NationStates Jolt Archive

I basically would like to find out how people view economics and their relation to politics, and to find out how many political arguers are familiar with economics.

The free market is the best system people have seem to come up with. Capitalism as shown itself to work time and again providing more prosperity than other systems.

Could you be more specific?

I mean, I think business have too much influence over the government. Is that what you're looking for?

Socialism FTW!

Well I guess I'm a bit of a 'political arguer', and I have an A-level in economics.

The problem with relating economics to politics is that you can come up with an economic argument to support just about any policy, no matter how stupid it may be.

blurry

I could add a long citation of Accelerando or Hadisveja (a story, I am writing) here. I think in 100 years, capitalism in its current form will not exist even though I am still wondering what will come after it. The devaluation of human work however will imply that sooner or later another system needs to emerge.

The free market is the best system people have seem to come up with. Capitalism as shown itself to work time and again providing more prosperity than other systems.

That's well and good, but the free market does require some government intervention. Since intervention is costly and inflationary, the key question is how much of it your economy needs.

For a Third World country with very limited resources, a planned economy (communism, by any other name) may be a perfectly good option. Certainly until the country is up and running.

My prefered economic system would be socialism.

I adore Reagan's supply-side economics in a limited sense, but I also adhere to classical laissez-faire economics. I believe that government is necessary for the sole purpose of uphold the law and to further to country's international interests; thus, taxes should not be completely abolished but rather restricted to sales tax only. Such a liberal environment is the fertile foundation for success.

For the International Liberation Of the Proletariat, Peasants and Soldiers, and the Abolition of the Capitalist Bourgoise Imperialists!

Economics Soviet Bloc style FTW!

...


No not really. I'm not as interested in economics as much as international issues, but you could describe me as a Liberal Socialist. I'm against the expansion of privatisation in the NHS in Britain amongst other things, and for nationalisation of certain key services that can't be left to the free markets such as the railways, amongst a few others.

I'm for more government regulation and taxation of corporations.

Stalinism/Leninism/Marxism = Fail
also
Ultra Capitalism = Fail

Liberal Socialism = Just right.

I read the Economist and agree with their editorial bias, for the most part. It's a mixture of positions, and I'm not much of one for labels, unless it's vertices.

I am an advocate of socialism. I think that it could not be enforced properly, equally, on the population of today, because all of us are too used to the ideas of capitalism, and of making sure onesself stays ahead of the rest. However, were human culture to be changed, so it was absolute common sense that one need not worry about onesself, but rather concern onesself with the well being of others, a fair and productive system could emerge. Very utopian/distopian, depending on how one looks at it, but I love the idea, and find it is worth working towards, even if I do not live to see the results. I most certainly will not.

Here's an Anglo-centric view:

A mix of many of the above. I would support a mixed economy with nationalisation of natural monopolies and important utilities like water, electricity, railways, roads, telecommunications post and the like, and they would be accountable to Parliament, enough to plan when necessary, but not enough to be involved with day to day operation. On the other hand, I support an independent central bank to decide interest rates and keep inflation low, but not a gold standard. Taxation should be as low as possible, and where possible, benefits and welfare should be replaced by lower taxation for workers earning low wages - there's little point in giving money with one hand and taking away with the other. Tax should be progressive, as should National Insurance (which you pay less towards as your income increases). Lowish tax on corporations should help lower unemployment, and according to people who do economics, can increase revenue in the long term. Local government should be funded by a Land Value Tax instead of council tax.

Could you be more specific?

I mean, I think business have too much influence over the government. Is that what you're looking for?

well in this sense you'd either have to remove government, or corporations (anarchy or communism, respectively), or you could simply argue a number of theories. or if u like eggs, go with that

Newer Burmecia;12524344']-me snip-
Why is jolt now putting [NS] in front of my name? First deleting my account, now this...:rolleyes:

Ultra Capitalism = Fail



depends on your definition of capitalism. a free market or a subsidized market are the biggest differences in its theory.

Personally, I 'm a social democrat.

i'd actually like to see some explanation as to how socialism actually works. and in that sense meaning "doesn't fail."

i'd actually like to see some explanation as to how socialism actually works. and in that sense meaning "doesn't fail."
Depends on how you define it.

well there's very little theory built up behind it. there's no consistent theory of supply and demand, it just generally says government regulation. however, not that I really have entirely looked in to the theories of it. any help?

My view on economics is very simple: I should get whatever I want.

Without looking up the dictionary definition...
To me, 'socialism' implies a system with (relatively) high tax and high government spending. So Norway would be a socialist country, compared to most of Europe.

depends on your definition of capitalism. a free market or a subsidized market are the biggest differences in its theory.

Surely ultra capitalism means zero tax, zero government intervention?
If so, UN Protectorates is correct: it does indeed = fail.

i'd actually like to see some explanation as to how socialism actually works. and in that sense meaning "doesn't fail."

Hmm... You could make an entirely new thread about the definition of Socialism and expect a 500+ post count.

Well I'll try and give you a basic idea of Liberal Socialism. It advocates the nationalisation of crucial, natural monopoly industries including the Health system, Rail network, Water supplies and Electricity supplies. Production industries, Agriculture, Services and others are left to the Private sector.

Socialism, rather than Communism, is designed to give equal opportunity rather than the utopian idea of equal wealth. That includes a social security net to make sure that the most basic living needs of people are catered to, a minimum wage (especially for young workers), fixing inequality in wages between males and females. And a pension system that allows for private and/or state savings.

This is just a very basic outline, which is correct as a basic definition of Liberal Socialism to the best of my knowledge.

I am for a freer market, and I am mostly anti protectionism. i.e. I'm practical.

I basically would like to find out how people view economics and their relation to politics, and to find out how many political arguers are familiar with economics.

The closest on this list that matches my economic policy is Keynesian Mixed Economics, though I will not elaborate at the moment.

Well.. I didn't see my view.

I call it Communalism, which can be translated as Libertarian Communism if you like. Forget about the political implication you seek behind it, because it isn't there.

It simply is the opposite of globalism. Small scale production of high quality products. Get your table full of the most lovely tasty and healthy food from your own neighborhood, instead of a sloppy BlablaKing.

My idea is founded on the medieval abbeys, they produced food and drinks for themselves, lived together in a nice area, and we just build villages on the same principal idea. O, I must not forget they are not the communes of the 60s. Anarchy doesn't work. There has to be some friendly authority.

Political examples: Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.

Without looking up the dictionary definition...
To me, 'socialism' implies a system with (relatively) high tax and high government spending. So Norway would be a socialist country, compared to most of Europe.

I think that Sweden is in there too, no?

edit: actually most of scandinavia

I like the idea of a Sodomy Economy.

Every person you economically fuck in the ass gets to physically fuck you in the ass.

Hmm... You could make an entirely new thread about the definition of Socialism and expect a 500+ post count.

Well I'll try and give you a basic idea of Liberal Socialism. It advocates the nationalisation of crucial, natural monopoly industries including the Health system, Rail network, Water supplies and Electricity supplies. Production industries, Agriculture, Services and others are left to the Private sector.

Socialism, rather than Communism, is designed to give equal opportunity rather than the utopian idea of equal wealth. That includes a social security net to make sure that the most basic living needs of people are catered to, a minimum wage (especially for young workers), fixing inequality in wages between males and females. And a pension system that allows for private and/or state savings.

This is just a very basic outline, which is correct as a basic definition of Liberal Socialism to the best of my knowledge.
...you know, reading that, I may have to change my vote to the Marxism/Socialism catagory because this is almost exactly how my economic policies look.

I like the idea of a Sodomy Economy.

Every person you economically fuck in the ass gets to physically fuck you in the ass.

I find myself disagree-ing with you over the fact that that place is a Holy One-Way Street that would and should be fucked in a Sodomy Economy.

I think that Sweden is in there too, no?

edit: actually most of scandinavia

For sure - I was just giving an example. Norway happens to be the only Scandinavian country I've been to, hence it sprang to mind.

I like the idea of a Sodomy Economy.

Every person you economically fuck in the ass gets to physically fuck you in the ass.Would that be a transferable right? Maybe auctionable even?

Would that be a transferable right? Maybe auctionable even?No.

To get us out of the present mess: a decentralized mix of market and planned socialism with a significant degree of worker self-management and a high level of egalitarianism.

Ultimately: radically egalitarian, radically decentralized communism incorporating fully voluntary labor and distribution by need.

Intriguing, but who do you mean by 'us'? A particular country?

The whole world and all its inhabitants.

To get us out of the present mess [...]

Intriguing, but who do you mean by 'us'? A particular country?

No.

Well, at least we'd all get laid.

...fully voluntary labor and distribution by need.

So, basically, is the amount you receive independent of the amount you work? In that case, there is no incentive to strive for excellence, or even to work at all. Society would crumble.

So, basically, is the amount you receive independent of the amount you work?

Yes.

In that case, there is no incentive to strive for excellence, or even to work at all.

Then shut up.

Or am I paying you?

Then shut up.

Or am I paying you?

Well, you lost me there. I can't figure out how anybody can believe that a functional society can exist when no one has any impetus whatsoever to work. And not only that, but to compound the problem, the fruits of the labor of the few who, for some reason, work, would be forcefully taken from then and distributed according to "need." I'd give you one month before one-half of the population which implements such a system starves to death.

Well, you lost me there. I can't figure out how anybody can believe that a functional society can exist when no one has any impetus whatsoever to work. And not only that, but to compound the problem, the fruits of the labor of the few who, for some reason, work, would be forcefully taken from then and distributed according to "need." I'd give you one month before one-half of the population which implements such a system starves to death.

MeansToAnEnd or not, Soheran, he's right...your system is idealistic and already proven to fail in reality, as seen in Soviet Russia. Perhaps in time it could be functional, but not now, not with the way humanity is.

Well, you lost me there.

do you get paid to discuss things here?

I'd give you one month before one-half of the population which implements such a system starves to death.

funny thing - it turns out that similar systems are in fact the only known ways of distribution that are stable and workable for thousands of years.

MeansToAnEnd or not, Soheran, he's right...your system is idealistic and already proven to fail in reality, as seen in Soviet Russia. Perhaps in time it could be functional, but not now, not with the way humanity is.

Soheran's idea seems to call for a major change in the way society motivates people to work. My heart says it could happen, but my head says it won't.

I must say IMHO, Communism doesn't work. It is too idealistic and impractical. You need there to be a rewarding incentive to work. Otherwise you end up enslaving the working populace through collectivisation etc, and Soviet Bloc economies corruptly reign. It might work in a perfect world. But this world is far from perfect.

Socialism is the way to go.

Socialism heavily influenced by Keynes.

funny thing - it turns out that similar systems are in fact the only known ways of distribution that are stable and workable for thousands of years.

In a small and isolated society, you mean? Yes, and it strikes me as an excellent system.
The question is: can we, in a global society, get back to the mentality that made it work?

Soheran's idea seems to call for a major change in the way society motivates people to work. My heart says it could happen, but my head says it won't.

I must agree...as I said, perhaps one day such a system might work, but it cannot in today's world, at least not on a national scale.

Well, you lost me there.

Most valuable human activity, even today, is not given monetary compensation. One example being, arguing on NSG.

So it's rather strange that the assumption is made that no valuable human activity would be done under conditions of economic equality.

I can't figure out how anybody can believe that a functional society can exist when no one has any impetus whatsoever to work.

Absolutely it can't - at least under a broad conception of "work."

But I have not abolished all reasons to work - just a few.

And not only that, but to compound the problem, the fruits of the labor of the few who, for some reason, work, would be forcefully taken from then

They never had them in the first place.

and distributed according to "need."

Right.

I'd give you one month before one-half of the population which implements such a system starves to death.

They'd undoubtedly stop before then.

You left out Anarcho-communist.

Most valuable human activity, even today, is not given monetary compensation. One example being, arguing on NSG.
What? What we're doing here has no value. We aren't producing anything or providing a service. We're consuming bandwidth and electricity and our output is exactly nothing.

do you get paid to discuss things here?

I derive some enjoyment from it. However, many people do not enjoy their jobs. Furthermore, there is little reason to believe that the infrastructure necessary to perform jobs will exist, whether you like doing that particular job or not. Most modern-day labor requires cooperation, and this is very difficult to attain if people are on different wavelengths and unmotivated to work. Does anyone like picking up the garbage? Do people like strenuously exerting themselves for 10 hours a day? If anything did get done, it would take 10 times the normal amount of time, and there would be no system in place to ensure that everything was distributed according to need. But really, I think only very few people would work when more pleasurable activities are available.

funny thing - it turns out that similar systems are in fact the only known ways of distribution that are stable and workable for thousands of years.

No -- people were either coerced into working or large-scale endeavors were not embarked upon. Perhaps primitive hunter-gatherer societies could have employed such a system, but not a society hoping to construct cities, a sewer system, etc.

You left out Anarcho-communist.

Eggs and Easter were more important.

I'm sure they exist, but I've never heard of an actual economist who was anarcho-communist.

What? What we're doing here has no value. We aren't producing anything or providing a service. We're consuming bandwidth and electricity and our output is exactly nothing.
We output enough hot air.

MeansToAnEnd or not,

I hope he is. MTAE was an excellent and intelligent opponent.

Soheran, he's right...your system is idealistic

Actually, the sort of communism I advocate involves all kinds of pragmatic compromises.

and already proven to fail in reality, as seen in Soviet Russia.

Hmm, I don't think the Soviet economy matched any one of the characteristics I gave.

Perhaps in time it could be functional, but not now, not with the way humanity is.

Yes, I said "ultimately" for a reason, but the problem is not human nature but social structures and the culture they breed... plus overpopulation and a bunch of other things that need to be dealt with first.

Soheran's idea seems to call for a major change in the way society motivates people to work.

Indeed.

My heart says it could happen, but my head says it won't.

If I followed my heart, I wouldn't stop at communism.

What? What we're doing here has no value. We aren't producing anything or providing a service. We're consuming bandwidth and electricity and our output is exactly nothing.

One might argue that there you're falling into the trap of capitalism - thinking that, as we're producing nothing of monetary value, it doesn't count.

Most valuable human activity, even today, is not given monetary compensation. One example being, arguing on NSG.

Can someone eat our debates on NSG? Can someone use our debates on NSG to construct a building, to clothe a family, or to sustain a community? No, they are absolutely worthless -- their sole purpose is the enjoyment of those who participate. Such arguments are about as useful as a pee-wee soccer game.

So it's rather strange that the assumption is made that no valuable human activity would be done under conditions of economic equality.

The only activities in which people would be engaged would be those which they derive the most utility from. I don't think many people would prefer menial labor to playing PC games, reading a book, debating on NSG, playing soccer, going to the beach, etc. Thus, such activities would rarely be performed. Perhaps some valuable human activity would be performed, but so little output would trickle through society that we would be inevitably regress technologically.

But I have not abolished all reasons to work - just a few.

What reason would there be to work under your system other than someone "feeling like it"?

They never had them in the first place.

Sure they did. The amount of money one received was a direct function of the amount of work they put it: if one sat around doing nothing, he would not be rewarded, while if one was exceedingly productive, he would be entitled to an adequate wage. The major reason that people work is because they acquire an income from such an activity -- you seek to abolish that; consequently, there would be practically no incentive to work. Under your system, the amount somebody receives is in no way connected to the amount of work they put in.

They'd undoubtedly stop before then.

Yes, by realizing the madness of such an absurd system.

One might argue that there you're falling into the trap of capitalism - thinking that, as we're producing nothing of monetary value, it doesn't count.

At most NSG is entertainment. Valuable as a distraction to be sure, but not at all as valuable as most commodities.

Soheran: Oh? Perhaps I misunderstood your system, then, for which I must apologize. Please elaborate on your system.

If I followed my heart, I wouldn't stop at communism.

What's next: a hive mind?

So, basically, is the amount you receive independent of the amount you work? In that case, there is no incentive to strive for excellence, or even to work at all. Society would crumble.That is just... silly. Of course the amount you work will affect the amount you get. If the goods that society produces are evenly distributed, the amount of goods you receive will be proportional to the amount of work done. Unlike capitalism were it is proportional to just the work you do, it is proportional to the work done by all of society. If you choose not to work, you will still get your good and services, but less then you would have if you were working. Actually, all of society would get less, so they would probably be rather pissed if you didn't work.

One might argue that there you're falling into the trap of capitalism - thinking that, as we're producing nothing of monetary value, it doesn't count.

Actually, that is not so from a capitalist standpoint. We are not creating a product or performing a service which we can market -- that is not where the worth of posting on this forum lies. However, Jolt is providing a service by allowing us to use this forum in order to debate. If Jolt charged a fee -- say, 1 cent per year, to use this forum, would you pay it? Most of you probably would -- that's the capitalist value of this forum. Of course, high rates cannot be charged given that there is a nearly unlimited supply of forums on the internet and demand cannot equal this vast supply. Thus, if the price charged is too high or too inconvenient to pay, another forum could easily be found. What we're producing does not count -- the capitalist value of this forum is in what we're given.

You left out Anarcho-communist.

whoa, long time no see

At most NSG is entertainment. Valuable as a distraction to be sure, but not at all as valuable as most commodities.


I think you are being too cynical. (I'm a journalist; there's not much I don't know about being a cynic.) I've had some very valuable - valuable to me, anyway - discussions on NSG. Ones where I've learned something I wouldn't otherwise have known about. I've also had the opportunity to learn what some nerd thinks about Babylon 5, but hey, got to take the rough with the smooth.

In a small and isolated society, you mean? Yes, and it strikes me as an excellent system.

Small, yes.

Why isolated?

The question is: can we, in a global society, get back to the mentality that made it work?

Why not? We're pretty much the same biologically.

What? What we're doing here has no value.

Nonsense. Economic value is always subjective.

We aren't producing anything or providing a service.

We're providing a service to the other posters. And we're doing it selfishly.

However, many people do not enjoy their jobs.

Yes, and this is the great monstrosity of market systems.

They have devised all kinds of ways to get us to do what we do not want... to spend our lives doing what we do not want.

And what do we gain for it? A bunch of junk we don't really need - or at least, that we wouldn't if we didn't live in the kinds of societies we live in.

Furthermore, there is little reason to believe that the infrastructure necessary to perform jobs will exist,

That would depend on whether or not the jobs that produce the infrastructure would exist. You're presenting a circular argument.

Most modern-day labor requires cooperation, and this is very difficult to attain if people are on different wavelengths

They always are.

and unmotivated to work.

Ah, so what you really mean is that it will be difficult to get someone who does not want to cooperate to cooperate.

Indeed, that is the case. Furthermore, it is the point.

Does anyone like picking up the garbage?

Why not?

Do people like strenuously exerting themselves for 10 hours a day?

No. So they shouldn't.

If anything did get done, it would take 10 times the normal amount of time,

Efficiency ranks near the bottom of my concerns.

and there would be no system in place to ensure that everything was distributed according to need.

You forget - decentralization.

There is no omnipotent government bureaucracy distributing goods. At the commune level, it's need not be a very complicated or labor-intensive process.

But really, I think only very few people would work when more pleasurable activities are available.

All kinds of valuable human activity are pleasurable.

or large-scale endeavors were not embarked upon.

At our technological level, the difficulties involved in "large-scale endeavors" would not be of the same degree.

but not a society hoping to construct cities, a sewer system, etc.

I fail to see the necessity of either.

Of course the amount you work will affect the amount you get. If the goods that society produces are evenly distributed, the amount of goods you receive will be proportional to the amount of work done.

There's 300,000,000 people in America. If you do not work, let's say you're entitled to $100,000 dollars (as is everyone else in the country). Now, you decide to do some work -- say, $100,000 dollars' worth of work. Now, that amount would be evenly divided among every American (well, according to need, so not completely evenly). That means that you'll get 1/30 of a cent more. Not much incentive, is it?

so they would probably be rather pissed if you didn't work.

So the threat of social exclusion or physical violence would be the driving power behind doing one's job?

We are not creating a product or performing a service which we can market -- that is not where the worth of posting on this forum lies. However, Jolt is providing a service by allowing us to use this forum in order to debate. If Jolt charged a fee -- say, 1 cent per year, to use this forum, would you pay it? Most of you probably would -- that's the capitalist value of this forum.

That's what I mean by the mistake of capitalism. I'm talking about a concept of value that is abstract, yet real. You are talking about supply and demand.

I think you are being too cynical. (I'm a journalist; there's not much I don't know about being a cynic.) I've had some very valuable - valuable to me, anyway - discussions on NSG. Ones where I've learned something I wouldn't otherwise have known about. I've also had the opportunity to learn what some nerd thinks about Babylon 5, but hey, got to take the rough with the smooth.
My point is that it is not as valuable as Soheran is claiming. Is it valuable? Certainly. Is it among the most valuable? Certainly not. Perhaps I am being cynical, but that is how I feel about the subject.

In a small and isolated society, you mean? Yes, and it strikes me as an excellent system.
The question is: can we, in a global society, get back to the mentality that made it work?

well, not really isolated. we've had massive continent spanning gift exchange ('trade') networks going back for more than 40,000 years.

and the mentality never really left - this sort of system is what we do of our own accord under a whole host of cultural traditions everywhere on the globe. it fits with our evolutionary predispositions, and we are biologically still the creatures we were when we were out hunting megafauna on the savanna.

Ah, so what you really mean is that it will be difficult to get someone who does not want to cooperate to cooperate.

Indeed, that is the case. Furthermore, it is the point.

"but but but, the way i wanna live demands that others be forced to do things they wouldn't do otherwise. how dare you propose to not force them!"

Can someone eat our debates on NSG? Can someone use our debates on NSG to construct a building, to clothe a family, or to sustain a community? No, they are absolutely worthless -- their sole purpose is the enjoyment of those who participate.

Like video games, television, pornography, computer games, toys, fancy cars, and a whole host of other things.

So?

Such arguments are about as useful as a pee-wee soccer game.

And pee-wee soccer games can be very valuable.

The only activities in which people would be engaged would be those which they derive the most utility from.

Indeed, this a basic principle of (most) human action.

I don't think many people would prefer menial labor to playing PC games, reading a book, debating on NSG, playing soccer, going to the beach, etc.

Actually, doubtful.

Most people find physical activity enjoyable. We just don't like doing it over and over again, or at the whim of others, or because we have to.

Thus, such activities would rarely be performed.

Perhaps so.

What of it? We don't need most of the stuff we produce anyway.

Perhaps some valuable human activity would be performed, but so little output would trickle through society that we would be inevitably regress technologically.

So?

What reason would there be to work under your system other than someone "feeling like it"?

None at all.

Sure they did. The amount of money one received was a direct function of the amount of work they put it: if one sat around doing nothing, he would not be rewarded, while if one was exceedingly productive, he would be entitled to an adequate wage.

Wait, aren't we talking about the workers under the system I proposed?

The major reason that people work is because they acquire an income from such an activity

The major reason people work the way they do is because they acquire an income from such an activity.

Yes, by realizing the madness of such an absurd system.

All systems have uncertainty in them.

Starvation would be a pretty clear signal to try something else.

Small, yes.

Why isolated?


Hmm, poor choice of words on my part maybe. What I had in mind was an ancient or medieval-style rural community, where people didn't have full time jobs as such, but pitched in and helped with whatever needed doing. You weren't paid to get the crops in, but you knew it needed doing, so you helped. When your house needed its roof repairing, people would help you. You wouldn't employ them to do this - they would not derive monetary gain from it - they'd do it because the community would be better off if everyone had a decent roof.

Is that a fair comparison with what you are advocating?

As I say, it looks good to me. My concern is that it might only work in a small community where people are interdependent and can see the benefits of their own labour. I find it hard to picture it functioning in a city.

Add: Free Soviets, hope this clarifies what I meant.

Yes, and this is the great monstrosity of market systems. They have devised all kinds of ways to get us to do what we do not want... to spend our lives doing what we do not want.

And we're adequately compensated for performing those jobs -- we voluntarily decide that the gain is worth the pain. Do you believe that society can function if only enjoyable jobs are performed? It's hard to study for a decade in order to become a doctor -- wouldn't it be much easier just to spend that time playing games? Oop, there goes our medical system! And who likes sitting in a cubicle all day performing tedious routines? Oop, there goes most of our computer-related infrastructure! The list of unenviable jobs goes on and on, but many are critical. Sure, people don't like doing they're jobs -- but it's what keeps society running at our advanced level.

And what do we gain for it? A bunch of junk we don't really need - or at least, that we wouldn't if we didn't live in the kinds of societies we live in.

If you "don't really need" all that junk, you can opt to live a subsistence lifestyle off the land -- stay alive by killing animals and farming with other like-minded people. Enjoy a Buddhist lifestyle. But the truth is, almost every Western individual loves the comfort that modern technology can bring him and is willing to sacrifice part of his time in order to be able to purchase those goods.

That would depend on whether or not the jobs that produce the infrastructure would exist. You're presenting a circular argument.

No, it's a logical progression. First, jobs that construct and maintain our current infrastructure will be whittled away. Then, consequently, that infrastructure would fall into disrepair. This would, in turn, affect the viability of other jobs, starting a vicious cycle.

They always are.

Sure they are. They struggle to be adept at their jobs in order to receive their paycheck and they do what they are directed to do by their superiors. They can't just do whatever they want without being fired.

Ah, so what you really mean is that it will be difficult to get someone who does not want to cooperate to cooperate. Indeed, that is the case. Furthermore, it is the point.

If you think that everyone would willingly cooperate regardless of not having any incentive to do so, and you base the viability of an economic system upon this, it seems bound to fail.

Why not?

It's not a very rewarding task. I don't know why people think watching soccer is fun while watching paint dry is not. However, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find someone who is willing to perform the duties of a garbageman without being compensated for this.

Efficiency ranks near the bottom of my concerns.

So you'd willingly slash the GDP of a country to 1/10 its previous level?

You forget - decentralization. There is no omnipotent government bureaucracy distributing goods. At the commune level, it's need not be a very complicated or labor-intensive process.

How can you ensure that nobody, say, sews a shirt and wears it himself rather than giving it to the community? Or if someone picks a strawberry and eats it rather than distributing the fruits equally?

All kinds of valuable human activity are pleasurable.

How do you figure? There is no logical basis for that. Say the whole human race would die unless one man was abhorrently tortured. Now, being that man would certainly not be pleasurable, but it would be invaluable to humanity. Obviously, that's a very far-fetched circumstance, but there are many types of jobs that people don't enjoy performing but nonetheless sustain our standard of living.

I fail to see the necessity of either.

If you wish to live a primitive way of life, then I guess there is nothing wrong with your system. If you want technological progress, then it utterly fails.

My point is that it is not as valuable as Soheran is claiming. Is it valuable? Certainly. Is it among the most valuable? Certainly not. Perhaps I am being cynical, but that is how I feel about the subject.

I guess that's why I'm sceptical about whether Soheran's idea will ever become true. I may not agree with the levels of value which capitalism assigns to things, but they've given us a society which can at least function, so we're kind of stuck with them.

By bringing up the "incentives" problem, the advocates of capitalism (or market socialism, or any other system that is founded on incentives) concede a central portion of the argument.

They acknowledge that the central point of their system is to get people to do what they do not want to do - by denying them a portion of the social product.

They acknowledge, indeed, that their systems are based upon this compulsion - that the labor they support must be forced upon people.

I concede to them that this is the case. Their methods win their game.

But I see no reason to play in the first place.

I guess that's why I'm sceptical about whether Soheran's idea will ever become true. I may not agree with the levels of value which capitalism assigns to things, but they've given us a society which can at least function, so we're kind of stuck with them.

Aye, aye...that's why I prefer the Liberal Socialism espoused earlier in the thread, as it is the closest one can get to Soheran's system without abandoning how our current mindset works when it comes to work.

What of it? We don't need most of the stuff we produce anyway.

No, all we "need" is food and water. But we want other stuff. Our current system of economics is oriented towards providing us with what we want -- there's more to life than just satiating one's primitive needs. I'd rather be alive today, with all the labor that entails, rather than 2000 years ago, when all I'd need to do is work a few hours a day harvesting crops and doing other simple tasks. Would you prefer the latter? If so, I guess your system would be preferable.

whoa, long time no seeI missed you too comrade :)
No, all we "need" is food and water. But we want other stuff. Our current system of economics is oriented towards providing us with what we want -- there's more to life than just satiating one's primitive needs. I'd rather be alive today, with all the labor that entails, rather than 2000 years ago, when all I'd need to do is work a few hours a day harvesting crops and doing other simple tasks. Would you prefer the latter? If so, I guess your system would be preferable.
We need more then bread. We need roses too. We do not however need the unnecessarily competitive markets, disposable and shoddy goods, etc. which (as well as lack of automation) account for most of industrial society's labor hours

I'm a capitalist, and economic nationalist. I have an inherent distrust in the house of cards we call 'the global economy'. On the national level, we can set the parameters of what is acceptable levels of income and prosperity, through Keynesian methods of involving the state in certain sectors of the economy. I'm not against trade, just against the rediculous notion that free trade actually exists. I find that current trade agreements are simply about allowing large corporations a larger say in our economics than our government and legislatures. It leads us into a position where we become reliant on foreign companies, which are somewhat beyond our legislative control.

I find that capitalist economics has been proven to be the most efficient and productive economic force at our disposal. Semi-socialist keynesian influence can both stimulate that force, as well as shield us from its excesses.

So, in short, I'm your garden variety Canadian who happens to distrust the long term ramifications of our free trade agreements.

They acknowledge, indeed, that their systems are based upon this compulsion - that the labor they support must be forced upon people.

If that is true, then you would conversely acknowledge that in the absence of such an incentive, that labor would not be performed. Yet you believe that some modern jobs would get (partially/somewhat) done even without a monetary reward. One could argue that the concept of a wage is not to compel someone to take a job, but rather a necessary sacrifice to prevent someone from taking another job. Thus workers would have the opportunity to choose to perform either the jobs they most liked or those which would most reward them in other ways. In that case, there would be no coercion, but rather completely voluntary choice.

I'm a Keynesian. I beleive that the government has to interfere in the government sometimes, and that carefully balancing between deficit in times of need, and surplus in times of plenty is the best way to keep a stable economy. See, Reagan was half-right. We needed deficit spending in his time, so his tax cuts were a great choice, because they drove the government to deficit-spend, meaning money was entering the economy.

And we're adequately compensated for performing those jobs -- we voluntarily decide that the gain is worth the pain.

Yes, but the gain is not absolute. It is relative to the sorts of societies in which we live - societies which we did not voluntarily choose to live in.

Human beings survived and prospered for millenia with none of it.

Do you believe that society can function if only enjoyable jobs are performed?

I think society can function under conditions of genuinely voluntary labor, yes.

It's hard to study for a decade in order to become a doctor -- wouldn't it be much easier just to spend that time playing games?

Health care is also the area where perhaps the strongest altruistic incentives are involved.

And I can see some room for compromise there - chiefly because the problems that modern health care solves are, while in large part not natural, also probably not irreversible.

And who likes sitting in a cubicle all day performing tedious routines? Oop, there goes most of our computer-related infrastructure!

What of it?

many are critical.

Which ones?

But the truth is, almost every Western individual loves the comfort that modern technology can bring him and is willing to sacrifice part of his time in order to be able to purchase those goods.

Yes, that is the "truth."

Why? Because there isn't really any choice involved.

Human beings lived as foragers for most of our existence. Biologically we are little different from them. Could a human being raised in a modern society cope in such a society, though? Probably not.

That is in the nature of culture.

If you think that everyone would willingly cooperate regardless of not having any incentive to do so

Of course not. So?

The fact remains that the sorts of cooperation necessary for human society do not depend at all on financial incentives. Look at families and friendships for two obvious examples.

It's not a very rewarding task.

I voluntarily pick up trash all the time. So do others.

So you'd willingly slash the GDP of a country to 1/10 its previous level?

Yes.

How can you ensure that nobody, say, sews a shirt and wears it himself rather than giving it to the community? Or if someone picks a strawberry and eats it rather than distributing the fruits equally?

You don't. What would be the point?

Obviously, that's a very far-fetched circumstance, but there are many types of jobs that people don't enjoy performing but nonetheless sustain our standard of living.

Yes, at the expense of our freedom, our dignity, and our leisure.

If you wish to live a primitive way of life,

No. My head reins in my anarcho-primitivist heart here.

If you want technological progress, then it utterly fails.

Science would probably proceed in one form or another.

Undoubtedly its effect on the economic structure would be reduced, though. I'm not all too concerned.

I propose we find a means to create near-unlimited energy; create robots to do all the work we can't find enough people willing to do; eliminate money; and everybody does whatever they want (jobwise) while the robots provide our needs.
Beats capitalism, surely.

Our current system of economics is oriented towards providing us with what we want -- there's more to life than just satiating one's primitive needs.

The point is that it's circular.

Our current system of economics does exactly that - but it also creates the need for itself by producing individuals whose wants can only be satisfied by economic compulsion.

If the case were otherwise, then we would have to think that societies whose productivity was a tiny fraction of the present were full of people who lived horifically awful lives - which is very doubtful.

Would you prefer the latter?

No, agriculture was a total fucking disaster.

Since it seems likely to persist, however, the question is how to deal with its consequences - and any solution involves very difficult compromises on a variety of questions.

That is why it amuses me when people call me an idealist. I am nothing if not pragmatic. I am simply aiming at different objectives.

One could argue that the concept of a wage is not to compel someone to take a job,

Not the concept of a wage. The concept of property upon which the entire structure is based.

The rich - or the workers councils, or whoever - have the power to deny people things unless they obey.

Thus workers would have the opportunity to choose to perform either the jobs they most liked or those which would most reward them in other ways.

The problem is that these "other ways" are artificial and unnecessary.

That's well and good, but the free market does require some government intervention. Since intervention is costly and inflationary, the key question is how much of it your economy needs.

For a Third World country with very limited resources, a planned economy (communism, by any other name) may be a perfectly good option. Certainly until the country is up and running.

I don't have a problem with a little government interference, it is good for an economy. Though of course it can not be too much, as is the case with communism. Communism is an ideal that will never be realised and fails every time it attempts to be applied.

Those wants can't be satisfied any other way.

That's what I said.

The point is that it's circular.

Our current system of economics does exactly that - but it also creates the need for itself by producing individuals whose wants can only be satisfied by economic compulsion.



Those wants can't be satisfied any other way.

Those wants can't be satisfied any other way.A lot of those wants wouldn't exist if people weren't made to want it.
And how often isn't it the case that you don't actually get any satisfaction from trying to fulfill those wants? It just leads to wanting something else, in an endless cycle of disappointment in life. Trying to fill a void in the soul with material goods.
Or maybe that's just me..

Or maybe that's just me..

It's not.

After all, in the past fifty years or so our productivity has increased enormously... are we really any happier?

If we had lots more stuff, would we really be?

I doubt it. I think we want more and more because our real wants can never be satisfied.

The free market is the best system people have seem to come up with. Capitalism as shown itself to work time and again providing more prosperity than other systems.

I thought you were a Muslim?

Oh, well. I guess if everyone else can wave the restriction on usury, you can too.

I thought you were a Muslim?

Oh, well. I guess if everyone else can wave the restriction on usury, you can too.

I am. But no one is perfect. I've said before one of my faults is using interest. Though it is basically impossible for me not to.

I am. But no one is perfect. I've said before one of my faults is using interest. Though it is basically impossible for me not to.

I'm not talking about your personal faults. I'm talking about the economic system you advocate.

The problem is that these "other ways" are artificial and unnecessary.

If you want to regress to a traditional lifestyle, your plan is suitable -- I'm not debating that. I simply would not like to live in such a society at all; it would negate the point of millenia of technological advancement. We didn't build the wheel so that centuries down the line, someone would decide that it was "artificial" and "unnecessary." Everything we've created, whether it be computers or SPAM, is vital to our society and providing consumers with the goods they want. I don't care what somebody calls my flat-screen TV; I like it, and I'm thankful to live in a society which provided it to me.

it would negate the point of millenia of technological advancement.

What was the point?

I'm not talking about your personal faults. I'm talking about the economic system you advocate.

Arguing for an Islamic economy under a Khilafah, while something I support and the ideal can be tricky when dealing with strictly eonomic issues and not bringing religious arguments into it. So what I was saying is capitalism is the best current option compared to things such as communism or socialism. Its effectiveness I think would even rival that of an Islamic based system.

Everything we've created, whether it be computers or SPAM, is vital to our society and providing consumers with the goods they want.I hope you don't mean email-spam, because that certainly is in no way vital.
And of course things change; and they change faster and faster. Stone tools aren't vital to our society anymore, we've moved on. And there's a lot of things in current society we can move on from. Eliminating spam wouldn't be in any way a problem for society, in fact it'd be quite a boon; it'd free up about half the traffic on the internet.

After all, in the past fifty years or so our productivity has increased enormously... are we really any happier?

Are we happier than people were 50 years ago? Perhaps not. Are we happier than we would be without the massive increase in the amount of goods we possess? Assuredly so. Once you are accustomed to a luxury, it is difficult to wean yourself off it -- I can't imagine life without a computer or a TV, but a century ago, many people couldn't imagine life with such products. But when a new, cutting-edge device is unveiled and we purchase it, it does bring us joy. But then we get used to it and it becomes such an integrated part of everyday life that we extract increasingly less pleasure from it until the amount of pleasure it gives us levels off. Then something new comes along and the process starts up again. The point of technological advancement isn't to make the next generation better off than the previous one, because chances are, they won't be -- it's to make us happier. It's like surfing a wave -- if you stop, you'll fall down to sea level and stay there; the only way you can retain your elevated position is to keep riding the wave forward. And that's the point of so much more stuff -- we have to keep riding the technological wave forward not because it brings us so much more joy, but because we'd be worse off without it.

What was the point?Sliced bread, and internet porn.
And possibly cheetos.

Its effectiveness I think would even rival that of an Islamic based system.

The deity you worship appears to disagree.

I hope you don't mean email-spam

No; I tried putting it in capital letters to clarify that I meant the food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPAM).

But when a new, cutting-edge device is unveiled and we purchase it, it does bring us joy. But then we get used to it and it becomes such an integrated part of everyday life that we extract increasingly less pleasure from it until the amount of pleasure it gives us levels off.

Yes. We enjoy the novelty.

Perhaps because we are perpetually bored with doing the same thing over and over again.

Perhaps because we are perpetually bored with doing the same thing over and over again.
Though it looks to me like the more primitive and traditional a lifestyle, the less variety there is.

True, occasionally a storm might break out in the Amazon Delta or something, and occasionally someone catches the flu and dies...but on the whole it's even more repetitive than our current world. Especially when it comes to entertainment - an Amazonian tribe has sex, the occasional ritual dance and intoxicating plants.

Though that may be appealing to some of us ( ;) ), I think even that can get boring after a while.

Though it looks to me like the more primitive and traditional a lifestyle, the less variety there is.

I'm talking about free societies, not necessarily "primitive" and "traditional" ones.

The specialization of labor and economic compulsion generally both prevent us from incorporating variety into our lifestyles.

I think even that can get boring after a while.

Not with a ridiculously shorter life span, it can't. Too much of those plants isn't a good thing.

I'm talking about free societies, not necessarily "primitive" and "traditional" ones.
Are you denying that specialisation of labour is necessary to create anywhere near the efficiency of resource allocation required to step above a primitivist lifestyle?

Are you denying that specialisation of labour is necessary to create anywhere near the efficiency of resource allocation required to step above a primitivist lifestyle?

Depends on the degree.

The key here is that it be voluntary. I can accept specialization without economic compulsion.

The key here is that it be voluntary. I can accept specialization without economic compulsion.
Though it's never actually defined what "economic compulsion" is.

If we accept that a group cannot raise its standards of living above a certain (very low) point without people specialising and then exchanging their labour, then that's economic compulsion too, isn't it? They're being "forced" to do it because otherwise they'd be incredibly poor and, as a result, less happy.

I just don't think the word has any meaning. If I want an apple, I may have to walk over to an apple tree and kick it until one falls down. Or I may have to walk to the shops and buy an apple, which someone else got by kicking the tree. Sure, there is compulsion in the sense that if I don't do these things, there's not gonna be an apple appearing out of nowhere...but what then are you actually saying if you tell me I was economically compelled to do these things?

I'm talking about free societies, not necessarily "primitive" and "traditional" ones.

The specialization of labor and economic compulsion generally both prevent us from incorporating variety into our lifestyles.

Hasn't division of labour and economic compulsion introduced more variety into our lifestyles? Meeting consumer demand, and some times creating a consumer demand, is what has been behind a plethora of consumer products derived specifically for entertainment.

Specialization of labour is itself 'a variety' of lifestyle.

I'm not sure I follow how economic compulsion prevents us from incorporating variety. One could argue that spending power might limit one's personal ability to afford a variety, perhaps. But the current system has definitely created a larger variety to choose from, and made the most inaccessable luxuries more commonplace and affordable to the common consumer.

Though it's never actually defined what "economic compulsion" is.

The exploitation of dependence.

Making distribution contingent on laboring as the distributors want you to.

If we accept that a group cannot raise its standards of living above a certain (very low) point without people specialising and then exchanging their labour, then that's economic compulsion too, isn't it?

Not as I've used it, no.

It might become economic compulsion, though - as soon as this exchange is institutionalized and leads to relationships of dependence.

Hasn't division of labour and economic compulsion introduced more variety into our lifestyles?

In stuff, perhaps. Not in activity.

And "activity" is a whole lot more constant than "stuff" in human society - which suggests that the goods of activity are substantially more important to us.

Specialization of labour is itself 'a variety' of lifestyle.

No, it isn't.

Different kinds of labor is. People have always had different kinds of labor. Spending all your life doing one kind of labor is not variety.

I'm not sure I follow how economic compulsion prevents us from incorporating variety.

Because if we have to do something, we have to do it when and for as long as we're supposed to.

This necessarily impedes spontaneity and variety.

In stuff, perhaps. Not in activity.

And "activity" is a whole lot more constant than "stuff" in human society - which suggests that the goods of activity are substantially more important to us.

No, it isn't.

Different kinds of labor is. People have always had different kinds of labor. Spending all your life doing one kind of labor is not variety.

I think we're really splitting hairs here. 'Stuff' or 'activity', have both been far more available in capitalist societies than non-capitalist ones. Having a choice of a type of labour has also been more prevalent in capitalist societies. Or can you find an example in non-capitalist societies where no-one was compelled to do anything in order to survive?

Because if we have to do something, we have to do it when and for as long as we're supposed to.

This necessarily impedes spontaneity and variety.

If your only definition of economic complusion is slavery, or nations so destitute that the only form of employment is either agriculture or one foreign industry, than I follow you. If your definition of economic compulsion is that you have to work for currency as a medium of exchange, I don't follow you at all. In a theoretical anarcho-communist society, you would still be compelled to do something in exchange for your sustenance. Maybe only as much as you need to in order to live, but the same could be said of a capitalist economy.

Capitalist economies ensure that the producer of goods or entertainment are driven by consumer demand, they are compelled economically to do so. Thinking of new and creative ways to meet that demand creates variety. Much less so in a system without the economic compulsion of consumer demand.

It doesn't stand to reason that removing the compulsion of market forces will equate into liberating variety. It stands to reason that it will limit the impetus for it.

egoistic market anarchist

I think we're really splitting hairs here. 'Stuff' or 'activity', have both been far more available in capitalist societies than non-capitalist ones.

Nonsense - or at least not necessarily so.

Edit: I think you may be misunderstanding my use of "variety." I am not talking about the number of options we have; rather, the degree to which our lives are non-monotonous.

Having a choice of a type of labour has also been more prevalent in capitalist societies. Or can you find an example in non-capitalist societies where no-one was compelled to do anything in order to survive?

We are always compelled to do things to survive. But the bare needs of survival can be met with little difficulty, and more or less when and how we want to meet them. Furthermore, they tend to be the behaviors that are most natural for human beings - activities we do not have to be forced to do, activities that do not require us to suppress ourselves.

Maybe only as much as you need to in order to live, but the same could be said of a capitalist economy.

No, capitalism is built upon maximizing profit - and maximizing profit dictates that the more things you sell at a profit, the better.

Never mind the kind and character of the labor that produces the things.

Capitalist economies ensure that the producer of goods or entertainment are driven by consumer demand,

Yes, and it also ensures that they have an incentive to produce products that create their own demand.

they are compelled economically to do so. Thinking of new and creative ways to meet that demand creates variety.

Yes, variety in stuff we don't need, and without which we would not lack.

Not variety in human activity. Not essential freedom.

The exploitation of dependence.
But every form of specialisation leads to mutual dependence. If someone becomes a bricklayer and has the skills that I don't have, then I depend on that bricklayer if I want to have something made of bricks. And that's even true if I'm the owner of a bricklaying business. If I want to earn money, I depend on the bricklayer working for me.

It's all mutual, and that's why it's not really a problem.

It's all mutual, and that's why it's not really a problem.

It's mutual, but it's not equal. You're dependent on those who work for you, yes - but they're more dependent on you than you are on them.

And mutual dependence impedes freedom, too. What if the bricklayer decides he or she no longer wants to be a bricklayer?

...essential freedom.

Essential freedom? Under your economic system, all goods would be distributed equally. That means that someone can't, say, pick an apple and eat it, because that would be an uneven distribution of the apple. Wouldn't that negate his freedom of being entitled to eat the apples he himself labors to pick? And if all goods are distributed evenly, then what? What if someone receives a good that he doesn't particularly like -- say someone wants to trade an apple for an orange. Would that be possible? If so, the foundation for capitalism would have been laid. Through clever trading, a chasm would begin to appear between the most astute traders and the more naive ones -- a form of primitive wealth disparity.

Essential freedom? Under your economic system, all goods would be distributed equally. That means that someone can't, say, pick an apple and eat it, because that would be an uneven distribution of the apple.

As long as anyone else can do the same, why?

Maybe if he horded all the apples... but it's almost trivially true that that would impede everyone else's freedom to eat apples.

What if someone receives a good that he doesn't particularly like -- say someone wants to trade an apple for an orange.

He asks for something different next time. Or he goes out and picks one himself.

Would that be possible?

Trade between apples and oranges? Sure.

If so, the foundation for capitalism would have been laid.

Nonsense. The occasional exchange is different from a society characterized by exchange, and a lack of enforceable property rights (beyond perhaps basic personal possessions) is enough to prevent hoarding.

You're dependent on those who work for you, yes - but they're more dependent on you than you are on them.
And?

That's simply a question of the rarity of the skills one posesses. And you'd find the same in any form of specialisation whatsoever. Even very simple societies have for example a member who specialises in communicating with the supernatural world, which is a rare skill there.

And mutual dependence impedes freedom, too. What if the bricklayer decides he or she no longer wants to be a bricklayer?
Then he or she can quit being a bricklayer. It's going to hurt the employer, and it's probably going to hurt the bricklayer economically as well, but with scarce resources any decision will always have positive and negative aspects to it.

Part of being human (and that's on a biological/evolutionary level) is the ability to make decision about the use of scarce resources. It's that ability which has allowed the species to survive in the first place.

Nonsense - or at least not necessarily so.

Edit: I think you may be misunderstanding my use of "variety." I am not talking about the number of options we have; rather, the degree to which our lives are non-monotonous.

That is how I took your meaning, however, I don't see how eliminating capitalism eliminates monotony. Either you have a collective work-force where everyone is compelled to do the same work, or you have some unworkable system where everyone does what they want to, and the work that no one wants to do isn't done.

How does taking the compulsion of market economics change the fact that certain unsavoury jobs will still have to be performed? I suppose taking turns hauling trash, or cleaning septic tanks would add a little variety to your work week, but that's an entirely different kind of compulsion. I just don't believe that society will suddenly have exactly the number of people filling all of the diversive job functions without a monetary system rewarding them for unsavoury work, or years spent training for a specific occupation.

We are always compelled to do things to survive. But the bare needs of survival can be met with little difficulty, and more or less when and how we want to meet them. Furthermore, they tend to be the behaviors that are most natural for human beings - activities we do not have to be forced to do, activities that do not require us to suppress ourselves.

Which natural behaviours are you referring to? Farming? Building shelters? Hunting? Scavenging? We're not all cut out for those specific jobs either, and without the diversification that capitalism brought to western civilisation, we would probably still be stuck in a rigid caste system. And how are these activities any more noble than many of the other activities we engage in, in order to make a wage?

No, capitalism is built upon maximizing profit - and maximizing profit dictates that the more things you sell at a profit, the better.

Never mind the kind and character of the labor that produces the things.

The robotics systems that were developed to maximize profit improved the quality and character of the industrialized workplace. How is maximizing profit any more contributive to monotony than say, a state-run collective?


Yes, and it also ensures that they have an incentive to produce products that create their own demand.

I don't see a problem with this. If you want to live like an ascetic monk, nothing's stopping you.


Yes, variety in stuff we don't need, and without which we would not lack.

Not variety in human activity. Not essential freedom.

I don't buy your line of logic that dictates limiting the plethora of goods we have created for our diversion somehow limits our activities and our 'essential freedom'.

Well, why don't we start with what you consider 'activity'. How does my choice of what I want to do in a capitalist society, reduce the amount of activities I have? How would any other economic system increase the amount of activities I have? Someone still has to do the myriad of tasks involved in mainitaing a large post-industrial society, and 'free-association' (without coercive economic force) isn't going to fill all the spots. If you're talking about returning to a pre-industrial society, you're naturally reducing the number of activities required to maintain society, and thus increasing monotony.

well in this sense you'd either have to remove government, or corporations (anarchy or communism, respectively), or you could simply argue a number of theories. or if u like eggs, go with thatI'm fine with removing the state and removing corporations.

Socialism, rather than Communism, is designed to give equal opportunity rather than the utopian idea of equal wealth. Equality of opportunity is impossible to sustain without equality of outcome.

At most NSG is entertainment. Valuable as a distraction to be sure, but not at all as valuable as most commodities.Why couldn't work be entertaining?

It's hard to study for a decade in order to become a doctor -- wouldn't it be much easier just to spend that time playing games? Are you saying that nobody enjoys being a doctor? Why do people join Doctors Without Borders if this is the case?

However, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find someone who is willing to perform the duties of a garbageman without being compensated for this.Why must someone (singular) perform the duties of a garbageman?
Anyway, at the very least, the incentive for people to remove their garbage is that people generally don't like to live in garbage.

Having a choice of a type of labour has also been more prevalent in capitalist societies. It is a type of (singular) labor that is objectionable. As in, why must someone be relegated to only performing one job?

As long as anyone else can do the same, why?

So you acknowledge that equality will only be reached if everyone works -- otherwise, the apple-picker will end up with more apples. You can't guarantee absolute wealth equality.

Trade between apples and oranges? Sure.

What about a trade between apples and labor? What if an apple was given in exchange for a shoe-shine? What if 100 apples were given in exchange for daily housecleaning?

As long as anyone else can do the same, why?

So you acknowledge that equality will only be reached if everyone works -- otherwise, the apple-picker will end up with more apples. Absolute wealth equality is nonsense unless there are stringent controls on individual freedoms.

Trade between apples and oranges? Sure.

What about a trade between apples and labor? What if an apple was given in exchange for a shoe-shine? What if 100 apples were given in exchange for daily housecleaning?

That's simply a question of the rarity of the skills one posesses. And you'd find the same in any form of specialisation whatsoever. Even very simple societies have for example a member who specialises in communicating with the supernatural world, which is a rare skill there.

the distribution of skills has no necessary connection to the distribution of resources or the distribution of power

I basically would like to find out how people view economics and their relation to politics, and to find out how many political arguers are familiar with economics.

I'm a communist, but I know that I'm definately not Stalinist. I'm more of an anarchist-communist, except more communist than anarchist.

the distribution of skills has no necessary connection to the distribution of resources or the distribution of power
Yes, it really does. In order to effectively have a working society, a person needs to own the value of what they create. If they do not then they have no reason to create. I do not learn for the sake of some random other person, I learn for my own sake, I do not conserve resources because I truly can understand the needs of another, I conserve them because I believe that such rationally meets my need. The entire idea that the distribution of skills can be separated from the return on such skills is a foolishness that is not reflectiveness of the individualism of mankind so much as it fits the blind collectivism of ants. We are not ants, thus we need a property system that allows us to act as individuals and pursue our ends freely.

I'm a communist, but I know that I'm definately not Stalinist. I'm more of an anarchist-communist, except more communist than anarchist.
How can you be anarchist and communist, even if the anarchy is small in importance?

How can you be anarchist and communist, even if the anarchy is small in importance?
Anarcho-communism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism)

Yes, it really does. In order to effectively have a working society, a person needs to own the value of what they create. If they do not then they have no reason to create.

since i know of a number of societies where this is not true, i'm not sure what 'working society' means, apparently

I'm a communist, but I know that I'm definately not Stalinist. I'm more of an anarchist-communist, except more communist than anarchist.

What is the point of communism if not to secure anarchism?

Small state communism is sanctioned slavery, large state communism is the totalitarian breed that has killed millions.

I can think of little more axiomatic than government, where unnecessary and unconsensual, is unjust. Therefore, all political economy should state anarchism as its goal.

the distribution of skills has no necessary connection to the distribution of resources or the distribution of power
There's a pretty strong correlation going on there. And the freer the market for labour, the stronger it is.

I can watch it right now. People who got an arts degree and have rich parents come out and make 30 grand a year, while people who do an apprenticeship come right out into a "skills shortage" in the trades and can make up to double that.

Basically, I'd support a managed (or semi-)free market; the government would regulate and control the direction of business bodies according to what would best benefit the society, but on a smaller scale, anyone would be free to make any deal with anyone. Being a citizen would entail a deal with the state, running a business likewise.

since i know of a number of societies where this is not true, i'm not sure what 'working society' means, apparently
Uh..... it refers to a national economy with advanced technology that has good economic success. Not some primitive huddle of hut dwellers.

I'm a liberal egalitarian. A Rawlsian mixed economy with fair equality of opportunity seems like a good idea to me.

egoistic market anarchist

What's a nonegoistic market anarchist?

To get us out of the present mess: a decentralized mix of market and planned socialism with a significant degree of worker self-management and a high level of egalitarianism.

Ultimately: radically egalitarian, radically decentralized communism incorporating fully voluntary labor and distribution by need.

FTW! I couldn't have said it better myself.

i personally believe that a libertarian government that allows the population to express itself would work best. the "free market" that we see today, however, is a poor representation of this, perhaps a notch below socialism because it can never benefit the people.

yet socialism has no logical way of working, as the government is required to coerce the population in to doing what it believes is correct, undermining its inherent "ideals." Basically, the government will continue to grow and grow under this until a totalitarian state is created, and then destroyed by its constituency, or by someone else.

keynesian economics....just wrong, as proven by the austrians. a mixed economy isn't so bad, but its kinda choppy and unruly.

supply side...one of the greatest lies perpetrated by those inherently in support of capitalism (supply does NOT create demand). inevitably leads to corporate control of the government, i.e fascism. also can never serve its constituency as it cuts down competition while allowing the elite to exploit the population.

eggs are pretty cool, can't argue with the easter bunny....

anarchy isnt really feasible in the long run, unless a global shift occurs. a good idea, as it requires its constituency to approve the system, but really too extreme.

libertarian capitalism i think is the way to go, because of global trends towards "fourth generation war" globalization and the problems being created by expanding regulation of society (immigration, drugs, inflation).

in essence, "the government that governs best governs least" (Henry David Thoreau)

FTW! I couldn't have said it better myself.Thirded. Syndicalist parecon must be the goal of any society.

funny thing - it turns out that similar systems are in fact the only known ways of distribution that are stable and workable for thousands of years.

Despite them being feudalist. And no, feudalism is not an ideal way to live, not in the slightest.

There's a pretty strong correlation going on there. And the freer the market for labour, the stronger it is.

except in the absolutely freest 'labor markets' that we know of, at which point it mostly vanishes entirely.

Despite them being feudalist. And no, feudalism is not an ideal way to live, not in the slightest.

who is talking about feudalism? certainly not me.

except in the absolutely freest 'labor markets' that we know of, at which point it mostly vanishes entirely.
If you introduce physical violence, it all goes overboard, yes.

i honestly believe one should understand/have learnt some economics (at least at a basic level) before forming a political opinon.


i'm mixed market leaning towards socialism IRL
in my head i can swing as far as moneyless communism.

I know nothing about economics, and wish I did.

On the other hand, I'm a bit worried about the subject, because it seems to ignore important things like sociology and psychology that have a big impact on the economy.

egoistic market anarchist
Moi aussi.

I know nothing about economics, and wish I did.

On the other hand, I'm a bit worried about the subject, because it seems to ignore important things like sociology and psychology that have a big impact on the economy.
Economics is a vast discipline, characterised by all sorts of studies and economists. Mainstream economics may indeed ignore these things. Economics as a discipline in its entirety? No. You just have to know where to look.

I'm quite booring when it comes to economy so I voted for the Mixed Keynesian economy. I haven't studied economy very much but mixed economy maxes most sense and you don't have to have studied economy for many years to know that neither ultra-capitalism nor ultra-socialism will ever function properly.

Thirded. Syndicalist parecon must be the goal of any society.
Parecon's a neat idea, from what I've read, but I can't find an explanation of it that doesn't make my brain fall out the back of my head.

fully voluntary labor and distribution by need.

This is not a sensible conclusion. It is insane to think that there would be any meeting of labor demand with labor supply. Therefore what is considered to be a "need" would be drastically undershot.

Keynesian Mixed economy of course. The only one from the list that has actually been used successfully in practice for extended periods of time.

It's mutual, but it's not equal. You're dependent on those who work for you, yes - but they're more dependent on you than you are on them.


Quantifying dependence is a realm of questionable value, given that dependence cannot actually be measured.

i honestly believe one should understand/have learnt some economics (at least at a basic level) before forming a political opinon.

Very very true. 100% agreement here.

Very very true. 100% agreement here.

Unfortunately, the ignorant have just as much a right to an opinion as the rest of us. Just feel free to pay more attention to people who seem to have a clue.

Parecon's a neat idea, from what I've read, but I can't find an explanation of it that doesn't make my brain fall out the back of my head.How do you know it's a neat idea then? :p

Znet (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm) has some excellent articles on ParEcon, but be sure to bring breadcrumbs or you'll get lost. The best place to start is probably the Capi/ParEcon comparison, (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/introduction.html) but there's also a Wiki, (http://wiki.zmag.org/Parecon) though I haven't looked at it yet, so I dunno how useful it is.

A Quiet Revolution In Welfare Economics (http://www.zmag.org/books/quiet.htm) by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, and Parecon: Life After Capitalism (http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm) by Michael Albert are both available online & rather good. Beyond that, I suggest you check out your local library or AK Press. (http://www.akpress.org/)

How do you know it's a neat idea then? :p
From what I've been able to grasp so far by reading a few articles here and there, probably linked by Trotskylvania.

Znet (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm) has some excellent articles on ParEcon, but be sure to bring breadcrumbs or you'll get lost. The best place to start is probably the Capi/ParEcon comparison, (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/introduction.html) but there's also a Wiki, (http://wiki.zmag.org/Parecon) though I haven't looked at it yet, so I dunno how useful it is.

A Quiet Revolution In Welfare Economics (http://www.zmag.org/books/quiet.htm) by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, and Parecon: Life After Capitalism (http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm) by Michael Albert are both available online & rather good. Beyond that, I suggest you check out your local library or AK Press. (http://www.akpress.org/)
Ta muchly.

Ta muchly.I highly recommend Life After Capitalism. It's a very good intro/overview.

And you're welcome, by the way. Whether or not you end up thinking ParEcon's a good system is besides the point. Far too few people even bother to look, so it's my privilege to help you out.

I advocate the Third Way, so I voted for Keynes' philosophy. After all, no country can be purely statist nor can it be purely run by the capitalist philosophy.

(...) Robin Hahnel,(...)

:)

Keynesian Mixed economy of course. The only one from the list that has actually been used successfully in practice for extended periods of time.
Actually, it didn't last that long - especially not when the Phillips Curve's prior statistical correlation of low unemployment and high inflation collapsed, giving us stagflation. That it took a while to collapse does not make it successful. Mixed economies do fare rather well presently, but not so much due to Keynes.

Actually, it didn't last that long - especially not when the Phillips Curve's prior statistical correlation with low unemployment and high inflation collapsed, giving us stagflation. That it took a while to collapse does not make it successful. Mixed economies do fare rather well presently, but not so much due to Keynes.

Actually your fallacy is thinking that stagflation had anything to do with Keynes.

The vietnam war, two consecutive oil shocks and a the "let them have it" management mentality towards unions in the 60's all had nothing to do with Keynes. Keynes preached fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets in good times in order to bulk up government treasuries for the inevitable bad times.

Not only did Keynesian economics have nothing to do with Stagflation, but it has flourished since.

It's seldom remarked upon, for instance, that both Reagan and Thatcher used traditional Keyensian methods of increased government spending, along with tax cuts to spur the economic boom of the 1980s.

Unfortunately, the ignorant have just as much a right to an opinion as the rest of us. Just feel free to pay more attention to people who seem to have a clue.
Who said that they had a right? I think that the ignorant should be banned from having any political ideas, and that this should be enforced by floggings and executions. However, because so many people disagree with that view for some strange reason, I guess I have to just pay attention to those who know something.:D

Wow. I just took the poll here and was amazed to find out that more people so far have identified with Marxist Socialist than Keynesian economics. I knew that the folks here a bit left of center but this is wierd. Why is Nation States a haven for radical lefties? What is it about this game that attracts pinkos and gay rights enthusiasts and feminists and other radicals?

Where oh where have the normals gone?

Wow. I just took the poll here and was amazed to find out that more people so far have identified with Marxist Socialist than Keynesian economics. I knew that the folks here a bit left of center but this is wierd. Why is Nation States a haven for radical lefties? What is it about this game that attracts pinkos and gay rights enthusiasts and feminists and other radicals?

Where oh where have the normals gone?
There were normals? Really, the results are quite odd though. It should only be divided into Misesian anarcho-capitalists and socialists and anarchists. I don't know where the Keynesians came from.

I have no idea what a mises anarcho capitalist is. I am not sure what an anarchist economy is but it sounds like something out of Mogadishu or a mad Max movie. I am a fan of Keynes. I consider myself to be a Keynesian and I can assure you that we are not a radical bunch.

Keynesian economists are about as radical as a member of the Federal Reserve Board.

I have no idea what a mises anarcho capitalist is. I am not sure what an anarchist economy is but it sounds like something out of Mogadishu or a mad Max movie. I am a fan of Keynes. I consider myself to be a Keynesian and I can assure you that we are not a radical bunch.
Mises is an economist known for his staunch capitalism. Many followers in his economic ideas are anarcho-capitalists who believe that the state should not exist but rather only private institutions. Mises himself was a minarchist though. Some would criticize this form of anarchism as leading inevitably to failure due to a lack of essential structures. Keynesians are not radical, everyone knows that they are the mainstream group. However, this is the internet, you are supposed to pick some wild ideological persona and stick to it.

Wow. I just took the poll here and was amazed to find out that more people so far have identified with Marxist Socialist than Keynesian economics. I knew that the folks here a bit left of center but this is wierd. Why is Nation States a haven for radical lefties? What is it about this game that attracts pinkos and gay rights enthusiasts and feminists and other radicals?

Where oh where have the normals gone?

Care to explain what is un-normal and radical about supporting gay rights and women's rights?

Care to explain what is un-normal and radical about supporting gay rights and women's rights?

In a different discussion I would be happy to. However, I fear it would move this discussion way off topic.

Mises is an economist known for his staunch capitalism. Many followers in his economic ideas are anarcho-capitalists who believe that the state should not exist but rather only private institutions. Mises himself was a minarchist though. Some would criticize this form of anarchism as leading inevitably to failure due to a lack of essential structures. Keynesians are not radical, everyone knows that they are the mainstream group. However, this is the internet, you are supposed to pick some wild ideological persona and stick to it.

Thanks. Hey, you learn something new everyday. I am all for a somewhat smaller government but heck we have to have laws and law enforcement. It is sort of nice to have laws to protect lives and property.

In a different discussion I would be happy to. However, I fear it would move this discussion way off topic.

You're the one who brought it up. Dragging a «point» out into a discussion and then refusing to expand on it and assert it, is self-defeating.