Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

And the first idea is something that we distrust as capitalism seems to have potential, machinocracy seems to be a variant of the category of bad ideas.
The value of a currency really never truly is determined entirely by any central authority, it is determined by what people will trade it for and prices on the market. The entire thing is subjective.
Why should we give them grants though? Research has shown that home ownership in a society is linked to unemployment. Why should we then subsidize that which is bad? Apartments and other measures can be used for families as can renting and other means. Ultimately the entire value of housing is a subjective matter of what families desire, not one that government should ever get involved in.
Cost cutting IS a good reason. Have you studied the French economy? They proposed not allowing cuts in employment as well and that results in a reluctance to hire anyone. These labor market controls are the reason why the unemployment rate is so high compared to other nations. Not only that but management may not want to have their wages cut and thus leave, a company in trouble will want to cut whatever costs it can but some things are more necessary than others and it is wisest for this to be determined by the people who know the industry.
Not going to happen though. Some frictional employment is likely to exist. Your idea is likely to contradict your opposition to inflation due to the Phillips curve, and likely to end in stagflation where the economy goes down and the inflation still remains shockingly high.
And this would negatively impact the ability for corporations to effectively act given that they are not going to run off of their money but rather share a common treasury with the government and very likely to end up as zombie structures, only supported by government payment.
Except that your very terms seem to contradict your love of individual freedom given that you want cultural controls, which seems totalitarian. It may be that we are misconstruing your statement but it sounds like you will lead us on the road to serfdom.

No, it really really isn't. Government price controls are blind things as they are not controlled by the proper incentives, nor do governments really interact properly to demand and things of that nature. The government does not have the proper apparatus in these cases to set prices as those are created by the market in most cases. Government price controls are rejected by most modern economists, we know that they suck from experience as mentioned so why bring up an idea rejected by the majority of those who have studied economic phenomena?
Why not simply have them PAY for what they want. That way we do not have to monitor their every act and fine their every forgetfulness and that way their actions are accounted for in the entire scheme. Some people may love 3 hour long showers and some people may be awake the entire night and thusly need their lights on for that entire night, not only that but some people may have lights in order to protect from crime, some people may have high drainage electronic equipment. Not only that but your measure leads to improper calculation in the purchases of electronic equipment, a person who buys their own power will trade off on preferred light quality and the power consumed, a person who doesn't will simply get the most awesome light bulb possible and that would likely hold for many other electronic devices.


Yes, you do before you actually speak on economics. Your ideas suck. They are indicative of a fool fumbling through economic ideas without a concept of what really should exist and what shouldn't. There is a reason why one should not go into surgery without at least studying some anatomy and this holds for economics.
Um...... that is not what I spoke of in terms of resources. Money is a reflection of current resources and the allocation of money to certain parts of the economy is a way to send resources and essentially create progress. Not only that but I tend to doubt that those resource measures would be a good idea given that no corporation and no government has ever decided to do such things and because it sounds really expensive with questionable rates of return.
No, your ideas still are bad. Study more economics.

No, machinocracy is an idiotic idea and capitalist minded people actually understand that as most of us "capitalists" have actually read economics. jimservo is familiar with Thomas Sowell, dexkaden has read many economics books and is an econ major or is a former econ major, and I am also well read on economics as well and am probably going on the path to major in economics and finance. This is not a matter of us not understanding economics and how an economy can work, but rather a recognizance that your ideas are not good which leads us to quote noted professors and point out the gaping flaws.

You seem to have ignored and dismissed what I said.

The government would control values and enshrine them in law.

In this system, there is no such thing as inflation.

Damn it, my originally proposed system is much better. (Which is controlled distribution of resources according to what people deserve and what is viable, with a strong leadership.) This is a compromise.

Still, the disadvantage of my system is that it needs careful planning, and ruthless execution. No doubt the credits and resource distribution system would work much better than a semi-capitalist half way point.

If only you understood...

Oh well, in defence of the compromise system-

Oh and no, I am totally against slavery, except when it comes to convicts. They could provide manual labour for some schemes, and all that would have to be done is accommodate and keep them healthy.

Corporations would not become zombie structures, and would be required to earn money for the government, or face a major shakedown.

As you guessed, I support intervention by force if neccessary. Not ignorance, but intervention when nonsense occurs. For instance, if a company decided to get smart ass and disregard the rules, it would be shut down.

I am no blind idiot, never mistake me for one. One day, the free market will screw up, and everyone will suffer for it. A system that rewards greed, and puts the individual before society and progress.

This idea is nowhere near as good as the original, but a good transitional one.

I read it and I disagreed with it. Most of your ideas were bad, and I concerned myself with attacking your bad ideas.
Bad idea, the government planners are likely to miscalculate values. You are recreating the soviet union with this and we all know that there were major issues with overproduction, underproduction and things of that nature with the soviet system. I of course mean over and under production of things relative to their need and price.
Even in online rpgs, where the entire world is a created fiction, there is still inflation. I do not think that your system will somehow abolish it.
No it really really isn't. Neither of your ideas are that good. You are simply going down paths that history has already told us are bad ideas. Do you not understand that the very nature of your system would not help us innovate better worlds and would not provide the economic freedom that society needs to function. We need no compromise "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" especially not a horrid idea such as that one. (quote from Barry Goldwater)
Careful planning can only be provided by a deity. There are no deities involved here so therefore your system is a failure. Planning has failed, it still will fail, everyone knows that by now. The nations of the world are either abandoning planning or are about to be hurt badly by it.
Dude, I used to think that a planning would work better. I used to think that it would drive up productivity, increase progress, and that these monetary manipulations were the result of a flawed system. I was plainly dead wrong.

I never said that you were for slavery, I probably stated that this society would become slavery. The reason I stated that is because of a famous book by Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek who wrote a book called "the Road to Serfdom" that attacked these halfway measures as leading to the death of freedom.
A major shakedown? I thought that these were the government monopolies. They cannot be safely shaken down, otherwise you hurt many many more people. I stated that they would become zombies though because corporations do make missteps, they do lose out from time to time and because that must be recognized, we cannot look at the corporate structure so simply as make money in the present or die. Corporations do die without profit but they die more rationally as they will die from the lack of expected future profit as determined by the wisdom of those who look into them.
Nonsense can occur as people do make missteps. Companies being fined for disregarding rules should happen(automatic shutdown is not very wise in most cases though)
Prove it. Just prove it. The market if anything has gotten much more stable. Not only that but you do not even understand the market economy, it rewards those who have more insight to help their fellow man than their peers, not simply "the greedy". How do corporations make their profit? By getting consumers to buy their products, a task that can be really only be done in the long run through superior products. How do stockholders get their money? Through knowing better than other stockholders on what society will want and need and allocating capital to those tasks. It puts the individual as the ultimate actor in society to promote the welfare of others through acting for his own initiatives, and as such cares for both.

"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."- Adam Smith, the wealth of nations(and I can come up with other quotes by very noted economic scholars that back up this idea)

The market CREATES progress that socialist systems have not been able to sustain! To claim that markets have not improved our lives is an ignorance of history and of economics.
No, it is a horrible idea. Study more economics to know how this system actually works.

After much consideration, I have decided that I am in the wrong. Not in my principles, but in the economic ideas. Machinocracy and the semi-capitalist compromise would not work because of the risk of corruption, disobedience, and various other reasons. Not only that but the amount of planning required would be backbreaking. Simply not practical given the current parameters.

I guess that in my hate of certain things in society, including the dirty underhand tricks some businesses use, and instituted stupidity, plus the lack of government funds going where they should... I viewed the free market economic model as the enemy.

Now

However...


I do believe that governments and nations should have aims, and that administrations should actively interact with businesses, giving both rewards for achieving certain objects, and regulating them to ensure fair trade practises.

Not only should governments and businesses work together to solve problems and make the world a better place, but they should aim for the future, in all ways.

I also think that colonialism is beneficial, in the aspect that MEDCs could rule over LEDCs, and employ fairly. It is essential that action is taken in countries such as Somalia and Sudan. Developed countries give protection, stability and aid, in exchange for cheap labour and resource privileges, as well as allegiance and global stability.

I still believe that education and healthcare should be free, and support given to those who need it.

If people need houses, but they are too expensive, then there could be subsidies.

Fair enough, electricity should be priced.

I'll admit it.

I hate capitalism.

BUT

It works.

Makes a small lower class and a small upper class but it gets the goods to the middle class. But we do need to watch businesses and make sure they don't cut corners and make sub-par products. As long as there's a good education system and student loans to help people get through college I'm fine with competition. I'm for a flat tax.

I don't know that I've ever seen a historical example of pure capitalism, so
I suspect that it doesn't.

Pure capitalism is truly insane.

Here's what I don't understand: This site is full of very intelligent people. Why do we have several people who don't understand economic laws, supply and demand, et al?

Agreed, you need a government to take action.

The funny thing is that capitalism almost seems to be one of the more distrusted systems that we have in use and yet its necessity is almost undeniable at this point.

Well, usually you only have gradations of different levels of the capitalist system. Purer capitalism has existed at certain time frames and certain nations although there still was some impurity of course. Many though would argue that the only purely capitalist system is anarcho-capitalism but I would not say that mosts capitalism supporters support such a system. Technically though, most capitalist driven systems DO work and as such the comment by Flagg can be viewed as correct. Even more capitalistic systems did have working elements to them. There are even scholars who do advocate purer to purest capitalism arguing that the ability of capitalism to transmit information on individual preferences and that its entrepreneurial nature are ideal and superior to all systems.

The real question though ends up being on how pure capitalism is insane though. Do you speak of banking methods in a freer banking system? How about working pay and conditions? Usually the complaints result from those 2 issues, especially the latter. With the former I will admit that I do not know as much about banking in such a system as I should, however, I think that even J K Galbraith argued that it shouldn't be looked at as poorly as it often is, although I suspect that is due to his distrust of central bankers more so than love of markets and it could just be a result of my bad memory/reading that I think he did. As for the latter, one must recognize that government was not the creator of all of today's living conditions, there is no law telling businesses what to pay all of their employees but only the bottom rung, and as such it would seem that the real savior of people living in capitalist societies was economic growth and not so many of the other forces. Even those who are poor today, as pointed out, live better than those who lived so long ago.


They exist on all sites. A misunderstanding of economics is one of the most common things to find actually.

Well that may have some truth, the biggest question is where a government needs to take action. There are a thousand causes that thousands of different people would seek to use a government to promote, so there ends up being a major question of what is just intervention and what is unjust.

Well, whether capitalism is a good thing or a bad thing really depends upon the approach taken to it. I would really say the same of socialism, in spite of being one of those waving the flag for privatization and such. For capitalism to work properly, without government intervention, you have to have a united and well-educated workforce. Again, I point out how the Scandinavian workforce is quite heavily unionized, and Sweden, chief among these, seems to manage just fine without having to resort to enforcing a minimum wage. There also has to be a sense of mutual cooperation between the employers and their workers, and they need to operate under the understanding that both are business people in their own way and have an understandable interest in minding their respective bottom line. Most importantly, it needs to be understood that powerful corporations may sometimes attempt to exercise power and authority similar to that of a government, and whether this is beneficial or hurtful depends upon the choices made by all employers. Lastly, I feel that the rift between the small business person and the employee is negligible; again, an employee is basically a one-man enterprise, and this puts them on common ground with the sole proprietor.

Again and again, the success or failure of any kind of economy is rooted not only in the basis of it but in the structures and relationships built to support it. I just don't see any evidence that a democratically elected government has the capacity to manage an economy. The voters can usually be expected to understand when their rights are being violated, but they are really horribly inept employers overall.

I don't think that such is necessary. Then again, I don't think that minimum wages are a good thing period. Almost half of the economists in the American Economic Association think that we should not have minimum wages at all, so it is not as if I am expressing some radical idea here to think that labor is a market like others. It can be argued that employers do have some market power, however, minimum wages prevent competition and I think that this inevitably hurts those on the bottom as they are likely to be the first to be discriminated against. Otherwise I somewhat agree with you, except for the part on socialism. I don't think that socialism can work effectively at all no matter the technique used and the closest to right it can get would perhaps be the furthest away from the socialist ideal and closer to the capitalist one. I am perhaps heavily influenced by the Austrian argument against it.
Proper structures are important, such as property rights, good legal institutions, and other things as well. Most governments are not ideal for managing an economy. I would argue that economies work better when depoliticized and that most governments are political thus leading to a problem. Voters do not understand an economy well enough in my mind, to know how it should ideally work and how it shouldn't.

I wasn't arguing for a minimum wage. I was arguing that it wouldn't be necessary for one to be set by the state if the workers were organized enough to negotiate their wages on a fair basis, as proven by the Swedish economy. This is the responsibility of the workers, not the state. They need to accept this responsibility and accept that it is necessary for them to make the same compromises and sacrifices as any other business people.

I've never seen any evidence that it's workable, but there's nothing saying that it cannot. It just seems to be an improbability.

That's what I was saying. This is why socialism doesn't usually work very well. I'm not against socialism as an idea, but it just doesn't work as well as a free market. There are some exceptions, like France's rail system, but I'm generally more supportive of competitive markets. They just seem to work better in most cases.

I know what you are arguing, I am saying that I do not believe that a minimum wage is a necessity no matter what is there unless we have a complete monopsony situation, which almost never ever occurs. I would not even believe that unionization is always desirable as not all industries are set up for unionization to be desirable. The industries throughout the economy are often quite differentiated, and there is a concern that unions can themselves discriminate and due the unfair behavior that too many fear from companies. I claim that minimum wages AND unions are not a necessity. This is not to say that unionization in some cases is desirable, however, I tend to more highly praise the US labor market as it has one of the lowest long term unemployments out of all nations, it has a very low unemployment rate compared to most other nations even with more low aged workers having job market success, and I think that this economic freedom also causes a higher tendency toward innovation. I think that what holds back the US is that we have stupid government more than bad ideas and ideals. I would prefer an idea more comparable to the NIT such as the EITC than I would want high unionization or minimum wages.

Sure there is, there are theoretical arguments against the capability of socialist systems to exist due to the information problems throughout the economy, this is part of a debate known as the Socialist Calculation Debate between capitalists and socialists. Technically speaking, based upon that argument one cannot state that ANY system cannot work effectively, however, most of us would be loath to accept fascism or totalitarianism because of the theoretical arguments against them and the empirical ones as well.

France as a whole though doesn't seem to be reflective of a working system given the labor market issues throughout France as well as other problems. Economist Anthony de Jasay recently wrote an article talking about the tragedy found in the French system that they have fallen so far from what would have been desirable in quite a few cases. I would not be likely to base my idea on socialism on the successes of one government program nor am I to consider the success of one act of government to indicate a possibility of socialism for it still acts within a capitalist context on some level but I am against socialism as an idea. I think that socialism is an inevitable failure for liberty, economic progress, and humanity.

There must be a minimum wage, in the name of all sanity. Jobs should pay at least enough for a person to survive comfortably.

Actually there doesn't have to be. There are a few questions brought up by the minimum wage: who gets the money? who might lose their jobs? and is creating a minimum wage really is the most efficient way to get our goals accomplished?

For the first question I must bring forward the following argument: some of those who receive the minimum wage are not necessarily the poor but are often high schoolers looking for jobs and even those often make above the minimum wage and there are others who make that minimum wage as well who may not necessarily need it. In fact, some scholars argue that around 80% of those who receive the minimum wage are not poor for various reasons and thus do not need to necessarily receive a minimum wage. If the majority of those on the minimum wage do not need it then is it the best policy given that it hurts other groups?

For the second question I must put forward the fact that a minimum wage gives employers more ability to discriminate and the idea of supply and demand. Given that minorities, poor people and others who are lower in our society are more likely to be disliked by an employer, the minimum wage only gives a greater ability for those to be pushed lower. Let's just even look at the french labor market, in the french labor market we have about 10% unemployment, yet the unemployment rate for immigrant families is about double that. Not only that but when minimum wage laws were first put down, many blacks in America lost their jobs. In fact, labor unions in South Africa I think are noted for pushing for labor unions because those labor unions are dominated by whites who do not want to compete for wages with blacks. I even remember reading a study that claimed that poverty rates remained constant despite minimum wage increases and this explains this to some extent. Now for the supply and demand part, it simply must be stated that if price goes up beyond equilibrium then quantity goes down, and even though labor is inelastic, the same would occur.

For the third part I simply put forward this: the EITC is considered by most economists, even those that support the minimum wage, to be the better option as it has less distortion. The argument by economists for the minimum wage is not so much that the minimum wage is a must but rather that because politicians and voters are too stupid to know what ideas are good economic ideas, we must therefore push an idea that is less good that they will understand and that we can get support for. Really though, minimum wages can reduce the ability to innovate by increasing costs for small business owners, they can reduce the amount of money to go around to other aspects of business, and ultimately this can result in costs being passed on to other poor people as taxes on business are often partially shifted on to their customers and the customers of businesses that employ minimum wage workers are not the wealthier but the less wealthy.