20-07-2004 10:45									#91
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker 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.

Utility only comes from goods and services or something you can trade for them. What you're talking about isn't economics.

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker 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.

It's not insane. Most everyone does it occasionally.

And yes this got boring very fast.

	20-07-2004 12:14									#92
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

No they don't. Parents often sacrifice their own welfare for that of their children. The case of wills also invalidates your position since it expresses interests which a person cannot possibly hope to benefit from.

quote: Either that or they're insane (in fact, the definition of a rational agent is one that attempts to maximize its utility function).

That's a mindlessly idiotic definition. See... this is why people need philosophy.

	20-07-2004 14:38									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

skipping over the thread-jacks...

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin 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.

Well of course. If you have one group own something ("society" or, de facto, the state) and another group manage it (the workers more or less) then of course the people managing it have an incentive to grab money instead of investing long-term (since they'd basically be throwing the money down a whole) so you'd get under-capitalization. The problem gets solved if the people managing and owning a company are the same people, so if they spend the money on long-term investment rather than pocketing it, it remains their money.

quote: i dont get this... can't it be assumed that the workers do not have business administration and management skills?

It can't be assumed that shareholders in American companies have these skills either, and they hold ultimate power over the policy of corporations today. Hell, I'm SURE that replacing random investors with employees would result in a MASSIVE increase in the amount of useful knowledge about the company in the body that's ultimately responsible for how its run (the owners).

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

Well like I said before its silly to have workers manage state/"society" property since you get all kinds of inefficiency. What you need to do to maximize efficiency is have the owners/workers/managers be pretty much the same people so that their interests line up.

	20-07-2004 14:47									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Well of course. If you have one group own something ("society" or, de facto, the state) and another group manage it (the workers more or less) then of course the people managing it have an incentive to grab money instead of investing long-term (since they'd basically be throwing the money down a whole) so you'd get under-capitalization. The problem gets solved if the people managing and owning a company are the same people, so if they spend the money on long-term investment rather than pocketing it, it remains their money.

So you still get all the bad sides of capitalism. Now it will be one group of workers exploiting another one.

	20-07-2004 14:58									#95
	Get a bigger avatar today!

OK let me explain a useful economic concept called X-inefficiency (or agency problems). Basically its the problem that happens when people say "why the hell should I work hard when if I do other people gain for my hard work and I don't get ****." Or, in other words, how badly does the interest of people actually doing the work line up with the interests of those who will benefit from the work getting done.

Simple tought experiment so see which kind of economic system does the best at minimzing this kind of inefficiency (you're never going to eliminate it since people will always be lazy):

-Corporate Capitalism. The shareholders tell the CEO to work hard to make them rich, who tells the managers, who tell the workers. Now the managers' and CEO's interests don't line up exactly with the shareholders (despite massively-expensive stock option plans that attempt to make this happen) and the workers' interests don't line up with the managers (ie working really hard so their manager gets a promotion isn't on the top of their list of interests). Basically think of the bit in Office Space where the workers are told to think all the time about "Does This Help the Company?" but because their managers' interests don't line up with the shareholders and the workers' interests don't line up with the managers there's not much in the way of motivate to actually follow the slogan. Of course there's all kind of carrot/stick things to paper over the problem but they're still just ways of papering over the problem that that the worker wants to do isn't what the shareholder wants him to be doing.
In more extreme examples of x-inefficiency, (like me at my last job) you have workers actively trying to to sabotague the business they're working for (in my case was because I wasn't getting paid and because of visa complications that made it possible for me to be kept out of the country where I very very much wanted to be for months if I quit and other fun stuff along those lines), workers probably wouldn't do this in a worker-controlled company (unless they're idiots) because they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

-Command Economy. Command economy is even messier. It goes The People -> The State -> the company chief manager -> lower level management -> workers. That's an awful lot of steps to go from the people who benefit from work getting done to the people who actually have to do the work. I'm sure you know enough about the basics of command economies to know how inefficiency can creep in at every step.

Worker-controlled Companies. Well this one is a lot simplier. The people who do the work and the people who benefit from the work getting done are *gasp* exactly the same people (collectively of course so you still get some Free Rider problems). So if you work your ass off its you and your co-workers who benefit from it. That means that if someone is slacking off, everyone arround him are losing money because of it (not some investor a thousand miles away who nobody gives a **** about) and everyone around him has a direct incentive to get him to stop slacking off. Also people know that they're in their for the long haul since the company isn't going to close up shop and move to China in order to make investors more money, since the investors (the workers) would be out on the street if that happened so everyone has more of an incentive to be there for the long haul.

There are of course plenty of other kinds of inefficiency, but minimizing this kind is very very important.

	20-07-2004 15:05									#96
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: So you still get all the bad sides of capitalism. Now it will be one group of workers exploiting another one.

Depends what you mean by exploitation. The people doing the work are getting the profits, so in a narrow Marxian definition of exploitation, no exploitation is occuring. But also, keep in mind that this is just one part of the institutions that would be needed for a good economy (you'd also need various consumer co-ops and egalitarian financial institutions and well as Syndicalist labor unions), but at the very least Worker Capitalism (ie workers owning companies in an otherwise capitalist environment) is a big step up from what we have now.

	20-07-2004 15:19									#97
	Suffering from ads?

It is, sure, but that's not a democratic economy.

	20-07-2004 15:32									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel It is, sure, but that's not a democratic economy.

Of course not.

	20-07-2004 18:15									#99
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Nobody wants to talk about how Tito tried to do this kind of set up?

	20-07-2004 19:04									#100
	Increase Your PM Length

Oerdin: I do.

Boshko: it's important to point out, though, that although there are more "steps", more links in the chain, bigger systems enjoy the benefits of scale, and so does the entire economy. It is known that the efficiency of a complex system isn't necessarily at max when each and everyone of the parts of the systems in optimised. There is a general optimum,under which, individual components aren't necessarily at their optimum.

	20-07-2004 19:27									#101
	Tired of ads?

Boshko,

Society has to have some control over the work that is done, because it is a stakeholder. It consumes what is produced. While I strongly agree with you that workers need to have incentive, and that they should be organized in efficient groups based on the industry that they are in, I can still see that the interests of the workers will sometimes clash with that of society. A democratic govt is the best measure to give workers incentive and protect societies interests.

	20-07-2004 20:02									#102
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Agathon No they don't. Parents often sacrifice their own welfare for that of their children. The case of wills also invalidates your position since it expresses interests which a person cannot possibly hope to benefit from.

They do it because it makes them happier! Duh! They do it because they would rather have to outcome of "oh, I lose some stuff but my children gain some" than "they don't get the best stuff I can provide them, even though I have some more fun".

quote: That's a mindlessly idiotic definition. See... this is why people need philosophy.

No, that's the only meaningful definition. See any decent AI textbook.

	20-07-2004 20:05									#103
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Society has to have some control over the work that is done, because it is a stakeholder. It consumes what is produced.

Rather, individuals do, and they HAVE this control by deciding which products to by and which ones not to buy. In this case, no one is able to use undue power to provent others from doing what they want with their own property.

	20-07-2004 20:09									#104
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Society has to have some control over the work that is done, because it is a stakeholder. It consumes what is produced. Rather, individuals do, and they HAVE this control by deciding which products to by and which ones not to buy. In this case, no one is able to use undue power to provent others from doing what they want with their own property.

I was speaking in regards to the topic of the thread.

	20-07-2004 20:14									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

So am I. I was saying that society does have control over it, but through individuals. "Society" has no collective rights, individuals do.

	20-07-2004 20:17									#106
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker So am I. I was saying that society does have control over it, but through individuals. "Society" has no collective rights, individuals do.

This isn't a communism vs. capitalism thread. I was responding to Boshco whom supports worker capitalism of some form.

	20-07-2004 21:37									#107
	Got spare money?

I myself am ambivalent when it comes to market socialism.

Odin's views of market socialism is actually very close to libertarianism, the difference being that shareholders aren't the seat of power anymore, but the workers are. Yet, the extreme form of market socialism Odin advocates bears as much iniquity and oppression as any dire form of libertarianism, simply because nothing will prevent dominating companies to abuse the others, just like today.

Besides, workers can be as self-serving as capitalists. A company providing a public service can abuse just the same, whether its power stems from the shareholders or the workers. The power cuts in California would have happened just the same if Enron was a co-op.

OTOH, I am against a complete planification of the economic system, like Che seems to advocate, because I fear it kills individual imagination, and individual propension at raising efficiency (as in: producing more or better products for as many resources).


In fact, I think a balanced socialist system has to:
- ban shareholder-owned companies (duh)
- allow independent and competing co-ops in every aspect of the economy that is not vital for the economy.
- have a strongly regulated market with independant co-ops in vital sectors where competition has been shown as sustainable (food comes to mind)
- publicly own all companies that provide the basic needs of the economy (electricity, transportation...)
- allow some income variability, but offset it with a generous welfare system.

	20-07-2004 21:50									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The problem with co-ops is many (most?) of them are non-profits. This works well for the first generation of products but where does the money come from for the next generation of products? They only solution is to hold onto profits so you can reinvest them into the business but then you are accumulating profits just like the evil capitalists.

	20-07-2004 22:00									#109
	Remove this text

A fusion is possible. Older industries are built on a government basis, while new ones get a government investment, and are run by enterprising individuals, that also get royalties from the invention. After a period of time, and industry passes on to the "general" sector.

-Incomes will vary as much as by 10-15 times. I think that this is fair.

-The education system will be prepared to create the specialists needed for the planned economy, with a surplus. surplus trained proffesionals will work in lower skill jobs in the same field.

-Welfare shall be minimal, but education and healthcare should be free.

As the soviet experience has shown, you can trust people, but not too much. Particularly, a harsh outside auditing mechanism, that never existed in the SU, must be imposed.

	20-07-2004 22:06									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The problem with co-ops is many (most?) of them are non-profits. This works well for the first generation of products but where does the money come from for the next generation of products? They only solution is to hold onto profits so you can reinvest them into the business but then you are accumulating profits just like the evil capitalists.

Communists critisize profits because they are exploitive. As long as the workers own the means of production there is no exploitation. 'Profits' can fairly be reinvested or distributed outside of a class system.

	20-07-2004 22:09									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Azazel -Incomes will vary as much as by 10-15 times. I think that this is fair.

Why? You can motivate someone to do something if you buy them lunch as long as there is no one else to give them more. You don't have to pay them huge amounts of money.

	20-07-2004 22:11									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor - allow some income variability, but offset it with a generous welfare system.

Welfare sucks.

	20-07-2004 22:12									#113
	Increase Your PM Length

Get a job then.

	20-07-2004 22:14									#114
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: - ban shareholder-owned companies (duh)

I see this in all these socialist plans, but I wonder if it has been thought out at all. A lot of companies use shares to get others to invest in their company and provide money so that the company can get off the ground. Without shareholder-owned companies this will not happen. It'll be very difficult to get people to invest in companies if the main reason to lure them is gone. Then how does investment take place? If investment can't take place how do you get the items that only big companies can make (like computer parts, etc).

	20-07-2004 22:17									#115
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The problem with co-ops is many (most?) of them are non-profits. This works well for the first generation of products but where does the money come from for the next generation of products? They only solution is to hold onto profits so you can reinvest them into the business but then you are accumulating profits just like the evil capitalists.

Not quite. In capitalism, profits are partly kept for further investment, and partly given to shareholders. In socialism, profits (as in: the money the company gets for selling the products at higher prices than production costs) will partly be kept for further investment, and partly be used to raise wages / employ more people.

I don't see why a co-op couldn't be growth-oriented. Sure, many workers will want all the excess money in their pockets, but so do the shareholders. In both cases, it is up to the reasonable people to promote moderation. Or if moderation doesn't win, it should be up to the law.

	20-07-2004 22:18									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor
Odin's views of market socialism is actually very close to libertarianism, the difference being that shareholders aren't the seat of power anymore, but the workers are.[/q]

Nope, it's that only the workers are allowed to be shareholders. A libertarian would allow anyone to be a shareholder.

quote: Yet, the extreme form of market socialism Odin advocates bears as much iniquity and oppression as any dire form of libertarianism, simply because nothing will prevent dominating companies to abuse the others, just like today.

I find it amusing that you describe liberatarianism as "oppression"

	20-07-2004 22:21									#117
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: - ban shareholder-owned companies (duh) I see this in all these socialist plans, but I wonder if it has been thought out at all. A lot of companies use shares to get others to invest in their company and provide money so that the company can get off the ground. Without shareholder-owned companies this will not happen. It'll be very difficult to get people to invest in companies if the main reason to lure them is gone. Then how does investment take place? If investment can't take place how do you get the items that only big companies can make (like computer parts, etc).

Banks.
I am personally a big proponent of State-owned investment banks, which provide cheap loans upon estimating the business model.

Besides, those companies that require huge capital to begin may be directly started by the State, if they are of vital interest to the economy. A computer part factory could definitely fit this bill, if import was a problem.

	20-07-2004 22:23									#118
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I find it amusing that you describe liberatarianism as "oppression"

Libertarianism = the triumph of the strong over the weak. I can't see how it isn't synonymous of oppression. The only way to miss this obvious, is to believe that only a State can oppress.

	20-07-2004 22:24									#119
	Full PM-box? Change here!

If people cannot coerce others, how can there be oppression?

	20-07-2004 22:32									#120
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I am personally a big proponent of State-owned investment banks, which provide cheap loans upon estimating the business model.

We already have a massive number of banks. They obviously aren't enough. They may decide the business is dumb, but a Venture Capitalist pumps money into it, and it doesn't look so dumb after all.

quote: Besides, those companies that require huge capital to begin may be directly started by the State, if they are of vital interest to the economy. A computer part factory could definitely fit this bill, if import was a problem.

A state owned computer graphics card? I'd definetly buy the private alternative . Also, if you are going to go into little things like that most of the economy would be state run and semi-planned, which is what you wanted to avoid.