive tribal societies in which there was no personal property as such. In some ways, that is fairly close to communism in its "ideal" form. Those people weren't slaves, even though they personally didn't own the product of their labour.

So the views of society are interchangeable with morals of capitalism?
In a capitalist society, yes. I guess if you want to look at it from a purely theoretical perspective, Capitalism cherishes and defends the notion of property rights (which is a moral issue), and Communism defends the notion of equality and collective decision-making (which is also a moral issue).
In practice, both add other moral issues to it, which may not directly have something to do with the theory (ie "bums are worthless and should freeze in Winter" or "The Government needs to spy on everyone cuz they could undermine our great system")

Can you say that in a communist society that noncontributers will not be considered a burden upon everyone else? It seems to me that the reason they are considered burdens is because they are the recipients of socialistic policies, not because of capitalism.
Well, I guess in a communist society (again using the tribal example) you don't get to be a non-contributor...it's not really up to you. That being said, Marx fittingly made working a central desire of man, such that in his theory, everyone would be happy to work - incentive or not.

If anyone has problems from being unproductive, it is a result of the actions of the other members of society, not the system. Capitalism doesn't say that you have to fire lazy workers, it states that you are free to use your money in the way that you see fit, so you can continue to employ him or you can fire him, capitalism doesn't care.
Well, the market does. If you keep him, you're spending money on something that doesn't have returns. There may not be a moral imperative for you to fire him, but there is a practical one, inherent in the way the system has evolved.

What are the other measures of wealth that you want, you have eliminated capital and consumer goods.
Of course there are others, but you can't deny that today in our world we (generally) admire someone with a nice car and house moreso than someone with plenty of children.
In a non-capitalist society, that might be the other way around.
I personally don't have a preference for how to measure success...and even if I did it would be influenced by the world I live in.
Knowledge and Education is probably something I would like people to admire others for.

I have to think that in any system, people are going to want goods that offer them a higher utility than the goods they had before.
But which goods give you utility may vary greatly.

I understand the idea behind exploitation, but as far as I can tell it is the work of someone who saw people doing shitty jobs and assuming that the employer was using them, then went about justifying this idea by misusing Smith's and Ricardo's ideas.
Well, if you look at the time he was writing, many of those people didn't enter into a voluntary agreement with their employer. Those kids in the mines, or the fathers in the smelters were often grabbed from the streets and forced to work for next to nothing.
How can they be forced you ask? I guess the answer lies in the circumstances - as I said before, there are constraints present that force you to make a decision with your own free will, which you still don't agree with.
If your crop is destroyed by parasites, you go into the city, even if you don't want to. You really don't have a free choice at all.
If you're offered a terrible job for a puny wage, you still accept it, because you don't know whether you'll get a second chance somewhere.
These circumstances are too often ignored I think - at no point did the government (or anyone else) physically force him to do something, yet he did not get where he is by his own free will.

I don't know where all this argument is coming from, because 'communism' and 'capitalism' as we know it have changed very much since they were first concieved. This is true, Marx's definition of labor, for instance, is in need of altering.

That being said, Marx fittingly made working a central desire of man, such that in his theory, everyone would be happy to work - incentive or not.To paraphrase Kropotkin: "Work is not repulsive to human nature, overwork is." I like that quote, but tend to not use it because I usually argue that human nature is human habit.

I doubt anyone will ever raise the funds for one of these IRL, so I thought I'd make one online.

This thread is dedicated to all the victims of Capitalism, past, present and future. Communism may be dead, but Capitalism is forever.

No, I'm not a communist. Not even close. :rolleyes:
But I do believe in Equal Time on the platform. :DThere's been an attempt to build memorials to the victims of capitalism with mixed success. It's called welfare.

Perhaps cars aren't the ideal example..but one could imagine that there are markets which are possible, but don't exist. Asymmetric information could be one reason for why that is the case.
At any rate though, this adds plenty of cost to the dealership's cost structure, and that might drive the price above $1000, so that there are no customers who'd actually be interested.
My lecturer used the example of a market for "good lectures". There is a market for lectures, yes, but there's no market for good lectures. I'm not sure I understood perfectly what he meant - nonetheless I would say that markets are not all-inclusive.

Ok, so there is no market for good lectures, because information assymetry makes the consumer pay less than the lecturor is willing to accept for a good lecture. So why do people get paid to provide lectures? Is there a market for the lowest utilizable lecture.

In the Market of Lemons theory, maybe it can be remedied by having the entire market rest at the lowest possible utility, and have value added for expertise and reputation.

Well, it is very complicated indeed...economic models become huge and suddenly need giant supercomputers to work out stuff.
On the positive side, my school of Econ here at UQ is apparently known worldwide for its evolution economists (http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/index.html?page=15870). It sounds like a good thing to get into.
But yes, I guess you could say both. Very simple, very quickly adjusting markets might have equilibria that they can actually reach.
Most markets might not - in the time it would take to readjust the market would already have changed, like an organism would. I guess it is primarily about thinking of economic processes as biological rather technical.
But I have seen models (like the endogenous growth model, although that hasn't got too much to do with what we're talking about) where there are multiple equilibria. We may never reach it, but forces will draw you there - and if you're unlucky, it might pull you into a bad situation. This may very well be what's happening in sub-saharan Africa.

Alright, I am having trouble understanding the idea of multiple equilibria, break down the results of having them. Would there be constant arbitrage opportunities?

People in capitalism, and capitalist rhetoric do though.

People are imperfect, and rhetoric is rhetoric.

Slaves is a word that carries a lot of morality with it, isn't it? Slaves in ancient Greece were different from slaves in the US, and those were different from what you probably mean.

You can say slave working with the connotation like most communists do, or you use it as the definition as I am doing.

If we don't respect individual labor rights, the individual becomes bound to servitude, and becomes the property of society.

Not necessarily. I don't think Communism has a morality everyone should be working for in theory. If everyone owns everything, collectively they are still free to determine what they want to do.
It's merely the definition of the individual that is vastly different, the rights (although there isn't much definition in the actual theory) of the individual as such remain pretty much the same.

Do you think that democratic decisions actually have equal effect on the entire population? In a democratic communist system, you could have 49% of the population who do not want the collective property used as it is.

So because of this belief that democracy justifies government policy and revoking of rights, you have a significant portion of the population who have no property rights at all.

Socialism perhaps, not communism though. That being said, in practice (and democracy, but also in totalitarian states if you look at the longer term) the government does what its people want - and over time the people want what society accepts as "moral".
A self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps, but one that leaves most people as happy as they can be.

I suppose you are right, that communism exists within the morality of society as opposed to imposing morality on it, in the optimal situation. But if you still have any segment of the population that is completely unrepresented by government, then they are slaves. They expel their labor in return for the ability to survive, but they have absolutely no right to the use of their labor.

Well, I always thought the problem with Communism was this transitory phase (apart from the information problems of planning an entire economy). Once there, it might actually work - if education is handled accordingly, and kids never learn about stuff like "personal riches" and the like, there wouldn't be a problem. There are (or used to be anyways) many very primitive tribal societies in which there was no personal property as such. In some ways, that is fairly close to communism in its "ideal" form. Those people weren't slaves, even though they personally didn't own the product of their labour.

I actually agree with you on this point. I actually have no problems with communism, as long as it isn't enforced by the government. If the people want to form communals and have no wages, good for them. But in the transitional phase, it is not people wanting to work for eachother, it is people wanting to work for themselves with government forcing them to work for each other.

In a capitalist society, yes. I guess if you want to look at it from a purely theoretical perspective, Capitalism cherishes and defends the notion of property rights (which is a moral issue), and Communism defends the notion of equality and collective decision-making (which is also a moral issue).

Again, respecting property rights is a moral idea, but it is a passive moral idea. It is only moral in that it allows people to be free to make moral decisions. It is a group morality, not an individual one.

Socialism and communism are individual moralities that are misused as a group morality. It is moral by saying that people should only be allowed to make one moral decision.

Capitalism is moral for its lack of moral authority, while communism is moral authority. So they are completely different moralities.

Well, I guess in a communist society (again using the tribal example) you don't get to be a non-contributor...it's not really up to you. That being said, Marx fittingly made working a central desire of man, such that in his theory, everyone would be happy to work - incentive or not.

I know that people are willing to work rather than be lazy, and I assume that they would be willing to work solely in the interest of others, were that the moral norm. But I also know that, even in a system where people must work for their own survival, there are people who can't or won't work.

What happens to the inevitable non-contributers in that tribal society?

There may not be a moral imperative for you to fire him

BINGO!

There is no moral imperative. Just like in a liberal society, there is no moral imperative for everyone to act within societal norms, but it is practical. Liberalism is moral because it allows individuals to determine their own morality.

Of course there are others, but you can't deny that today in our world we (generally) admire someone with a nice car and house moreso than someone with plenty of children.
In a non-capitalist society, that might be the other way around.
I personally don't have a preference for how to measure success...and even if I did it would be influenced by the world I live in.
Knowledge and Education is probably something I would like people to admire others for.

I hate the idea of having many children being a status symbol.

But you are right, people with nice things generally impress other people. (I don't know if I would go as far as admiration.)

But ask me this, who do you admire more, the guy with three doctorates making $50,000 a year and living in a suburbian home, or the real estate agent making $500,000 a year living in a luxurious neighborhood?

And furthermore, you as an economics student would certainly understand the amount of value capitalism places on expertise.

But which goods give you utility may vary greatly.

That furthers my point than anything. People will always want to have an easier life, people will want goods that offer them more utility, and people will attribute varying levels of utility to different goods.

I am relatively sure that communism cannot cope with that.

Well, if you look at the time he was writing, many of those people didn't enter into a voluntary agreement with their employer. Those kids in the mines, or the fathers in the smelters were often grabbed from the streets and forced to work for next to nothing.
How can they be forced you ask? I guess the answer lies in the circumstances - as I said before, there are constraints present that force you to make a decision with your own free will, which you still don't agree with.
If your crop is destroyed by parasites, you go into the city, even if you don't want to. You really don't have a free choice at all.
If you're offered a terrible job for a puny wage, you still accept it, because you don't know whether you'll get a second chance somewhere.
These circumstances are too often ignored I think - at no point did the government (or anyone else) physically force him to do something, yet he did not get where he is by his own free will.

I see that, it was a much more difficult time, that is the nature of society. As it progresses, it gets easier.

But I was referring to his economic theories and mathematics, do you consider them valid?

Ok, so there is no market for good lectures, because information assymetry makes the consumer pay less than the lecturor is willing to accept for a good lecture. So why do people get paid to provide lectures? Is there a market for the lowest utilizable lecture.
I guess you could call it that...the lecturer gets paid for the provision of a lecture. If he was to maximise his utility (and discounting for the fact that some lecturers might genuinely like giving a good lecture - not what I would rely on, I've had plenty of crap ones) he would do the absolute minimum of what was necessary.
It's also a matter of not being able to pay incentive wages because for most jobs, the criteria are too complex and numerous. They tried it for London Bus Drivers once...that went down the drain.

In the Market of Lemons theory, maybe it can be remedied by having the entire market rest at the lowest possible utility, and have value added for expertise and reputation.
What do you mean?
A demand curve and a supply curve intersect, and you get a market price. That market price turns out to be $960. And over time, as people with $1000 cars realise that they won't get a thousand quid for them, the proportion of good cars up for sale falls, such that people might have to revise their extimated prices downwards further.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/v84y1970i3p488-500.html
In the example of used cars the Austrians are probably right when they say that the entrepreneur could find ways to solve this particular problem...so I guess I have to revise my position.
Nonetheless, this is a good practical example for what information asymmetry can do.
There's another good one about individual indifference curves being completely shaken about when a person suddenly finds out that there is another good they didn't know about before...

Alright, I am having trouble understanding the idea of multiple equilibria, break down the results of having them. Would there be constant arbitrage opportunities?
Well, it depends somewhat on where you start off. Bruno Frey (economic psychology) once did a study on blood donations.
Turned out that when you pay people nothing, some number of people donate.
If you pay them a lot, many people donate.
But if you only pay them a little, quantity donated actually goes down from where there's no payment at all. So the demand curve starts looking funny.
So even if you discount for time and how that moves curves around with that extra dimension, you can get curves that can have multiple intersects.
Once you reach one, you're not going to move away from it, barring a shock.
So if you like people in Africa are left at a point where extra investment just isn't worth your money, you're stuck at a suboptimal point - and it may be time for the government to give the economy a nudge to start moving towards a better equilibrium.
To be honest, I've got nothing on arbitrage - I haven't dealt with economics of financial markets at all, so I guess I can't tell you much there.

Do you think that democratic decisions actually have equal effect on the entire population? In a democratic communist system, you could have 49% of the population who do not want the collective property used as it is.

So because of this belief that democracy justifies government policy and revoking of rights, you have a significant portion of the population who have no property rights at all.
Well, perversely you could think that in a system of a relatively small "soviet" making decisions, those with a greater stake in an issue will offer something to others - and thus use economics. I vote "Yes" on A if you do the same on "B" kind of thing.
I don't think a communist system could exist on a national level at all. Was it in Argentina where workers actually took over their old factories and are producing without leadership, just on cooperation and mutual interest?

I suppose you are right, that communism exists within the morality of society as opposed to imposing morality on it, in the optimal situation...
True.

I actually agree with you on this point. I actually have no problems with communism, as long as it isn't enforced by the government...
True.

Again, respecting property rights is a moral idea, but it is a passive moral idea. It is only moral in that it allows people to be free to make moral decisions. It is a group morality, not an individual one.
To be honest I have come to the conclusion that moral philosophy is too complicated for me and that instead I'll be with the "morality" of the majority.
Over time governments represent what the majority of people want, and so the laws (on average) represent what people consider to be right and wrong.
If it's against the law, it may not be immoral as in some absolute "evil", but if you do it you get trouble with the cops.
So I reckon there are no metaphysical concepts like property rights etc, only what people decide on out of self-interest or whatever and make it law.

Capitalism is moral for its lack of moral authority, while communism is moral authority. So they are completely different moralities.
I'm still not convinced. Communism is moral authority just because it doesn't provide for seperate property rights?
Centrally to it is merely the idea that you cannot own someone else's labour and sell it - as capitalists are accused of doing. Everything else follows logically.
Same deal as with capitalism, just that they assume the boss in his managing position actually creates all the wealth that is marked-up on the worker's wages.
Socialism may perhaps be different in that it forces you to care for someone else, but as I said, the majority of people apparently don't mind paying for transfer payments - if they did a party would come up and advocate seizing to pay them. I'm not an anarchist, I think that society is more than just its individuals (10 people working together achieve more than 10 people each working on their own), and for people to live in society we have to live with certain limitations.
It is up to anyone who doesn't want to pay taxes that go to welfare to leave and start a society where one doesn't have to. But it is unlikely to be particularly successful, for people seem to be happy with the arrangement.

What happens to the inevitable non-contributers in that tribal society?
Well, those that don't die are cared for by their families and friends.

BINGO!
There is no moral imperative. Just like in a liberal society, there is no moral imperative for everyone to act within societal norms, but it is practical. Liberalism is moral because it allows individuals to determine their own morality.
Well, you got me. There is no moral imperative, as I said, but in practice there is an imperative nonetheless.
Again, the practical world matters to me - not whether something is "wrong", always has been, always will be, and will still be wrong when humans don't exist anymore.

But ask me this, who do you admire more, the guy with three doctorates making $50,000 a year and living in a suburbian home, or the real estate agent making $500,000 a year living in a luxurious neighborhood?
I personally hate real estate agents. I think they don't do anything for society that the internet couldn't.
They are in many respects the personification of everything I hate about suburbia...
So I go for the Doctor. :D

That's not to say that I don't admire some rich people (afterall I am a product of society), but not simply because they're rich - it is about the way they got rich in the first place.
I can't stand Bill Gates, but Porsche Boss Wendelin Wiedeking is my idol...

And furthermore, you as an economics student would certainly understand the amount of value capitalism places on expertise.
But only as far as it produces value...but perhaps my beef is more with society as it is now than with the system.
The system isn't bad, but the people who live in it and listen to punk music and don't talk to the nerd who happens to know more than the teacher about nuclear physics, those people are the problem that holds humanity back.

I am relatively sure that communism cannot cope with [different individual utilities and preferences].
Not as a planned economy, no. Anarcho-Communism could perhaps, but not in the only way that was tried so far, some sort of Totalitarian Radical Socialism.

But I was referring to his economic theories and mathematics, do you consider them valid?
Well, his maths you can't argue with...
The theories provide an interesting alternative view of how stuff works, that in theory is no more wrong than our funny calculations about Marginal Productivity and all the rest of it.
In practice, as I said, it's a pointless exercise.
Nonetheless, I admire the man for being one of the few that actually opened their mouth for the people that really were exploited then - and out of his movements came labour unions, and ultimately social democracy.
And that is a much more workable system.
I'm no Marxist, but I'm always up for it to defend the theories against allegations of immorality, general "evilness" and causing Katrina...

I typed this once and lost it. :mad:

What do you mean?

Alright, now let me see if my line of thinking is correct. In a market where there is asymmetrical information, the buyer will not pay full price, as he must account for the risk involved. The seller will not sell for any price less than full price as he knows the value of the good and he will get screwed if he lowers it. So the only price they can agree on is at the lowest utility, the buyer is guaranteed to not get any worse than he paid for, and the seller can't lower his price any more.

So couldn't all value be based on the lowest possible utility, plus value added for intangible goods unrelated to the good itself? Reputation, charm of the salesman, for example.

A demand curve and a supply curve intersect, and you get a market price. That market price turns out to be $960. And over time, as people with $1000 cars realise that they won't get a thousand quid for them, the proportion of good cars up for sale falls, such that people might have to revise their extimated prices downwards further.
http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/qjecon/v84y1970i3p488-500.html
In the example of used cars the Austrians are probably right when they say that the entrepreneur could find ways to solve this particular problem...so I guess I have to revise my position.
Nonetheless, this is a good practical example for what information asymmetry can do.

I am completely sold on the idea and the ramifications of the Market of Lemons. I also believe that information asymmetry exists in all markets, so it must be tied into all valuation on the market.

To be honest, I've got nothing on arbitrage - I haven't dealt with economics of financial markets at all, so I guess I can't tell you much there.

Could it be possible that, in a market with multiple equilibria, that two different prices or returns for the same good or investment be found in the market?

If it is, and the market is static, then there is a constant chance for arbitrage.

Well, perversely you could think that in a system of a relatively small "soviet" making decisions, those with a greater stake in an issue will offer something to others - and thus use economics. I vote "Yes" on A if you do the same on "B" kind of thing.

The idea of political microcosms inside of every business is very intriguing.

I don't think a communist system could exist on a national level at all. Was it in Argentina where workers actually took over their old factories and are producing without leadership, just on cooperation and mutual interest?

AnarchyeL and I once had a discussion on market socialism, which is, if I understood right, where the businesses are owned and ran by the workers, but each are in competion with each other on the market.

To be honest I have come to the conclusion that moral philosophy is too complicated for me and that instead I'll be with the "morality" of the majority.
Over time governments represent what the majority of people want, and so the laws (on average) represent what people consider to be right and wrong.
If it's against the law, it may not be immoral as in some absolute "evil", but if you do it you get trouble with the cops.
So I reckon there are no metaphysical concepts like property rights etc, only what people decide on out of self-interest or whatever and make it law.

I don't think that the majority has any justified moral authority. In fact I don't think that anyone has justified moral authority. But I do agree with you, that all rights are defined by self-interest. But it is in my self-interest to find the most just system and behavior to treat everyone else in order to protect myself. So morals are defined by self-interest.

I'm still not convinced. Communism is moral authority just because it doesn't provide for seperate property rights?

Socialism definitely is, communism is iffy, depending on the government's role. Both seek to govern behavior through government action based on altruistic morality.

Centrally to it is merely the idea that you cannot own someone else's labour and sell it - as capitalists are accused of doing. Everything else follows logically.

That is the marxist idea of it, the ending of exploitation by eliminating the bourgiousie. Socialists and communists have taken a step farther by making the overriding of property rights to create equality the central tenet. They state that no one owns their own labor, that everyone is a slave to society.

Same deal as with capitalism, just that they assume the boss in his managing position actually creates all the wealth that is marked-up on the worker's wages.

That has nothing to do with the morality of it, that is just one thing that capitalists have to keep saying to deny the charge of exploitation.

Socialism may perhaps be different in that it forces you to care for someone else, but as I said, the majority of people apparently don't mind paying for transfer payments - if they did a party would come up and advocate seizing to pay them.

You can't allow the majority to legislate their morality. So if there is a minority who disagrees with socialism, they are being oppressed by a moral agenda.

I'm not an anarchist, I think that society is more than just its individuals (10 people working together achieve more than 10 people each working on their own), and for people to live in society we have to live with certain limitations.

One person can often achieve more than 100 people combined. It all depends on the quality of the individuals involved. In fact, I don't know if game theory proves this, but I am pretty sure cooperative work causes the individual to work at a lower level.

It is up to anyone who doesn't want to pay taxes that go to welfare to leave and start a society where one doesn't have to. But it is unlikely to be particularly successful, for people seem to be happy with the arrangement.

Just where are they going to start that society?

(this is probably a bad idea) Do you think that the living standards in a capitalist society would be worse than a totally socialist society?

Well, those that don't die are cared for by their families and friends.

Sounds like how a completely capitalist system handles non-contributers.

Don't tell the communists. They will argue with you for days.


Well, you got me. There is no moral imperative, as I said, but in practice there is an imperative nonetheless.
Again, the practical world matters to me - not whether something is "wrong", always has been, always will be, and will still be wrong when humans don't exist anymore.

I consider economic freedom to be very practical. But I understand where you are coming from. Economic pressures makes sure that non-productive people do not recieve wages, and either die or are cared for by their friends and family. But it seems we are stuck with that conclusion.

I personally hate real estate agents. I think they don't do anything for society that the internet couldn't.
They are in many respects the personification of everything I hate about suburbia...
So I go for the Doctor. :D

I am 3/4 of the way done with my real estate licensing course, buddy.

In my and other's defense, real estate agents bring an expertise to the table that is very beneficial, as there is much more to purchasing a house than finding one on the internet.

Think of buying land or a house without a real estate agent as being like going to court without a lawyer.

But only as far as it produces value...but perhaps my beef is more with society as it is now than with the system.
The system isn't bad, but the people who live in it and listen to punk music and don't talk to the nerd who happens to know more than the teacher about nuclear physics, those people are the problem that holds humanity back.

It's decadence, capitalism does tend to jack up the economy until the society goes to hell in complacent handbasket.

I typed this once and lost it. :mad:
Yeah, that happened to me once...I didn't bother rewriting it for hours and hours in my angry stupor. Thanks for the effort. :)

Alright, now let me see if my line of thinking is correct..-snip-
That sounds about right.

So couldn't all value be based on the lowest possible utility, plus value added for intangible goods unrelated to the good itself? Reputation, charm of the salesman, for example.
Well, as far as individual negotiations are concerned, that makes sense. But at least in the standard models of firms being price takers, it is conceivable that the price is just not enough to justify firms selling.
But perhaps that is more a problem with the model than with the system in reality, which for whatever reason seems to be able to deal with it.
Afterall there are still used cars for sale.

Could it be possible that, in a market with multiple equilibria, that two different prices or returns for the same good or investment be found in the market?
Not at the same time. Just assume that for whatever reason the the demand curve is shaped like a "U", and the Supply Curve is shaped like an Arc.
You'd have two possible equilibria, at two different prices (not necessarily in this case) and two different quantities.
At least in theory you could be stuck at an equilibrium with lower quantity and higher price, when you could be at a much better place.

If it is, and the market is static, then there is a constant chance for arbitrage.
Well, that would require that you could somehow trade from one equilibrium to another...but since it's all one market, at any one point you're confronted with only one price and quantity.
The entrepreneurial buyer or seller might want to lower price/increase quantity, but it's not worth it in the short term. Unless you would have a very future-oriented person with the funds to for a while pay more than their utility, you'd be stuck at a suboptimal point - unless some outside shock sends you over that arc so you can slide down to the place you'll be even more happy.

I don't think that the majority has any justified moral authority. In fact I don't think that anyone has justified moral authority.
Well, it's a cold kind of moral authority - the justification I guess is only that they can put me into jail. If you reject all forms of universal morality, the only thing that remains is pain or no pain for yourself (did I read that a long time ago in one of Melkor's post...? :eek: ).

But I do agree with you, that all rights are defined by self-interest. But it is in my self-interest to find the most just system and behavior to treat everyone else in order to protect myself. So morals are defined by self-interest.
Then, if everyone does that and strives to find the most just system, why don't we live in that system already? Maybe we do?
Politicians are only humans too...

You can't allow the majority to legislate their morality. So if there is a minority who disagrees with socialism, they are being oppressed by a moral agenda.
I guess they are, but then again there are democratic pathways to deal with stuff. In Germany the Libertarian party (the FDP) has for a long time been in a very influential position, and has been able to keep both the Conservatives attacks on civil liberties, as well as the SPD's tax and transfer hikes.

One person can often achieve more than 100 people combined. It all depends on the quality of the individuals involved. In fact, I don't know if game theory proves this, but I am pretty sure cooperative work causes the individual to work at a lower level.
I've never seen it in game theory (in game theory you could also mention the prisoner's dilemma), but in my management courses its acknowledged that that can happen in team building. You're supposed to counter that by keeping people individually responsible for their actions - a balance thing, but one that is probably best managed by democratic processes and the ensuing negotiation.

Just where are they going to start that society?
Hmm..is there a desert in Kentucky? :p
I guess it's a matter of buying it off a government (which for all practical purposes does own the land, no matter what the moral implications).

Do you think that the living standards in a capitalist society would be worse than a totally socialist society?
Depends whether you have some regulation. I honestly don't think a Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist society would provide any sort of reasonable standard or living.
But our system is plenty better than a purely socialist country would be.

But it seems we are stuck with that conclusion.
Yep.

I am 3/4 of the way done with my real estate licensing course, buddy.

In my and other's defense, real estate agents bring an expertise to the table that is very beneficial, as there is much more to purchasing a house than finding one on the internet.
Hehe. Sorry.

Think of buying land or a house without a real estate agent as being like going to court without a lawyer.
Is it a lemon problem maybe? :D

Hmm..is there a desert in Kentucky? :p
I guess it's a matter of buying it off a government (which for all practical purposes does own the land, no matter what the moral implications).
The anarcho-communist view (or at least my view) is that land ownership is based upon use. Society would only "own" the land that it uses. So if a segment of society breaks off of society, society would therefore be using less land. So that segment could take over and use that land.

I am very tired right now for some reason, so I am just going to address this for now.

Hehe. Sorry.


Is it a lemon problem maybe? :D

I work as a property manager, and I was making calls to various other realtors asking what they thought was the best way to go about advertising properties for lease.

In a conversation with one, I told them that I was new to the market, and he began giving me tips.

One thing he told me was that he would only rent "blue collar" properties, meaning low value properties to low paying tenants. He reasoned that all tenants have bad credit of some sort, otherwise they would own a house. If they could pay 1500 dollars a month to rent, why couldn't they afford a mortgage.

Because of the risk he saw as inherent with renters, he would only lease out low rent properties, both to minimize his losses if he got a bum tenant, and also because the lower the rent, the more steady the cash flow.

Informational economics in action.