Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Hmm.... the latter really either isn't as bad as the former or it is something that does not exist. Under all systems though, human lives will end up becoming statistics because of the necessary trade-offs. In fact, I fear a world where human lives are not statistics because that is a world where rationalism has died. Technically though, communism was supposed to be the good twin and if you ask a modern supporter of these ideas then you end up finding that they denounce the Soviet Union as not communist and claim that they are communists.

Not really, the Socialist fault in the Soviet Union was not known until the government of that Soviet Union revealed it. Stalin, who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, was seen as a hero for the masses for the longest time. Not only that but even within modern society we can note that bureaucracy is unkillable in the government, and to institute a government imposed system would be to invite this unsolvable problem into our lives.

Technically, one idea must yield superior results in certain manners compared to other ideas. This can in term mean that one idea is BETTER than others, which ultimately means that the less good idea is incorrect in comparison. I'd say that your argument for a mixed economy(which I would not really call a mixture of capitalism and socialism) is a flawed one though as I think that the mixed economy is one more likely to favor corporatism than the capitalist economy because of governmental interventions to help pre-established corporate structures, thus hurting the public interest. Not only that but I do not think that government intervention really is good when it is implemented, and thus I argue that the "socialist" part of our economy is actually a problem hurting the common good.

Right, it is an opinion. Don't worry, I tear lots of things apart with all of my might. I might prefer a source of information though or a solid logical argument given that I have been involved in this debate for 20 something pages of it and tend to prefer solid arguments for whatever case presented than the flippant "I support this side for vague/weak reasons". No offense intended either, I am an econ student who spends a significant portion of his free time studying the stuff so I really tend to want to see good thinking or some significant amount of thinking involved.

Do socialists believe that individuals are inherently better within? Is that why they, unlike capitalists, are willing to trust that they will eventually go along, or rather eventually realize the moral rightness of an economy that requires them to surrender some of their own economic capital?

Or is it rather more that they believe in the efficiency of that centralized system, and believe that even if a person remains unconvinced and unhappy, that price will be more then recouped in those who are benefited by the system?

It is my beliefs that those who are more-supportive of the free-market tend to be believe more in the inapt flaws of the individual, and well as individualism generally. It is this belief that means you will not win over 100% of the market, and then you have to personalize your product for the consumer.

"No offense intended either, I am an econ student who spends a significant portion of his free time studying the stuff so I really tend to want to see good thinking or some significant amount of thinking involved."

Hilarious, for an econ student you didn't understand anything I said. You live in a textbook world, try working on the finance board of an international corporation and see how economics "really works" in the meetings behind closed doors and how we plot to f**k people over all under the guise of the "free market", you're still too young and are not in business and it shows. An econ student would know economic power is the parent of political power.

Next your comments about war, ignorance etc, all can be explained due to historical forces that involve much more then simple economics. Next your egocentrism gives you false sense of confidence in your own ideas, you can't divorce yourself from reason versus propaganda because you are divorced from actually having to deal with people on a day to day basis and actually running a business. No wonder you live in that hermitic egocentric hall of mirrors.

The real problem is there is *no* sociological or mathematical understanding in any the arguments presented here. Just bluster. So this thread is mainly pointless opinion pieces. It would require more time then most would be willing to commit for serious analysis.

I did understand what you said. You were wrong. Fine, it would be a job I would want anyway. Yeah, if you f**k people over you tend to lose customers though. An econ student would recognize the nature of economic action and recognize that political processes do tend towards corruption, however, that is an argument for trying to weaken the ability of these political processes.
If the historical forces involve more than simple economics then why do you blame the economics? Does this go back to some Marxist thesis? Do you think that you are not similarly egocentric as you assert the absolute validity of your own ideas, especially given that they are no longer considered valid? Given that I was just talking with a friend on those who claim their opponents have been propagandized tend to be the most propagandized themselves, I really don't see your point on me being propagandized. I have read the communist manifesto, I have watched the Corporation, I have even watched some of the stuff you have shown. I just reject the validity of it. Yes, I am an idiot living in a house of mirrors. No knowledge at all resides in me. All capitalists are blind, propagandized sheep obviously, no possibility to deny that at all. Nope. In fact, there must not be any economist to ever convert from anti-market to pro-market but only the other way around.

There is economic understanding in most of these arguments and given that this is an economics thread I would think that would be important. In fact, a few illustrious thinkers have their ideas put forth on both sides of the debate. Math is really not the question here, not even close unless you want to have a graph of x = y. Serious analysis? I think that a few serious analyses have been done and I think that the majority of those serious analyses that can be taken seriously now given history argue that capitalism is triumphant. From what I have heard, the mainstream economists accept the idea now that socialism does not work due to a failed pricing system. If the serious thinkers with their serious analyses tend to reject the idea, then can we not argue that this idea is flawed?

My political ideology involves a tiered system. Oh, and to make a point, the system would actually do something about the environment. Is it fair that a person is entitled to £1 billion worth of resources or more whilst others suffer? No. In the end, greed isn't good. Things should be geared to maximum performance, whilst being efficient enough so as not to waste resources or use harmful materials, and not in terms of profit.
Smoking, for example, should be banned. The tobacco industry can go to rot, and the employees can be put into other industries.

Instead of competing with each other, companies would aim for objectives and operations- whether it might be production, research, construction, or utility services. They would serve only the nation and their real purpose. Why should people get richer for ripping others off, being greedy, and not caring?

Capitalism is vulnerable to inflation. If you limit how much people can get of an item according to availability, and ensure that products are sustainable, then you won't

Prices would be set according to tiers, based on type, purpose, units of mass, density, utility of the product, and availability. "Prestigious", high quality items would have high credit tags.

Do I think that the masses are educated enough to plan together for the future? NO!

I think that most of us do recognize the environment as having a legitimate concern for whatever reason, no matter whether such is in a capitalist system or not. Is it fair for a person to be denied the fruits of their acumen and labor because of the will of another? In order to have 1 billion dollars of resources you have to first be given 1 billion dollars worth of resources, which means you have to convince others to give you 1 billion dollars worth of resources, and if you can do that last part then I would say that you are right in having 1 billion dollars worth of resources. Everyone aims for efficiency and tries to avoid wasting resources that they value as important, the externality thing is a problem but one that can be dealt with in terms of forms of taxation. You still seem to hold on to the idea that profits are some abstraction that means nothing and that is nothing but a fallacy. In a system where money represents resources, getting a better return on resources used(AKA getting a profit) represents efficient use of said resources, and in a system where everyone is trying to get resources for themselves, the result ends up that a large number of people will pursue ways to efficiently use their resources. This is described in a book on prices and information by Dr. Reed and Dr. Schanzenbach. http://www.ou.edu/class/econ3003/book/area1c14.html

One of the reasons that smoking isn't banned is that smokers do not want it banned. By banning it, we act contrary to the wishes of those smoking individuals. If we did ban smoking then we would have workers in those factories go to higher valued areas of the economy.
Corporate competition creates innovation. When everyone works together we have social loafing, when groups compete then we have better outcomes. Corporations currently do serve national aims(while not being concerned much on that) and serve their real purpose. They should get richer for providing good products and services, for allocating their resources in a manner that is most useful to other people who work to make society better. I will not say a thing about whether or not an individual should care too heavily on his fellow man though, so long as one does not actively harm those fellow men then I think that live and let live is the policy in question here.
Yes, but by doing that you are controlling what these people can and cannot get and ultimately cause them harm. Not only that but if these quotas do not respond to trends, or changes in purchasing power then we ultimately have problems that can only be dealt with by clamping down on black markets. When the real market isn't allowed to thrive black markets tend to rise up, and this is seen in many places. By taking this approach you have to clamp down on ebay and yardsales. Technically, any system with free actors will likely have some concern on inflation. Inflationary problems will not be great though if central bankers and government controllers do their job well. The real problem is that those groups do not do their job that well.
The only thing is what determines the best description of where a product should stay? You are trying to give an objective value to a subjective valuation and ultimately trying to get the disinterested to work better at a system than the interested. If we set prices too low then we have shortages, if we set them too high then we have surpluses, and if we do not keep in mind the changes and variations in the system then we fly back in forth between the 2.

So why would you let a politician decide? Most politicians are not noted for their great economic acumen and many get elected on profoundly bad ideas only because the masses really are not educated enough to plan for the future. The fortune that we have in the market economy though is that the people who put down capital for the future have better knowledge. I already mentioned this earlier, but a theory in financial markets is the efficient market hypothesis, which argues that capital is allocated by the stock market in a manner that is very hard for individual investors, or groups of them to beat. In fact, to do better than the market on average requires a good amount of research, effort, and a very good willingness to cut one's losses. In fact, I believe that about 2 chapters of this investment book I have, which was written by the founder of Investor's Business Daily, is on the topic of when to cut one's losses and one of his profound statements is that investors are not smarter than the market and not even the most complex of equipment can actually outsmart the market either. This is not to argue that bubbles do not exist, however, it is to show that rational tendencies exist within the system.

I think we should vote on how society should be!

I distrust democracy. Too many idiots. Not only that but I would also not want a society where we all do what the most popular viewpoint is. Lets just say that you are in a room of fundies and you are an atheist, would you want them to decide how the group spends its day? Lets say you were a hen, would you want the foxes to vote? Lets say that you were a black man in the south, would you love democracy then? Democracy has NEVER shown any inclination to understand economics "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."-Economist Thomas Sowell What this essentially means is this: political processes, because they are run by or defer to economically illiterate people, can ultimately be likely to restrain the economic freedom of those within those societies unnecessarily and harmfully.