 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
But then you have politicians making business decisions instead of investors. Examine the last Asian economic crisis to see why politicians do a poor job of alocating ecomic resources. They tend to funnel money to their friends and cronies plus politics tends to over power common sense. The company is losing money and needs to cut costs but the politician wants to reduce unemployment so he can get reelected. Will the politician let the company lay off workers and restructor so it can once again be profitable or will he use his influence to force them to hire unnecisary additional workers? History shows the politicians tend towards the later. |
To which I could reply:
"In capitalism, you have speculators making business decisions instead of entrepreneurs. Examine the last tech economic crisis to see why speculators do a poor job at allocating economic resources"... I could also tell you of many viable companies that have been pillaged by their new owners, thus being forced by the shareholders to close down.
Point is: I am perfectly aware a Socialist system will not and cannot be the epitome of efficiency in allocating resources. Neither is shareholder capitalism btw. As Imran pointed out, shareholders are a necessity in current capitalism in order to get capital. But (this is my interpretation now), it certainly doesn't imply that they're any good in managing the company.
I personally believe that highest efficiency can be found with an "enlightened despot" at the helm of the company, i.e. someone who wishes the company to be viable, who uses his power remorselessly in this regard, and who knows how the company works. A hard-working entrepreneur would be the most efficient boss in a company.
The "power to the entrepreneur" doesn't exist, neither in corporate capitalism, nor in socialism. And actually, I don't think enlightened despotism is the best system (everything being taken into account), despite being the most efficient. That's because it often comes with a mini-hitler behaviour, where there is very little respect toward the workers, and because it is a highly personalized political system (i.e a short lived one).
Socialism bears inefficiencies in the allocation of resources, similar to capitalism. The most important question, to me, is which one will bring a better life to the people. And socialism (democratic socialism, as I said I can't stress it enough) is the one by far, IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
you could also have the coops pay for the employees retirement
so if you invest in your companies future, you will have a good retirement (likely), if you don't, and your company goes under, you will have a bad retirement
Jon miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I really like the idea of giving up the stock market and going to employee owned coops
te only concern with that is employees looking to the companies long term future, but that can be somewat fixed by their living being dependent on it
but of course, more successful Coops will pay their employees more, so there is reason to make your Coop successful now, and in the future
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
If state corporations can manufacture missiles equaling in quality and often better than private ones, I see no reason why they couldn't manufacture a Graphics card, TV, shampoo, etc. |
Well, this post reminds me of Sikander's. The State owns missile factories because it demands missiles, just like Sikander's community owns a hospoital because it demands health service. Since the State uses what it produces, it makes a good job at producing it. I don't expect Statesmen pouring money in a high tech 3D graphic card or in a uber-shampoo, simply because the State doesn't use it (or doesn't need any technological progress in this area).
The main problem of the USSR was its inability to create a consumer economy. There are so many different products a consumer might want, which in turn need gazillions of subproducts to be made, that a planned economy can't do the job properly.
Especially since the many useless things a consumer might want (such as, blech, computer games) cannot be conciliated with the imperatives of efficiency the planification lives for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
the system keeps them down
because they aren't profitable for the people who matter to the government, the rich
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
quote:
Well, this post reminds me of Sikander's. The State owns missile factories because it demands missiles, just like Sikander's community owns a hospoital because it demands health service. Since the State uses what it produces, it makes a good job at producing it. I don't expect Statesmen pouring money in a high tech 3D graphic card or in a uber-shampoo, simply because the State doesn't use it (or doesn't need any technological progress in this area). |
Unrelated. We've had state Chemical plants, state plastics plants etc. It can be done/
quote:
The main problem of the USSR was its inability to create a consumer economy. There are so many different products a consumer might want, which in turn need gazillions of subproducts to be made, that a planned economy can't do the job properly.
Especially since the many useless things a consumer might want (such as, blech, computer games) cannot be conciliated with the imperatives of efficiency the planification lives for. |
The problem was not the inability. The problem was that the leaders didn't want to. That atmosphere was festered by an enviroment of cover-ups, and backscraching of the middle echelon.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
quote:
Indeed. The problem with totally planned economies, even with a democratic government is that it really isn't as good in deciding what people ACTUALLY want compared to the market. After all in democracy the majority win in deciding what to make. In the market, a good which only 5% of the people enjoy may make a company profitable and continue to produce it. |
That's not completely true. A modern market actually creates demand for things that were not demanded, fueled by the ad-brand-PR industry. In any case "totally planned" is very vague. You could have a company that manufactures "consumer goods of type X". The fact that it's production is part of a government plan, doesn't mean that it cannot produce specifical products.
And here we come to, perhaps, the most crucial aspect, The ad-brand force. While it's quite obvious that it's wasteful to the overall system ( people buying lifestyle instead of product, higher prices paid for nothing, countless manhours of models, photographers, copywriters, wasted print ink, god knows what else ) It's also a powerful tool, that assists it's holder to beat the competition, so that the one with the bigger PR machine ( more waste) wins. This is an inherent inutility in evolutionary systems, in general, and in a market economy, in particular however the fact that it's doesn't maximize general utility doesn't mean that it's not viable in a system of internal competition.
So, in order to compete on the global market, a necessity to create a high living standard, or a decent prospect of one (*) that would make the population support the ( in our case, socialist ) economic model, one has to approve, at least de facto, of branding as a tool to compete, in the global market. However, a dillema arises:
a) By following a generic branding strategy. However, this makes our operation "sin" in the same sin.
b) By pointing out that this product is socialist, and pointing out to the superiority of that product as proof of the superiority of socialism. This, of course, threatens to make socialism itself a brand. (As those dreaded che guevara T-shirts. )
c) By sticking to pointing out the advantages in our product, and attacking the bullshit of competitors.
I believe that C is the way to go.
(*)- Many capitalist systems, esp. the less welfare oriented, as well as the golden day of command economy dictatorships, have proven that this can often be enough to make the public content with an existing economic model.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-07-2004 22:32
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. 
|