NationStates Jolt Archive

This a question for all the socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, trotskyists, titoists, stalinists, maoists, marxists, marxist leninists, state communists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, parecon supporters and believers in the Juche idea...in short, all the lefties out there.

Let's pretend there is a massive revolution, and violence is okay for a few years. Suppose that every idea of a property right ceases to exist for a while.

Suppose that after a while people had enough of violence, and we end up with a new distribution of the world's resources.

Suppose this distribution is as follows: We divide the resources of the world by the number of people in the world, and give everyone exactly the same amount (as far as physically possible).

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?

Define this "free market", please. If there are laws and regulations set in place to prevent and/or soften its debilitating extremes and whims, then sure. If it's a "free market" in the anarcho-capitalist/"libertarian" (pfft! :rolleyes: ) sense with no regulation whatsoever to protect the weak, then no.

Not that I'd support this sort of revolution, but I'm playing along.

The free market is the theoretical extreme, ie an allocation method in which every person sells their resource allocation, receives money and then tries to maximise their happiness by buying the best combination of resources they can afford.

So I suppose there'd be the basic protection of property rights, and maybe even a few rules regarding externalities (eg tradable pollution permits) but no redistribution of any kind.

i was hoping that for once, this was a thread questioning the obscure moralities of left-handed folk. alas.

why was the violence necessary in this hypothetical world?

why was the violence necessary in this hypothetical world?
Because that's the only way that property rights can cease to exist at this point. But it's not central to the question, you're right.

The question is simply: if we had a completely equitable starting position, do you think the market would be a good idea to go from there?

The free market is the theoretical extreme, ie an allocation method in which every person sells their resource allocation, receives money and then tries to maximise their happiness by buying the best combination of resources they can afford.

So I suppose there'd be the basic protection of property rights, and maybe even a few rules regarding externalities (eg tradable pollution permits) but no redistribution of any kind.

I guess you have my negative answer, then.

i was hoping that for once, this was a thread questioning the obscure moralities of left-handed folk. alas.


No, often those sorts of threads are made by trolls.

I think you are an abominable twit for confusing handedness with political persuasion. *smacks you soundly with my left hand*

Both unfettered free market fundamentalism and the institutional dominance of today’s so-called ‘free market’ are big turn-offs to me, so I’d have to say no.

Definitions man, definitions!

This is possibly the scariest thread I have seen! Violence ok for a few years? How many poor bastards are going up against the wall? Take a look at history, the two biggest mass murderers were Stalin and chairman Mao! Over 100Million people topped in an effort to redistribute wealth. Hitler is only third, and remember his creed was a form of socialism. The only realistic creed for the left is for capitalism with laws to limit its excesses. Thats the trouble with socialism, it views human beings as subjects in an experiment. And it does not matter who is hurt as long as sometime in the future you achieve utopia, and it never happens!

I wouldn't support a revolution like this but can I guess that your point is that we would still end up in a class society if people were given the chance to buy and sell things freely to eachother?

The question is simply: if we had a completely equitable starting position, do you think the market would be a good idea to go from there?
No. The idea that businesses are independently looking out for the good of the people is as absurd as any other.

I think I can see the point here - the question is: Can equality be maintained by a free market as effectively as (or more effectively than) government rules / regulations?

First, let's identify some of the shortcomings of the free market in the current unequal world:

1. Trade barriers / tariffs.

Supposedly, the idea of the free market (as regards globalisation) is to have no barriers to trade whatsoever - to do away with all tariffs. If only that were true. In practice, globalisation has resulted in the privatisation of the tariff system, meaning that those with the political / economic clout get to keep their protectionist barriers to trade, while at the same time forcing weaker nations to open their markets.

A good example of this is the restrictions imposed by the WTO TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property rightS) treaty. At the risk of threadjacking, I'm going to have to explain this one. At the moment, many millions of people in Africa are getting ready to die from AIDS, and probably just as many are suffering from slightly less lethal diseases like TB or malaria. We in the west have the medicine to treat these diseases, but Africa can't afford to pay the same prices that our market can bear.
Fortunately, countries like India, Thailand and Argentina have a rapidly developing industry in generic pharmaceuticals, and can make the necessary medicines for about a quarter of the price we pay for them. Unfortunately, the TRIPS treaty specifically prevents cross-border shipments of pharmaceuticals.

So what, you might say. What's the problem with this?
Well, aside from letting Africans die just to sustain their inflated prices, the pharmaceutical industry benefits from trade barriers at the same time as other industries have been subject to competition. You name it - from electronic goods, cars, shoes, and just about anything else we used to manufacture in the west - markets for these have been opened up to international trade for a long time now. The result has been mixed - occasionally prices have dropped as a result of manufacturing moving overseas (where wages are much lower, there are no unions, and environmental regulations are non-existent), but more commonly companies simply pocket the savings as profit, while either lowering their prices only slightly or not at all.

The point here is that the removal of trade barriers has so far been anything but fair, and the resulting trade has been anything but free.

Perhaps then in a fully equal world, countries would have no incentive to barricade their markets against imports from other nations - and maybe countries would have no need to export goods in the first place? It's difficult to tell what would happen, but my bet is that the free market would become meaningless - trade barriers (or the lack of them) would become irrelevant.

2. Wage differences.

The current trend of western industry moving its manufacturing sectors overseas is a result of the vast difference in wages. China is a good example - there is no minimum wage, there are no unions (by force of law, as it happens), and many goods are made for zero labour cost, by forcing the prison population into unpaid labour. The USA trade deficit with China has boomed in the last 20 years, from no deficit at all in 1980, to a deficit of $300 billion and growing today.

Again, in a completely equal world, this kind of thing simply wouldn't happen - there would be no incentive for it to happen. I'm not saying that countries wouldn't trade with other countries - just that there would be no trade deficits - the trade going each way would be equal.

So to answer the initial question: Yes, if a completely equal world were to come into existence, then a free market would indeed maintain equality, largely because it would rapidly become an irrelevance. There would still be a need for government to enforce the law and provide social services / healthcare, but if everyone is equal, then all other services could be provided by the private sector. The effect of everyone being equal would mean that service providers and retailers would have no incentive to raise the price of any good or service to unaffordable levels, because then nobody would be able to afford it. Prices would therefore be a truly accurate reflection of what the market can bear, because there would be no market for anything that the market could not bear. As long as this virtuous circle wasn't broken, then I see no reason why a free market system could not be sustained.

Thats the trouble with socialism, it views human beings as subjects in an experiment. And it does not matter who is hurt as long as sometime in the future you achieve utopia, and it never happens!
Well, as long as you limit ‘socialism’ to the deterministic reading of Marx’s later works, a la Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et all., then you’re right.

But Marxism is much bigger than that, and socialism much bigger than Marx.

The first thing I would do is corner the market on pickles. Then all would bow to me. :)

The first thing I would do is corner the market on pickles. Then all would bow to me. :)

Damned be the PG13 rules that prevent me from posting that pickle+anus photo! Damned be they to the Utah they were conceived in!

-snip-
While I commend you for writing such a long post, I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at.

I'm trying to sort our lefties in a part that recognises the market mechanism and simply feels that some are unfairly excluded from participating fairly, and another part which rejects the market mechanism alltogether.

And for the latter I'm planning on running a thread in a day or two which explains what exactly the market is, what it can do and what it cannot do. It'll be a microeconomics bonanza, and I'm really trying to see who my audience is.

And remember all you so called lefties, You are all rich enough to afford computors. So in the revolution you all will be up against the wall!:mp5:

Go away until you've learnt to troll more subtly and never to use the gun smilies, noobie. You're just making a mockery of yourself.

This a question for all the socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, trotskyists, titoists, stalinists, maoists, marxists, marxist leninists, state communists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, parecon supporters and believers in the Juche idea...in short, all the lefties out there.

Let's pretend there is a massive revolution, and violence is okay for a few years. Suppose that every idea of a property right ceases to exist for a while.

Suppose that after a while people had enough of violence, and we end up with a new distribution of the world's resources.

Suppose this distribution is as follows: We divide the resources of the world by the number of people in the world, and give everyone exactly the same amount (as far as physically possible).

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?

isn't this what they tried in russia after the soviet union collapsed? everyone owned an equal share the state owned industries or something similar...

And remember all you so called lefties, You are all rich enough to afford computors. So in the revolution you all will be up against the wall!:mp5:

isn't this what they tried in russia after the soviet union collapsed? everyone owned an equal share the state owned industries or something similar...

Yes - a group of US economists were involved as advisers. It was a complete disaster. Similar ideas are being tried in Iraq with similar results.

The point I am trying to make is that compared to the real poor in this world we are all bloated, rich and spoilt. And I did'nt insult anybody personally so why the flying fuck are you? Or is that the only way you can justify your views? Why not start on any spelling mistakes. And gun smillies don't kill people, its bullets! Which of course YOU would be distributing liberally amongst anybody your personal jealousy decides.

And for the latter I’m planning on running a thread in a day or two which explains what exactly the market is, what it can do and what it cannot do. It’ll be a microeconomics bonanza, and I’m really trying to see who my audience is.
I suspect your account of the market might differ from your audiences account of it; but that’s for another thread, another time.

While I commend you for writing such a long post, I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at.

I'm trying to sort our lefties in a part that recognises the market mechanism and simply feels that some are unfairly excluded from participating fairly, and another part which rejects the market mechanism alltogether.

And for the latter I'm planning on running a thread in a day or two which explains what exactly the market is, what it can do and what it cannot do. It'll be a microeconomics bonanza, and I'm really trying to see who my audience is.I'm tempted to ask if you don't think you'd have noticed if all the lefties were ancap fanbois. You gonna show us your invisible hands? :p

But no; I don't think an adversarial economic system is a good idea. An economic system should benefit the lot of us, not just the ones of us with the right abilities and opportunities. Not that it wouldn't be a gigantic leap forward right now, but that's a different discussion.

it would defeat the object of the initial equal distribution, so no. (assuming you're talking about the capitalist 'libertarian' model)

This a question for all the socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, trotskyists, titoists, stalinists, maoists, marxists, marxist leninists, state communists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, parecon supporters and believers in the Juche idea...in short, all the lefties out there.

Let's pretend there is a massive revolution, and violence is okay for a few years. Suppose that every idea of a property right ceases to exist for a while.

Suppose that after a while people had enough of violence, and we end up with a new distribution of the world's resources.

Suppose this distribution is as follows: We divide the resources of the world by the number of people in the world, and give everyone exactly the same amount (as far as physically possible).

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?

Does everyone get equal intelligence? equal health? equal age? equal natural resources? equal physical and mental strength? no inheritance so everyone would continue to start even? And the big one, equal morality?

Every regulation on industry came about because someone in that industry abused the public, their employees, their environment......

Every regulation on industry comes from a lack of morality in that industry.

A true free market is slavery. A true free market is survival of the fittest. (Ain't it strange the right believes in survival of the fittest in business but not biology?)

The question is simply: if we had a completely equitable starting position, do you think the market would be a good idea to go from there?
No. We wouldn't have an equitable starting position even in that situation. We would still have people who are better educated, who know what everything is worth and who may be underhanded enough to scam resources from those who aren't as well educated and who are perhaps a little naive.

Free market capitalism really just allows the most greedy, underhanded people to get ahead while everyone else struggles to compete.

Also, I thought this thread was going to be about left-handedness at first.

It'd go from equitable to crap in about 5 years. We'd be nearly back where we are now.

Differences in education, intelligence, and ethics would mean things would very quickly be back to status quo.

It'd go from equitable to crap in about 5 years. We'd be nearly back where we are now.


Whos we? Not every capitalist country is the same. Infact the quality of life varies greatly between different countries depending on the strength of the economy.

The kind of altruism that would result in people spontaneously "getting tired of violence" and dividing their wealth equally would abolish the need for a market anyway.

My answer depends on the basic conditions that are needed to foster good reason to support a free market economy and not one that is moderately regulated.

I still would not support a free market economy even if initial distributions are equal (an extremely unlikely event, in any case). This rough parity of resources cannot and will not last. Eventually, through contractual agreements, freely undertaken by parties under pressure of need, supplemented by random chance and an unequal initial distribution of genetic talent and training, property will begin to accumulate into fewer and fewer hands. Those who lose their property will inevitably forced to serve their conquerors as either serfs or wage-slaves, and we will end up in a state capitalist hell, as business will begin to assume the roles of the old public state to protect their investments.

No, because enough of that for long enough, and radical inequity would reappear, with all the associated problems.

And I just don't like market systems generally; even fairly egalitarian ones.

I thought this thread was going to be about left-handedness at first.

I thought this thread was going to be flamebait.

This a question for all the socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, trotskyists, titoists, stalinists, maoists, marxists, marxist leninists, state communists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, parecon supporters and believers in the Juche idea...in short, all the lefties out there.

Let's pretend there is a massive revolution, and violence is okay for a few years. Suppose that every idea of a property right ceases to exist for a while.

Suppose that after a while people had enough of violence, and we end up with a new distribution of the world's resources.

Suppose this distribution is as follows: We divide the resources of the world by the number of people in the world, and give everyone exactly the same amount (as far as physically possible).

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?


I clicked on this thread thinking it was about people that were left handed. :(

No, because inequalities would eventually arise and deepen to the point where we're back with a class sytem and deep inequality of opportunity.

not 'free market' a la laissez faire but, yes, i would support a (regulated) market economy and inequality based on meritocracy.

but as long as meritocracy is maintained by equality of opportunity

I'd breathe twice as often just to be special. :D

The question is simply: if we had a completely equitable starting position, do you think the market would be a good idea to go from there?No, but such a situation would be exponentially better than what we currently have.

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?
PerEcon guys certainly wouldn't, because the free market would still reward people with talent over those who don't. ParEcon specifically corrects for that and rewards you only for effort, not production.

Which is a huge strike against ParEcon, by the way.

No, but such a situation would be exponentially better than what we currently have.
What we currently have basically started with what he described. It just hasn't been entirely free market the whole way.

What we currently have basically started with what he described.

Um... not even close.

Does every generation get to start over from the same point of equality as Generation Zero? If not, then no.

Does every generation get to start over from the same point of equality as Generation Zero? If not, then no.
Gifts are a necessary component of the free market. Since they're voluntary, they have to be allowed.

And inheritance is a gift.

Therefore, if you oppose inheritance, you oppose the free market. And vilutary exchange, generally.

Um... not even close.
Wealth wasn't all roughly equal 30,000 year ago?

Wealth wasn't all roughly equal 30,000 year ago?

Perhaps, but getting from there to here was hardly the result of free market exchange.

Virtually all of the world is stolen land, at one point or another, for just the most obvious example.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12574992

I've started my big thread on trying to explain the market. I think at the end of it you'll know what I was getting at with this question.

I only liked Mixed Economic Systems, sorry no.

Does every generation get to start over from the same point of equality as Generation Zero? If not, then no.

and generational restarts wouldn't work anyway. unless we arranged it so everyone had kids at the same time or kids were taken away from their parents and given equal access to everything until the time of the equalizing. otherwise we'd still wind up encouraging some of the adverse effects of stratification due to differing social and economic situations while growing up.

Wealth wasn't all roughly equal 30,000 year ago?

Read the book "Germs, Guns, and Steele". There is a reason wealth originated around the Mediterranean and migrated to Europe. The world didn't start out even.

Gifts are a necessary component of the free market. Since they're voluntary, they have to be allowed.

And inheritance is a gift.

Therefore, if you oppose inheritance, you oppose the free market. And vilutary exchange, generally.

How is a gift a part of the free market?

Inheritance warps the survival of the fittest aspect of the free market. I know a man who's G-grandfather was a great chemist that started one of the largest chemical companies in the world. He's never held a job. There's enough money in the warehouse to last several more generations. What contribution has the family made to the free market in the last 100 years?

That's why there is a need for inheritance tax. The US founding fathers saw what inherited wealth did to England. That's why they wanted to limit it.

This a question for all the socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, trotskyists, titoists, stalinists, maoists, marxists, marxist leninists, state communists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, parecon supporters and believers in the Juche idea...in short, all the lefties out there.

Let's pretend there is a massive revolution, and violence is okay for a few years. Suppose that every idea of a property right ceases to exist for a while.

Suppose that after a while people had enough of violence, and we end up with a new distribution of the world's resources.

Suppose this distribution is as follows: We divide the resources of the world by the number of people in the world, and give everyone exactly the same amount (as far as physically possible).

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?

As I'm none of the above, I would say "so long as by 'free market' you mean a market existing in and regulated by a strong, rule-of-law based society, then yes." Nevertheless, a Marxist would quickly point out that equal ownership in itself means nothing, because getting a factory worth $8 million and getting $8 million worth of rutebegas are not the same thing. Insofar as one has productive capacity and the other doesn't, the guy with the factory has the political and the social power in society.

It isn't inequality that Marxists object too; it's exclusive control of the means of production. Unless you fix that, there will be ultimate difference between your world and ours in the Marxist analysis.

"Sod the Revolution, where's my fifty quid?"

xxxhttp://www.msdivine.net/theyoungones/time12.jpg

No.

How is a gift a part of the free market?

because anything and everything that i approve of is the free market, whether it involves markets or not

What we currently have basically started with what he described. It just hasn't been entirely free market the whole way.Not really. I was taking NL's scenario to mean that the people as a whole decided to initiate a market system. How we got from what you're talking about now didn't involve the people as a whole making such a decision.

How is a gift a part of the free market?

Because it is an economic good that is free from government controls.

Therefore, if you oppose inheritance, you oppose the free market.Indeed.

But I think you missed the rhetorical point of my response.

The question posed by the OP suggests that the Leftist's problem with the market is that its (supposedly) merit-based system of rewards does not include egalitarian initial conditions, thus making it inherently unfair.

The point of my response is to suggest that even egalitarian initial conditions at some hypothetical point need not have anything to do with the fairness of the system from the perspective of a person several generations down the line.

Why should it make me feel better about living in poverty to know that my great-grandfather had every fair chance to do something with his resources, but blew it?

I would oppose the market on other grounds, anyway. But this should put to rest the notion that we can somehow make it "fair" without any kind of ongoing redistribution (e.g. in the form of publicly funded schools, scholarships, etc).

and generational restarts wouldn't work anyway.Right. But it was a rhetorical question, anyway.

That'd be okay for the first 5 years but after that.... no.

Because it is an economic good that is free from government controls.

How is it an economic good?

The only economic good is when money moves. Warehoused money does little good. That's why tinkle down has depressed the economy while driving up the stock market. Money at the top doesn't move.

Go away until you've learnt to troll more subtly and never to use the gun smilies, noobie. You're just making a mockery of yourself.
But then he'd be stealing your position on NS - that of mocking others.

Do you really want that?

You big Chief Mocker.

How is it an economic good?

The only economic good is when money moves. Warehoused money does little good. That's why tinkle down has depressed the economy while driving up the stock market. Money at the top doesn't move.

Take an econ class.

Take an econ class.

I'm sure I've taken more econ than you have. There is an obvious observation of what has happened over the last 25 years. The stock market has risen dramatically because of supply and demand. There is a huge supply of money chasing a limited amount of stock. Result: the market goes up. But at the same time the wealth isn't tinkling down. The economy of the middle and bottom have suffered even though the government has flooded the economy with money. The problem is where the government put the money. It's in a position where it doesn't easily turn.

At the same time, the balance of wealth has migrated to the top due to tinkle down at the expense of the middle and bottom. The whole theory purposely pushes money into the least productive segment of society (as far as creation of wealth is concerned).

Part of this is the supply and demand for labor. Illegal immigration flooded the bottom with supply which drove down wages throughout the economy. But a bigger part is the limited supply of locally grown wealth. Agriculture has remained the largest factor in new wealth, but has been hindered by cost of production. Manufacturing has been dropping and is limited in it's ability to help by the export of manufacturing wealth by illegal workers sending wealth to other countries rather than spending it locally. Mining continues, but a major area of mining namely oil has faltered and is probably on it's last throw.

I know an entire generation has grown up under this theory. They think this is normal as this is all they remember. The truth is the US has had a great stock market, but a rotten economy for a generation. In a good economy the second family paycheck was for luxuries. In this economy the family needs the second paycheck for necessities. This wasn't true in the past.

How is a gift a part of the free market?
Because the free market is based on voluntary exchange.

I only ever have to part with my wealth if I choose to do so. Generally, one chooses to do so to receive some other wealth in return. That's how trade works.

But the basis is that its voluntary. That's what makes the market free. Any transaction between the two of us, to which we both consent, is permissable. That's a necessary component of the free market.

If I want to give you $1 billion while expecting nothing in return, and you're more than happy to accept $1 billion from me, the free market has to permit that (else it wouldn't be free).

Inheritance is just a specific form of gift, but they're all gifts. One person gives some wealth to another person expecting noting in return. It's exactly the same as giving $2 to the homeless guy on the corner.

There is a huge supply of money chasing a limited amount of stock.
What contrains the supply of stock? Why is it limited?

Over the past 40 years, real estate has greatly outperformed the stock market, and I would argue that's because there is a finite supply of real estate, but there's always more stock coming on to the market.

Inheritance is just a specific form of gift, but they're all gifts. One person gives some wealth to another person expecting noting in return. It's exactly the same as giving $2 to the homeless guy on the corner.


Not really. Inheritance has a plan. You give it you to your kids; your causes....

The homeless guy's "gift" is due to chance.

I'm sure I've taken more econ than you have.

I'm sure you have.

But to clear up some confusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_good

There is an obvious observation of what has happened over the last 25 years. The stock market has risen dramatically because of supply and demand. There is a huge supply of money chasing a limited amount of stock. Result: the market goes up. But at the same time the wealth isn't tinkling down. The economy of the middle and bottom have suffered even though the government has flooded the economy with money. The problem is where the government put the money. It's in a position where it doesn't easily turn.

At the same time, the balance of wealth has migrated to the top due to tinkle down at the expense of the middle and bottom. The whole theory purposely pushes money into the least productive segment of society (as far as creation of wealth is concerned).

Part of this is the supply and demand for labor. Illegal immigration flooded the bottom with supply which drove down wages throughout the economy. But a bigger part is the limited supply of locally grown wealth. Agriculture has remained the largest factor in new wealth, but has been hindered by cost of production. Manufacturing has been dropping and is limited in it's ability to help by the export of manufacturing wealth by illegal workers sending wealth to other countries rather than spending it locally. Mining continues, but a major area of mining namely oil has faltered and is probably on it's last throw.

I know an entire generation has grown up under this theory. They think this is normal as this is all they remember. The truth is the US has had a great stock market, but a rotten economy for a generation. In a good economy the second family paycheck was for luxuries. In this economy the family needs the second paycheck for necessities. This wasn't true in the past.

It should be intuitive to you that, when there is a great supply of investment dollars, not only will there be an escalation in stock prices, there will also be an escalation in stock issuance (demand) to meet the supply until there is a point where stock prices have reached their natural rate. It is the fluctuation of the tax rate (decidedly a controlled market measure) that causes the rise in stock prices, while the market itself counteracts this and returns prices to their natural level.

I would also like to correct you when you say that the "government has flooded the economy with money", the government is simply not taking money out of the economy.

While I wouldn't say that the bottom and middle class earners have suffered, I will freely admit that the growth of earnings has been drastically higher at the upper income levels. This is not a result of supply-side economics. In fact, in a vacuum the theory provides the middle and lower classes with an influx of dollars, as investment dollars are not consumed by the producer, they are consumed by the contractors and workers. It is only after the investment has shown a return is anything consumed by the producer. Like I said, that is in a vacuum. Unfortunately, there are numerous typical state actions that shift wealth to the already wealthy, and combined with protectionism and the centralizing effects on wealth of globalization and technological gaps, we should expect to see a faster growing upper echelon, "tinkle-down" economics or not.

And I fully support the efforts of "illegal workers" to send money out of this economy. That is a natural result of this centralization of wealth that I referred to, and state instituted terms like "illegal workers" only reinforce the stratification of wealth that you are deriding.

EDIT: Not that the performance of the stock market and the growing wealth gap has anything directly to do with economic goods or charity.

The question is simply: if we had a completely equitable starting position, do you think the market would be a good idea to go from there?

No, I don't, because it invariably leads to suffering, oppression, exploitation, and a whole load of other nasty and unpleasant things that we would do better without.

I'm sure you have.

But to clear up some confusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_good



It should be intuitive to you that, when there is a great supply of investment dollars, not only will there be an escalation in stock prices, there will also be an escalation in stock issuance (demand) to meet the supply until there is a point where stock prices have reached their natural rate. It is the fluctuation of the tax rate (decidedly a controlled market measure) that causes the rise in stock prices, while the market itself counteracts this and returns prices to their natural level.

I would also like to correct you when you say that the "government has flooded the economy with money", the government is simply not taking money out of the economy.

While I wouldn't say that the bottom and middle class earners have suffered, I will freely admit that the growth of earnings has been drastically higher at the upper income levels. This is not a result of supply-side economics. In fact, in a vacuum the theory provides the middle and lower classes with an influx of dollars, as investment dollars are not consumed by the producer, they are consumed by the contractors and workers. It is only after the investment has shown a return is anything consumed by the producer. Like I said, that is in a vacuum. Unfortunately, there are numerous typical state actions that shift wealth to the already wealthy, and combined with protectionism and the centralizing effects on wealth of globalization and technological gaps, we should expect to see a faster growing upper echelon, "tinkle-down" economics or not.

And I fully support the efforts of "illegal workers" to send money out of this economy. That is a natural result of this centralization of wealth that I referred to, and state instituted terms like "illegal workers" only reinforce the stratification of wealth that you are deriding.

EDIT: Not that the performance of the stock market and the growing wealth gap has anything directly to do with economic goods or charity.

With the massive influx of money into the investment class (yes I know most people own a little stock, but it's a drop in the ocean) a correction of sorts did take place for a while. There simply wasn't enough stock to sop up the extra money so we had a dot com boom. New stock was issued with little note as to the value of the company that issued it. For a while it worked to sop up the extra and return investment money to circulation. Then a bump in the road came and the dot coms failed. This cut the total supply of stock available and caused a fear of new issues. The investors went back to the limited supply of older stock. This has driven the price of stock to new highs but hasn't added to the circulation of money. When someone buys older stock they don't give new money to the company they now own a piece of. That money is basically put in a warehouse and doesn't hire anyone or buy any products except for a piece of paper (or computer blip). In the past a share of this warehoused money was returned to the economy through capital gains tax. The government would buy goods and services with the tax. The people they bought from would circulate the money through the economy. With reductions in capital gains, the money remains warehoused not buying any products or services.

The government added to the investment funds both through the cutting of taxes on the investment class (I know most people own a little stock but it's a drop in the ocean) and unlimited buying. The problem with unlimited buying is that even though it makes the economy look good in the short run, it bites you in the butt in the long run. (I know part of it is war spending, war is always good for the economy as the government buys goods and services.) So where does the money from unlimited spending come from? A great deal is bookkeeping magic. The social security "loans" the general fund money. This does wonders for older voters but not grandchildren. In the end the grandchildren have the option of paying tax to pay the debt or paying tax to support Social Security--and the people that spent the money and got the advantage of the circulating money are dead.

Illegal immigration has not only taken money our of circulation through sending it out of the country. It has caused a supply and demand problem with labor which has depressed the labor market for the poor and middle class. There simply isn't a job Americans wouldn't take had the cost of labor not been depressed by supply and demand. Example: In 1980 I applied to work at an IBP (Iowa Beef Packers) slaughter house. For generations slaughter houses pulled lower class people into the middle class by paying enough for the workers to send their children to college. In 1980 a beginning slaughter house job paid $17/hr. It wasn't a fun job but Americans stood in line for any opening. Today that same job pays $9/hr and only illegals will take the job. If the job payed the $17/hr it payed 27 years ago (even without inflation adjustment) there would be a long line of Americans begging to get in the door. I don't think illegal immigration was an accident. I think administrations purposely poured a massive supply of labor into the system to deflate labor. But even if they didn't do it on purpose that is the net result. This isn't to say I'm against immigration. I think anybody that has a college degree should automatically get a green card. We need people at the top, not at the bottom.

In a good economy, the first paycheck should pay the basics, the second should be for luxuries. That's the way it was in the '50's, 60's, and 70's. We have a full generation now that thinks this depressed economy is normal.

When I saw the topic, I thought this was about left-handed people and I got excited... but then I found out it was about politics and now Im sad.

Suppose this distribution is as follows: We divide the resources of the world by the number of people in the world, and give everyone exactly the same amount (as far as physically possible).

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?

No.

1.The best criterium for dividing the resources isn't "everyone gets the same share". It is "everyone gets AT LEAST what he needs". That is, obviously a person who's got a cancer needs more resources than a hale person. A baby needs more resources in the medical and educational sector than in the food sector. These are just examples, of course, but having the same basical rights (the "human" rights) doesn't make the needs of all people identical. This is a sort of ethical principle in the distribution of resources and goods.

2.Strong competition (typical of a free market) in a world that's tightly packed with humans is a waste of resources. Cooperation is more effective. Strong competition leads to use of part of the resources to win against other competitors. Example: advertising. Advertising uses resources not to create a better product; it uses resources to claim that my product is better, more enjoyable, more useful, than yours. Other example: war. War uses resources to rob other people's resources.

3.To live, humans need other humans. That is, we need to create a society. This means a set of rules. Since the main issue of a human society (or "state" if you prefer) is to create and distribute goods and welfare (that is, products of natural resources and human work), strong rules about the production and the distribution of goods are needed. Hence a non-totally-free market.

4.Resources don't mean anything if left to their own devices. It is human work that makes resources useable to humans. I don't use petroleum, I don't eat soil, I don't drink water from a river, I don't fell a tree with iron. I use gasoline, I eat corn, I drink purified water, I fell a tree with a saw. Work is the main issue, not resources.

With the massive influx of money into the investment class (yes I know most people own a little stock, but it's a drop in the ocean) a correction of sorts did take place for a while. There simply wasn't enough stock to sop up the extra money so we had a dot com boom. New stock was issued with little note as to the value of the company that issued it. For a while it worked to sop up the extra and return investment money to circulation. Then a bump in the road came and the dot coms failed. This cut the total supply of stock available and caused a fear of new issues. The investors went back to the limited supply of older stock. This has driven the price of stock to new highs but hasn't added to the circulation of money. When someone buys older stock they don't give new money to the company they now own a piece of. That money is basically put in a warehouse and doesn't hire anyone or buy any products except for a piece of paper (or computer blip). In the past a share of this warehoused money was returned to the economy through capital gains tax. The government would buy goods and services with the tax. The people they bought from would circulate the money through the economy. With reductions in capital gains, the money remains warehoused not buying any products or services.

The government added to the investment funds both through the cutting of taxes on the investment class (I know most people own a little stock but it's a drop in the ocean) and unlimited buying. The problem with unlimited buying is that even though it makes the economy look good in the short run, it bites you in the butt in the long run. (I know part of it is war spending, war is always good for the economy as the government buys goods and services.) So where does the money from unlimited spending come from? A great deal is bookkeeping magic. The social security "loans" the general fund money. This does wonders for older voters but not grandchildren. In the end the grandchildren have the option of paying tax to pay the debt or paying tax to support Social Security--and the people that spent the money and got the advantage of the circulating money are dead.

Illegal immigration has not only taken money our of circulation through sending it out of the country. It has caused a supply and demand problem with labor which has depressed the labor market for the poor and middle class. There simply isn't a job Americans wouldn't take had the cost of labor not been depressed by supply and demand. Example: In 1980 I applied to work at an IBP (Iowa Beef Packers) slaughter house. For generations slaughter houses pulled lower class people into the middle class by paying enough for the workers to send their children to college. In 1980 a beginning slaughter house job paid $17/hr. It wasn't a fun job but Americans stood in line for any opening. Today that same job pays $9/hr and only illegals will take the job. If the job payed the $17/hr it payed 27 years ago (even without inflation adjustment) there would be a long line of Americans begging to get in the door. I don't think illegal immigration was an accident. I think administrations purposely poured a massive supply of labor into the system to deflate labor. But even if they didn't do it on purpose that is the net result. This isn't to say I'm against immigration. I think anybody that has a college degree should automatically get a green card. We need people at the top, not at the bottom.

In a good economy, the first paycheck should pay the basics, the second should be for luxuries. That's the way it was in the '50's, 60's, and 70's. We have a full generation now that thinks this depressed economy is normal.

I disagree with most of what you have posted (at least what I have read of it), but all of it is completely irrelevant and I will eventually be forced to explain idea after idea.

I allowed wikipedia to explain what an economic good is, if you still want to discuss charity or resource distribution on the free market, I will respond.

I'd have to say that I would not support a 'free' market due to how it would stratify people in groups that over a few generations, would lead to an not free group of people to be taken advantage of.

Then again I do support some market elements as well as some parecon elements.

It seems rather obvious to me that no true leftist would support such a move. They would fear having to stand up on their own merits instead of having society cater to their every whim. If they actually had any skills to survive in such a situation, they'd likely be out making productive use of them (or enjoying the fruits gained from such labor) instead of protesting on the streets over whichever ridiculous issue strikes their fancy.

What the hell does "give everyone exactly the same amount" even mean?

Ok, I demand some candy because with this many zombie threads it has to be Halloween.

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7485/motivator4574243gz8.jpg

This a question for all the socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, trotskyists, titoists, stalinists, maoists, marxists, marxist leninists, state communists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, parecon supporters and believers in the Juche idea...in short, all the lefties out there.

Let's pretend there is a massive revolution, and violence is okay for a few years. Suppose that every idea of a property right ceases to exist for a while.

Suppose that after a while people had enough of violence, and we end up with a new distribution of the world's resources.

Suppose this distribution is as follows: We divide the resources of the world by the number of people in the world, and give everyone exactly the same amount (as far as physically possible).

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?

No because the individual situations would not provide 100% equality of opportunity, even if the resources were equal.

The way to make things work is neither to create a government that forbids any effort to improve ones own lot, nor forbids itself from intervening in the economy when things get too far out of hand.

When you go to far one way, you get the Russian revolution. When you go too far the other way you get the Irish Potato Famine. It's an object of ridicule these days, but the Irish grew a lot of foodstuffs besides potatoes that the English government kept from feeding the Irish so as to avoid interfering in the "free market" because foreign buyers could pay more than the Irish peasants who were growing the food. It also opposed welfare because it thought that "charity would breed dependency." The result was a situation that could, by today's standards, be described as genocide.

This a question for all the socialists, communists, democratic socialists, social democrats, trotskyists, titoists, stalinists, maoists, marxists, marxist leninists, state communists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-primitivists, parecon supporters and believers in the Juche idea...in short, all the lefties out there.

Let's pretend there is a massive revolution, and violence is okay for a few years. Suppose that every idea of a property right ceases to exist for a while.

Suppose that after a while people had enough of violence, and we end up with a new distribution of the world's resources.

Suppose this distribution is as follows: We divide the resources of the world by the number of people in the world, and give everyone exactly the same amount (as far as physically possible).

If this was the case, and there was 100% equality in the initial endowment of resources at time zero - would you then support a free market to handle things from then on?

Why, or why not?

Your question offends me because you make it sound like left-wing people are unanimously against a free-market when that is false. Like right-wing people are never bitching about protecting the country (whatever it is) from imports and wanting to erect tariffs and all that other protectionist stuff that hinders economic freedom.

I wouldn't support a revolution like this but can I guess that your point is that we would still end up in a class society if people were given the chance to buy and sell things freely to eachother?
And he's right.

What the hell does "give everyone exactly the same amount" even mean?
It means exactly that - giving everyone the same amount of resources. Take all the resources in the world, get an average per person and hand it out.

Like right-wing people are never bitching about protecting the country (whatever it is) from imports and wanting to erect tariffs and all that other protectionist stuff that hinders economic freedom.
That's because "right-wing" is an even poorer categorisation than "left-wing". I'm "right-wing" because I'm in favour of a free market, and the KKK is "right-wing" because it wants to kill people who aren't white. The two don't have anything in common with each other.

If you feel better that way, interpret it as "Question for everyone who doesn't believe in the market mechanism". And that would include, by the way, those who think the market can be improved through transfer payments.

...the English government kept from feeding the Irish so as to avoid interfering in the "free market"...
You do realise you're contradicting yourself, right?

But to shortly get to your point - "resources" could perhaps include things like education. The only thing one couldn't distribute evenly is quality of character and intelligence.

But nevermind this thread now. It was the intro to my "what is the market" thread. So until I'm finished with that, there's little that can be added to this discussion.