19-07-2004 17:02									#61
	Put an end to popups!

To get right back to the start of this topic, comparisons with the KSR world to the modern one are difficult and possibly meangingless. On Mars, I believe the economy was based on volunteerism of some description, I don't recall mention of Martian currency, credits, money, whatever, in any case chasing around little slips of paper didn't play a major role in the motivations of the martians.

Meanwhile (**SPOILER**), Earth got royally screwed by rising seas, imagine the economic damage from having the coastlines of the world suddenly submerged... the billions of hungry and homeless, the existing economy would simply collapse like the house of cards it is and be replaced by something new. In KSR I believe the megacorporates took the economy into their own hands, "buying" the labor of people with the longlivity treatment (rather than with any national currencies, which no doubt became worthless due to the economic collapse)...
In any case, the enormity of the natural disaster that befell earth would be sufficient to induce a more "caring and sharing" mindset among the population. I actually think that a global natural disastor is the most likely trigger for a shift in society towards something more like communism, it was a good plot device by K.S.R.

	19-07-2004 19:35									#62
	Put an end to popups!

quote: for something to be efficient it must achieve DESIRED goals. Dictatorship doesn't do that.

Are you really this dense? Of course dictatorship achieves desired goals! The goals which are desired by the dictator! What is it with you and thinking the only desired goals of government are of those people under it?

quote: The corporation on the other hand, acting in it's own interest, makes decisions to achieve only it's goal. Left alone it makes all kinds of decisions to go against societies desired goals.

But like I said, that is more than balanced out by the societies desired goals for prosperity and technological booms.

Secondly society's desired goals are NOT accomplished efficiently by a republic government. There are all sorts of compromises and struggles in trying to get people to vote to do something. The desired goals may or may not be accomplished (and they may or may not be realistic) because of the nature of the governance.

Yes, this doesn't apply to a corporation because the desired goal is for the corporation itself, and it does that efficiently. Most people in society realize this is a good thing and like to have corporations do well because it benefits everyone else (Sony's success gives us bigger and better TVs for example).

quote: If everyone acted in their own self interest universally the market could not function. After all, it is in my self interest to try and defraud and rip others off as long as there is little chance of being caught.

I think someone has, once again, confused self interest with selfishness. A self interested individual is not one who would want a society where you could rip people off and get away with it easily, because that can easily impact him as well.

	19-07-2004 19:50									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Yugoslavia tried using government owned but worker run companies during the 1960s through to the 1980s. The Yugoslav economy did out proform the rest of the eastern block through that period but they suffered from sever undercapitalization and as a result their economy underperformed the west.

	19-07-2004 21:59									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Blake In any case, the enormity of the natural disaster that befell earth would be sufficient to induce a more "caring and sharing" mindset among the population. I actually think that a global natural disastor is the most likely trigger for a shift in society towards something more like communism, it was a good plot device by K.S.R.

It wasn't merely a plot device by KSR. Most revolutions have been preceded by disasters, both natural and man-made. Revolution occurs when a government is presented with a crisis with which it is incapable of coping and there is some alternative ready to take charge. Not every revolution starts this way (various wars of national liberation -- Americans, Dutch -- come to mind), but since the French Revolution this has pretty much been the case.

As for the notion that dictatorships are more efficient than democracies, I suggest one take a good look at various third world dictatorships, as well as the Nazis and Fascists. By and large, the economies of dictatorships do not do well (the Asian tigers and Chile--somewhat--being exceptions). Generally dictatorships are made inefficient by graft and bloated bureaucracies. (The South American dictatorships probably would have done better, however, had it not been for the rise of OPEC, which really clobbered their ablity to develop and pay off their loans.) Personal dicatorships (like those of the Duvaliers and Somozas) are even more inefficient as the dictators tends to steal everything in sight. At the end, the exceeding wealthy country of Zaire wasn't even able to pay the soldiers who propped up Mobutu.

Back on topic, if the market is capable of producing a stable and productive society, then there is absolutely no point in opposing capitalism. Instead you should be working for the regulation of capitalism, unless you believe in that free market ****.

	19-07-2004 22:23									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer i dont get this... can't it be assumed that the workers do not have business administration and management skills? i mean, chances are, we're dealing with workers without even basic college educations. these people wouldn't know how to run a company.

They only don't have those skills because they don't need them in this system. That's what training is for.

	19-07-2004 22:24									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: As for the notion that dictatorships are more efficient than democracies, I suggest one take a good look at various third world dictatorships, as well as the Nazis and Fascists. By and large, the economies of dictatorships do not do well

We are discussing efficiency in terms of achieving desired goals, ie policy. In dictatorships, achieving the goals of the ruler is very efficient compared to democracy achieving the goals of the ruler (supposedly the people).

	19-07-2004 22:37									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: As for the notion that dictatorships are more efficient than democracies, I suggest one take a good look at various third world dictatorships, as well as the Nazis and Fascists. By and large, the economies of dictatorships do not do well We are discussing efficiency in terms of achieving desired goals, ie policy. In dictatorships, achieving the goals of the ruler is very efficient compared to democracy achieving the goals of the ruler (supposedly the people).

No. We aren't talking about achieving the goals of rulers (or corporations). We're talking about achieving the goals of society.

	19-07-2004 22:40									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Back on topic, if the market is capable of producing a stable and productive society, then there is absolutely no point in opposing capitalism. Instead you should be working for the regulation of capitalism, unless you believe in that free market ****.

Hmmmm... Unless regulation doesn't work. You have to have a true democracy, and if you did I don't think capitalism wouldn't last long.

	19-07-2004 22:42									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The goals of most non-personal dictatorships is the growth of the economy. The juntas in Brazil and Argentina, for example, thought themselves patriots saving their countries from chaos and economic crisis. They were largely spectacular failures.

AS, many workers have the capacity to manage. While it is a specialized skill, it can be taught and learned. It depends on the sophistication and level of consciousness of the workers. In the Russian Revolution, workers managed their factories and work places quite effectively at first (things changed during the Civil War for various reasons). After the leftist military coup in Peru in 1968 (?), however, when a sugar factory was turned over to the workers, they ended up going out of business because they stopped working hard (what a crime!!!) and started taking more pay and perks (the criminals!!! ). Because it was still a market economy, however, they were unable to compete with sugar factories in other countries.

Last edited by chegitz guevara on 19-07-2004 at 22:48

	19-07-2004 22:46									#70
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Hmmmm... Unless regulation doesn't work.

If I believed that, I'd be a libertarian. I strongly believe in regulation, for both market and command economies (a non-regulated command economy seems oxymoronic, though).

	19-07-2004 23:18									#71
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara In the Russian Revolution, workers managed their factories and work places quite effectively at first (things changed during the Civil War for various reasons).

There is a conflict between societies needs and the needs of the workers of the individual units. You can't just leave the workers to decide how much work they will do or to discipline themselves when there are urgent concerns of the overall society. You have to strike a balance. Unfortunately, in Russia the communists went from the extreme of allowing workers complete control to taking just about all control from them.

	19-07-2004 23:21									#72
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If I believed that, I'd be a libertarian. I strongly believe in regulation, for both market and command economies (a non-regulated command economy seems oxymoronic, though).

Regulation works better for the rulers than free market sillyness, but can only work for the people in special cases and only temporarily.

	19-07-2004 23:26									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: No. We aren't talking about achieving the goals of rulers (or corporations). We're talking about achieving the goals of society.

No we aren't, we are talking about efficiency of government systems. The desires of 'society' have nothing to do with that unless we talk about a democratic government.

quote: The goals of most non-personal dictatorships is the growth of the economy.

How do you have a non-personal dictatorship? Even the junta in Argentina had a personal component. Being supported by an elite in your position of power doesn't make it non-personal.

quote: In the Russian Revolution, workers managed their factories and work places quite effectively at first

Unfortunetly Stalin got to run the economy soon after the Civil War.

	19-07-2004 23:31									#74
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: No. We aren't talking about achieving the goals of rulers (or corporations). We're talking about achieving the goals of society. No we aren't, we are talking about efficiency of government systems. The desires of 'society' have nothing to do with that unless we talk about a democratic government.

We are talking about democratic govt. You keep talking about dictatorships though.

	19-07-2004 23:34									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: We are talking about democratic govt.

No, we are talking the efficiency of a democratic government system as a governmental system. Look back on Page 1, before you came into the picture. Dictatorship is also a governmental system.

	19-07-2004 23:43									#76
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: The goals of most non-personal dictatorships is the growth of the economy. How do you have a non-personal dictatorship? Even the junta in Argentina had a personal component. Being supported by an elite in your position of power doesn't make it non-personal.

Juntas typically treat the government like a corporation, rotating the head of government, with other members retiring, etc. Juntas are like the Board of Directors, and they have shown themselves more than willing to replace "CEO." Pinochet and Strosser were somewhat anachronistic in South America, harkening back to the days of the caudillo (personal strongman, like Somoza) while also trying to corporatize their governments. Not all juntas do, though. Nigerian juntas have typically been little more than various groups of thugs fleecing the state, until replaced by an alternative set of thugs, who then fleece the state.

This shouldn't be meant to diminish the impact of indiviudal people in positions of power. Just as Clinton and Bush are very different presidents, even though they represent the same class of people, Videla and Galtieri had different styles of ruling Argentina (the former was a screaming anti-Semite who believed that Jews were going to betray Argentina to the USSR). But just as Reagan and Clinton didn't necessarily run the government for their own personal benefit, neither do these managerial dictators (and I'd put most of the socialist dictators in this catagory) run their own countries for their own personal benefit. Some do, most didn't.

	19-07-2004 23:53									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Juntas typically treat the government like a corporation, rotating the head of government, with other members retiring, etc. Juntas are like the Board of Directors, and they have shown themselves more than willing to replace "CEO."

Then wouldn't that be an oligarchy rather than dicatatorship?

quote: neither do these managerial dictators (and I'd put most of the socialist dictators in this catagory) run their own countries for their own personal benefit.

Not speaking monetary benefit, but rather implimenting their own world view of how a country should look like. It echos the desire of the dictator for how country A should be governed.

	19-07-2004 23:57									#78
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Juntas typically treat the government like a corporation, rotating the head of government, with other members retiring, etc. Juntas are like the Board of Directors, and they have shown themselves more than willing to replace "CEO." Then wouldn't that be an oligarchy rather than dicatatorship?

Technically, perhaps.

quote: quote: neither do these managerial dictators (and I'd put most of the socialist dictators in this catagory) run their own countries for their own personal benefit. Not speaking monetary benefit, but rather implimenting their own world view of how a country should look like. It echos the desire of the dictator for how country A should be governed.

[/q]

Given the meager success rates of these states even by this measure, we'd still have to conclude that a dictaorship is a massively inefficient form of government.

	20-07-2004 00:10									#79
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: We are talking about democratic govt. No, we are talking the efficiency of a democratic government system as a governmental system. Look back on Page 1, before you came into the picture. Dictatorship is also a governmental system.

I would have pulled all of your teeth by now, so I'm not going to contribute anymore to your threadjack.

	20-07-2004 00:14									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Given the meager success rates of these states even by this measure, we'd still have to conclude that a dictaorship is a massively inefficient form of government.

Depends on who it is for. For the dictator, I'd imagine it'd be fairly efficient. He can get his policies enacted in a day or less. Compare that with how long and how bastardized laws are passed in the US.

	20-07-2004 00:58									#81
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I think someone has, once again, confused self interest with selfishness. A self interested individual is not one who would want a society where you could rip people off and get away with it easily, because that can easily impact him as well.

For god's sake, how many times do you have to be told that this is a ****ing collective action problem. It's the same reason why competition works to set prices.

I get sick of explaining this basic point to you lot. This must be the 1000th time.

	20-07-2004 01:26									#82
	Tired of ads?

There isn't even any difference between selfish and self-interest. A selfish person will not want to be ripped off either, but if he has the advantage over others he will be able to do the ripping off without being ripped off.

	20-07-2004 02:51									#83
	Got spare money?

The only difference is if you construe it as the distinction between being interested in what benefits yourself and having any kind of interest.

No one, least of all me, is saying that people are completely selfish. I've argued against this in previous threads. But market behaviour is virtually all self interested because that is what makes markets work to the extent that they do.

	20-07-2004 03:34									#84
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Agathon The only difference is if you construe it as the distinction between being interested in what benefits yourself and having any kind of interest.

Are you saying that being selfish can mean to have any kind of interest or being interested in your own benefit? One is economic rational the other is not. To me both terms mean economic rational. There is no difference in meaning. Conservatives just prefer the term self-interest.

	20-07-2004 03:43									#85
	Get a bigger avatar today!

No, only that followers of Ayn Rand often make the fallacious inference from "everything I do, I do because of an interest of mine" to "everything I do is self interested".

The inference is fallacious because I can have interests which have no bearing on my own welfare. For example, I could hope that the human race will still be around in 1000 years.

	20-07-2004 05:47									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: The inference is fallacious because I can have interests which have no bearing on my own welfare. For example, I could hope that the human race will still be around in 1000 years.

How do you define welfare? Certainly everyone acts in their self-interest in that they take the course of action that they believe will maximize their happiness. Either that or they're insane (in fact, the definition of a rational agent is one that attempts to maximize its utility function).

	20-07-2004 06:20									#87
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Agathon No, only that followers of Ayn Rand often make the fallacious inference from "everything I do, I do because of an interest of mine" to "everything I do is self interested". The inference is fallacious because I can have interests which have no bearing on my own welfare. For example, I could hope that the human race will still be around in 1000 years.

Your not clear with the distintion. I'm not getting you.

	20-07-2004 06:25									#88
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: The inference is fallacious because I can have interests which have no bearing on my own welfare. For example, I could hope that the human race will still be around in 1000 years. How do you define welfare? Certainly everyone acts in their self-interest in that they take the course of action that they believe will maximize their happiness. Either that or they're insane (in fact, the definition of a rational agent is one that attempts to maximize its utility function).

You can actually make yourself happy by making a sacrifice for someone. The idea of people acting in their own self-interest is simply an assumption that is made to make policy. I can chose to get gas on one side of the street because the price is lower and I can give to charity. As far as an economist is concerned I'm a rational agent and policy makers can rely on me acting so.

	20-07-2004 06:42									#89
	Tired of ads?

Wow, this got boring fast.

	20-07-2004 06:49									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: You can actually make yourself happy by making a sacrifice for someone.

So? You're still acting to maximize your utility function (your happiness), so it's self-interested.

quote: The idea of people acting in their own self-interest is simply an assumption that is made to make policy.

No, it's the definition of a rational agent. Only (some) insane people do not act in their perceived self-interest. This does not necessarily mean maximizing one's money.