 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Inefficiency All the things you say are true, and all are automatically corrected by the market.
|
They aren't automatically corrected anymore than they were automatically correct in the first place. Assume there is a surplus. How many producers are going to cut back, and by how much? Where do you get automatic from. You have many people making many decision which affect the outcome, each with no knowledge of the other producers decisions.
quote:
Contrast this with what you would replace it with....a central planning committee who has to use blind guesswork to estimate future demand.
|
Yes, let's contrast. In our system a decsion is reached by well educated people on the proper amount ot production. There is no guess work as to what will be the total production of the system. It's planned.
quote:
With "the market" essentially being destroyed by your model, supply is arbitrary, and as has often been the case (Soviet five year plans), it misses the mark hugely.
|
In the soviet plans there were corruption. That's what caused the shortages, not the planning. Corruption was practically planned into the soviet system after Stalin's death. It was thought that if managers were able to exploit their workers political stability would be maintained. Sounds a lot like capitalism doesn't it?
quote:
Capitalism is far more efficient at resource allocation than anything that's come before it, and anything we've seen since.
|
It can be efficient at times at meeting it's goals. Those goals are set by the capitalists though. Similarly the planning is soviet russia was very successfull at meeting it's goals. As Che will tell you the economic growth of the USSR during the period of the revolution to the death of Stalin was the greatest economic growth of all time. So yes, they did quite well at producing. Of course they produced what they wanted to produce, much like the capitalists do. The capitalists do not want to produce housing for the homeless and health care for the uninsured, and the Soviets did not want to produce those goods that would have created a happier population, or at least happier in the way that you might consider. They did however, produce a whole hell of a lot of steel, and that meant lots of railroads, factories, and tanks.
I believe that planning can set different goals and meet those goals as well. There is no reason why a planned economy can not produce housing, health care, computers, and all sorts of things that many people would agree are the things that society and individuals want.
quote:
Incentive for Greed
You should have stopped at simply "Incentive" and yes, there's plenty of that in a capitalist system.
Again, any time someone RISKS their capital for a productive enterprise, there is a premium to be paid. If you don't like the premium, then don't use the capital, but you cannot cry foul when the owners OF that capital want compensation for assuming all the risk and responsibility.
|
Again, I'm not talking about compensation of risk. The capitalists are paid beyond that. Just compensating people for risk is not incentive at all. You must go beyond that.
quote:
As I have pointed out before, the risk part doesn't vanish just because the state owns everything. Decisions about how and where to allocate state-owned capital will be made in EXACTLY the same fashion, and enterprises that are seen as bad risks or incapable of supporting themselves profitably will be shunned, in favor of better risks/more profitable ventures. That's the way it is when you own capital. There are some form whom greed plays a major role, but that would be akin to me saying that EVERY communist on 'poly wants to enslave me and steal my house. So far, that's only you and Che...
|
What you are describing in a communist system is not as likely. The incurred costs will be considered as well as the benefits of the change. This is different from capitalism, because with that system the costs are not considered. It's quite possible for a brand new factory to be obselete before it's even built. Possibly it's more efficient for it to never be used, but we can never know that since the cost of building that factory is never facored into that decision.
quote:
Poverty and Classism
Yes, both exist, and the divide is growing in America between the rich and the poor. In the same breath, America has created more millionaires in her two hundred year history than any other nation on the planet, and capitalism has brought about a higher standard of living for a tremendous number of people worldwide. The only lines you have to stand in in a capitalist country are checkout lines. Contrast that to the Glories of the Russian Revolution where people waited for days at a time in the breadlines, often to reurn home empty handed. And yet, you would have us believe that this is the system that will save us from poverty?
Also, do not be so foolish as to assume that EVEN IF you equalized incomes tomorrow, there would not be different strata of people in your paradise. If not with incomes, then it would manifest itself in other, and probably more sinister ways (party bosses lording their power to break up families over the "peasants" of your utopia, party membership being withheld as a punishment, former capitalists watched more closely than the rest as likely dissidents, and targets for persecution. Oh yes...there would be class differences. Much darker ones than we have now.
Nationalism and War
HARDLY a thing unique to capitalism, and in fact, having NOTHING whatsoever to do with the paradigm.
Unsustainable growth and pollution
Again, as compared to what? The Utopia you preach about? Would that be the same utopia Russia tried to found? The one that sacrificed tens of millions for rapid economic development, essentially turning whole segments of her population into slaves? The same utopia that virtually destroyed the Aral sea and left putrid stains all over eastern europe that easily rival (and often surpass) the very worst pollution caused by the capitalist-oriented west? Compared to the alternative, we're not doing too bad AND we're worlds more productive.
|
You've caused all of these problems with your system. This is our solution to your problems. The way I see it you can either fix your own system, or you don't have much to say about it. You don't think we can fine, but you need to worry about your own system, and what it can and can not do.
quote:
Job Satisfaction
Was actually very surprised to see this on your list, given that you have expressed the desire to FORCE people to work at a job, with no mention of taking their preferences or desires into account at all.
|
Actually, I've implied that we would take their preferences into consideration, now haven't I. Try to stay out of your comic book world.
quote:
Here's a little tip for you. In capitalist-oriented America, if you love dogs, you can study to be a veterinarian, and do well at it. If you love numbers, you can study accounting and do well at that. In Kidatopia, the party bosses tell you where to work, and this is supposed to INCREASE job satisfaction somehow? Please elaborate!
|
 This fits your full employment model. Really it's like you have a little capitalist utopia in your own mind and that's all you see. No, you can't just be what ever you want to be. You have to have talent, resources, and a market.
quote:
Productivity
Not only does this point utterly refute the inefficiency point above,
|
No it doesn't.
quote:
but it also assumes a closed economic system in which no innovation is occuring.
|
No it doesn't.
quote:
In those cases, you are quite correct, however, the size of the economic pie has been growing nonstop since this country was founded. It shows no signs of stopping. Innovation happens every day, leading to a staggering array of new products. Products that need to be built, maintained, and improved upon further.
|
Which has led to long run world unemployment increases.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
You have to have talent, resources, and a market.
Yes. You say that like it's a bad thing. Actually, you have to have a market, even in a command economy. One of the other two is all that's required. If you have both, you're lucky, but you can succeed with just one of those two (talent or resources).
Yes, let's contrast. In our system a decsion is reached by well educated people on the proper amount ot production. There is no guess work as to what will be the total production of the system. It's planned.
Ahhh. Which of course explains why command economies of the past have been such resounding successes, yes?
I suppose that also explains why China's economy only took off after it began embracing the ways of the...dare I say it...free market? Intriguing conclusion with no basis in fact.
Similarly the planning is soviet russia was very successfull at meeting it's goals. As Che will tell you the economic growth of the USSR during the period of the revolution to the death of Stalin was the greatest economic growth of all time.
They did not meet their goals in any of the five year plans, and yes. I acknowledge the "greatest expansion of all time" occured in russia. And to think, it only enslaved a few scores of millions of people and cost nearly that many lives! I thought you cared about more than the bottom line...clearly, if you advocate this approach and hold it up as an example, you have more blood on your hands than any capitalist you have EVER accused.
Again, I'm not talking about compensation of risk. The capitalists are paid beyond that. Just compensating people for risk is not incentive at all. You must go beyond that.
Incorrect. That's what the "Risk Premium" IS....compensation valued according to risk. Also known as that most terrible of hobgoblins to your mind, "interest" (gasp! the horror!). But now you're saying that's okay, are you? Interesting shift of opinion in Camp Kidicious.
I believe that planning can set different goals and meet those goals as well. There is no reason why a planned economy can not produce housing, health care, computers, and all sorts of things that many people would agree are the things that society and individuals want.
Except that it's never happened in either of the two major commie revolutions, and thus, has not the first shred of supporting evidence on a large scale.
You've caused all of these problems with your system. This is our solution to your problems. The way I see it you can either fix your own system, or you don't have much to say about it. You don't think we can fine, but you need to worry about your own system, and what it can and can not do.
True. As is true of ANY system. Yours included. Is it impolite to suggest, however, that in a largely democratic society, the solution is not to unbuild everything that has been made wholesale, for the sake of your (frankly, quite bizzare) sense of fairness, and opt instead for incremental changes to the system in order to fix it and effect change?
The incurred costs will be considered as well as the benefits of the change. This is different from capitalism, because with that system the costs are not considered. Untrue. No capitalist ever risked his capital without considering the costs. If there ever was one, he did not remain a capitalist for long.
Even on the state level, there will be some accounting of this risk. There must be if the state is to survive. And when there is, by your own definition, the state will then become the exploiter of the people. Your system does nothing but institutionalize that which you claim to despise.
Great progress.
Actually, I've implied that we would take their preferences into consideration, now haven't I. Try to stay out of your comic book world.
Actually, no you haven't. You might recall this little beauty (your quote)
Then we will have to force them to work and relocate. We can't say for how long. Of course, this has some good and bad points.
Sounds a LOT like slavery, doesn't it? Ahhhh, how you must salivate for your vision of the "land of the free."
-=Vel=-
Last edited by Velociryx on 17-12-2004 at 08:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I am compensated because MY stuff had a hand in the creation of whatever YOU built! I am paid a premium because I'm risking something that you are not.
-=Vel=-
From Kid:
And THAT is not work. So someone has to work so that you get that compensation. THAT is what I'm talking about. You don't want people to be compensated for their work, but you want to ***** about us taking what you worked for.
Untrue. It's work by proxy. If the use of MY stuff enables YOU to create something better or faster than before, or if it enables you to create something you would not have been able to create WITHOUT my stuff, then I am entitled to a cut, because without me, you'd have nothing, or significantly less than you do with me.
My stuff has a hand in your creations. To quote you, it's that simple.
You can either choose to pay my premium and have greater productivity, or not. I'm not forcing you. I'm merely offering you the opportunity. If you don't take it, I'm willing to bet someone else will.
-=Vel=- |
And when we all decide that we don't want to pay, then what will you say?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
If by "keep the fruits of your labor" you mean to include labor that I participated in by proxy, by virtue of lending my capital to your cause, then I vehemently disagree, because at that point, you're not just keeping the fruits of your labor, you're keeping the fruits of mine too.
If you could have done said work WITHOUT my labor, you would have.
That you needed my capital suggests, rather strongly, that I bring something to the table in this equation.
You don't see the need to compensate me for my contribution. You somehow see this as "unfair" EVEN THO, without my contribution, you would have nothing, or significantly less than you do WITH my contribution.
And yet, because this "isn't work" by your esteemed and oft-changing definition, it has no value.
So tell me, Kid, why'd you wanna borrow my stuff to begin with, if it is without value and utterly non-contributory?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
Wow, this is the exact same argument is was having with Spiffor in the same thread. It's unbelievable how circular this is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Of course it's valuable to me. Otherwise I would not pay for it. Again, the question is how valuable is it.
Yes...that IS the question. And since we know that value is not universal, but in the eye of the beholder, ONLY YOU can say how valuable it is TO YOU.
If the price I'm offering it at is LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO what you value it at, then you'll take the offer and go about your business. If not, then you will look elsewhere, but IF YOU AGREE to my price, then it is understood that you agree to my valuation of it. If you didn't, then its value would exceed its utility to you, and you wouldn't take my price.
End of story, and welcome to the dark side. With the admission that it has value to you, you have just admitted that NOT compensating me for it is unfair.
I knew you'd come around!
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-12-2004 06:10
|