Is Natural Regulation the Key to Sustainable Economic Systems?

[pgsleep]

self-sustained socialism regulated naturally? (technical definition of 'socialism').. anyone else believe in natural paradigms?

although this post is meant to instigate a debate, please refrain from playing devils advocate too excessively... thanks!

 

[Mk]

I don't understand your question, pgsleep.

I'd say what capitalism comes down to is the individual sanctity of property. Whoever is the property owner gets to decide what is done with it. In socialism "your" property is subject to the rights of the community you are a part of.

This is extended to the means of production.

 

[DaveC426913]

self-sustained socialism regulated naturally? (technical definition of 'socialism').. anyone else believe in natural paradigms?

although this post is meant to instigate a debate, please refrain from playing devils advocate too excessively... thanks!

I read the post title as Re: "laissez-faire capitalization", only to find I was mistaken.

Or was I?

 

[AeroFunk]

Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. It is not socialism, so I am confused by the title of your thread and the content of your post. Could you please clarify your point. That said let me try to respond to your post.

I don't think socialism can be natural, that is, without violence or coercion. It necessarily involves communal ownership of the means of production, but while it may be communal ownership in law, in fact someone or group will be making decisions as to how it is used, and they have an incentive to use to further their private interests. Socialism involves forcefully taking property from some person or group of people and redistributing it to others, there doesn't seem to be anything natural about this to me, it requires a some sort of organized and planed human action to accomplish. I would use the word natural to mean unplanned and uncoordinated human action. Regulation can be a form of taxation, it is rules as to how you are are allowed to use your property that may impose a cost on you while maybe benefiting others, but it also doesn't seem to be natural.

(btw, I'm a big believer in the benefits of capitalism, for both moral and utilitarian reasons, so if your arguing on behalf of socialism I won't be playing devil's advocate, I really believe this stuff!)

 

[cesiumfrog]

Socialism involves forcefully taking property from some person or group of people and redistributing it to others, there doesn't seem to be anything natural about this to me, it requires a some sort of organized and planed human action to accomplish.

Whereas capitalism involves forcefully preventing groups of people from naturally accessing resources that some person has organised exclusivity to?

Sure, I would agree that capitalism seems to have proven more motivating than communism, but some degree of socialism is necessary if only to force about some fairness. Violence and genocide are what is natural, and property (contrastingly) is an artificially imposed concept.

 

[bleedblue1234]

Whereas capitalism involves forcefully preventing groups of people from naturally accessing resources that some person has organised exclusivity to?

Sure, I would agree that capitalism seems to have proven more motivating than communism, but some degree of socialism is necessary if only to force about some fairness. Violence and genocide are what is natural, and property (contrastingly) is an artificially imposed concept.

Huh?

Violence and genocide natural

 

[russ_watters]

Um, that's basically a paraphrase of Hobbes and his concept of the "State of nature".

 

[pgsleep]

to speak to the notion of natural paradigms... carbon life is brutal. "whether beasts devour saints or saints devour beasts what's nourishment for one, is the others affliction."

 

[mheslep]

...Violence and genocide are what is natural, and property (contrastingly) is an artificially imposed concept.

So you say, and Hobbes. I say that's pure invention.

 

[mheslep]

Sure, I would agree that capitalism seems to have proven more motivating than communism, but some degree of socialism is necessary if only to force about some fairness...

Start with a group where everyone lives in huts, has the same small plot of land. Some work the land hard everyday, improving their yields daily. Others are lazy, or just indifferent, and fair not as well. The collectivist comes down the road and takes from the productive, and gives to the lazy or indifferent. Now what is is the fair part of that tale?

 

[DaveC426913]

Start with a group where everyone lives in huts, has the same small plot of land. Some work the land hard everyday, improving their yields daily. Others are lazy, or just indifferent, and fair not as well. The collectivist comes down the road and takes from the productive, and gives to the lazy or indifferent. Now what is is the fair part of that tale?

Oversimplification: Your tale presumes that those who do not fare as well as I do so because they are lazy and/or indifferent, biasing us against their plight.

I could just as easily posit that they do not fare as well because a tornado wiped out their crop and spared mine.

Still so unfair to distribute?

 

[madness]

A more apt analogy would be to start with people who are born into different social groups and have (statistically) low chance of achieving outside of the group they are born into, and then redistribute things to allow people the same opportunities.

 

[CRGreathouse]

A more apt analogy would be to start with people who are born into different social groups and have (statistically) low chance of achieving outside of the group they are born into, and then redistribute things to allow people the same opportunities.

And now you're biasing us in the other direction. (Hint: efficiency tradeoffs in redistribution.)

 

[russ_watters]

Oversimplification: Your tale presumes that those who do not fare as well as I do so because they are lazy and/or indifferent, biasing us against their plight.

I could just as easily posit that they do not fare as well because a tornado wiped out their crop and spared mine.

Still so unfair to distribute?

Yes.

 

[Nan]

Yes.

Why?

 

[mheslep]

A more apt analogy would be to start with people who are born into different social groups and have (statistically) low chance of achieving outside of the group they are born into, and then redistribute things to allow people the same opportunities.

That is not a more apt case, it is simply another case.

 

[Astronuc]

Start with a group where everyone lives in huts, has the same small plot of land. Some work the land hard everyday, improving their yields daily. Others are lazy, or just indifferent, and fair not as well. The collectivist comes down the road and takes from the productive, and gives to the lazy or indifferent. Now what is is the fair part of that tale?

Oversimplification: Your tale presumes that those who do not fare as well as I do so because they are lazy and/or indifferent, biasing us against their plight.

I could just as easily posit that they do not fare as well because a tornado wiped out their crop and spared mine.

Still so unfair to distribute?

Be careful about comparing apples and oranges.

In the case cited by mheslep - the disparity is due to the differences in industry applied by the people - some are diligent and hard working others not.

In the case cited by DaveC - the disparity is due to a some natural (beyond human control) event.

If the redistribution is by consent (mutual consent) of the participants, then it is fair. If however the redistribution is forced or coerced, that is not fair, and certainly not in the case cited by mheslep.

In economic theory, one's hard work or diligence is supposed to be 'rewarded' in some measure by profit.

 

[mheslep]

Oversimplification: Your tale presumes that those who do not fare as well as I do so because they are lazy and/or indifferent, biasing us against their plight.

I could just as easily posit that they do not fare as well because a tornado wiped out their crop and spared mine.

I acknowledge people fail or have hard times through no fault of their own. There are also those that grew wealthy by doing absolutely nothing (legal or productive).

 

[madness]

It is more apt because it corresponds more closely to the real world.

 

[mheslep]

It is more apt because it corresponds more closely to the real world.

In other words, it's true because you say it's true.

 

[Nan]

Be careful about comparing apples and oranges.

In the case cited by mheslep - the disparity is due to the differences in industry applied by the people - some are diligent and hard working others not.

In the case cited by DaveC - the disparity is due to a some natural (beyond human control) event.

If the redistribution is by consent (mutual consent) of the participants, then it is fair. If however the redistribution is forced or coerced, that is not fair, and certainly not in the case cited by mheslep.

In economic theory, one's hard work or diligence is supposed to be 'rewarded' in some measure by profit.

And here is how we got in trouble and the title of the OP comes into the conversation. Your last sentence is how it *should* be applied but became distorted by Laissez-faire capitalism through manipulative processes that rewarded fewer. The wealth and growth wasn't wealth at all as over the last 10 or so years the dollar declined 17%. Financial "innovation" replaced real productivity and decline of the dollar. The earned single-digit profit not enough to satisfy the frenzied market players which then evolved into an increasingly opaque market with a high number of 'passive' investors from 401Ks to provide never ending liquidity.

It is all about distribution of resources and how those resources are utilized. No man is an island and can exist without the skill, labor, productivity of others in our modern societies.

 

[Astronuc]

And here is how we got in trouble and the title of the OP comes into the conversation. Your last sentence is how it *should* be applied but became distorted by Laissez-faire capitalism through manipulative processes that rewarded fewer. The wealth and growth wasn't wealth at all as over the last 10 or so years the dollar declined 17%. Financial "innovation" replaced real productivity and decline of the dollar. The earned single-digit profit not enough to satisfy the frenzied market players which then evolved into an increasingly opaque market with a high number of 'passive' investors from 401Ks to provide never ending liquidity.

It is all about distribution of resources and how those resources are utilized. No man is an island and can exist without the skill, labor, productivity of others in our modern societies.

Well it's a matter of sharing and cooperation for mutual benefit. Like ants or termites who cooperate in large colonies. Or schools of fish or pods of whales - each not taking too much - and collectively not taking too much.

Then there is a matter of stewarship. If one harvests trees or fish, then one needs to not overdo it and makes sure the stock is replenished.

 

[madness]

Which part of what I said isn't true? The part where people are born into different social backgrounds? Or the part where people are statistically unlikely to achieve outwith their social background?

 

[DaveC426913]

I acknowledge people fail or have hard times through no fault of their own. There are also those that grew wealthy by doing absolutely nothing (legal or productive).

Which is why you can't make such a ridiculously oversimplified scenario - then ask whether it's fair.

It is a question in the form of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" in the sense that it sets the parameters within the question - forcing an answer on the respondent.

 

[Galteeth]

You guys are using really broad terms (like "capitalism", "socialism" "natural") without giving really precisie definitions. It seems to me that in these kinds of debates, a lot of the disagreement stems from different contextual meanings people apply to words.

 

[mheslep]

Which part of what I said isn't true? The part where people are born into different social backgrounds? Or the part where people are statistically unlikely to achieve outwith their social background?

That wasn't my point. You're arbitrarily setting the baseline to groups with lower social background (lower since they have to climb), and then without doing anything to show that this is the case calling it more 'apt'. I call it something that exists, yes, but stop there.

Or more concisely from CRC:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2343629&postcount=13

 

[mheslep]

Which is why you can't make such a ridiculously oversimplified scenario - then ask whether it's fair.

It is a question in the form of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" in the sense that it sets the parameters within the question - forcing an answer on the respondent.

The oversimplification came https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2277989&postcount=5" when it was simply asserted that redistribution was fairer, with no qualifiers. The time to jump in with objections to the ridiculous was back then. I purposefully chose a simplification (huts) to show, in response to that example, that for many (not all) redistribution is clearly not fair. And here's something that does apply as an absolute: redistribution always requires a loss in efficiency.

 

[madness]

I said that this analogy was more apt than the analogy where people have huts and lazy ones don't progress. Poor people are not generally poor because they are lazy, they are poor because it is difficult to break out of the background you are born into. Poorer people typically work doing manual labour in factories etc, so in what way are they working less hard than someone who owns a factory or works in an office? The difference is that rich people own the means of production.

 

[arildno]

I don't understand your question, pgsleep.

I'd say what capitalism comes down to is the individual sanctity of property. Whoever is the property owner gets to decide what is done with it. In socialism "your" property is subject to the rights of the community you are a part of.

This is extended to the means of production.

Why should private property be sacrosanct?

The right to ACQUIRE property might be sacred if you like, but not necessarily the property you DO have.

For example, the system of fines as punishments requires the forced confiscation of somebody's property, and honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Nan]

The oversimplification came https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2277989&postcount=5" when it was simply asserted that redistribution was fairer, with no qualifiers. The time to jump in with objections to the ridiculous was back then. I purposefully chose a simplification (huts) to show, in response to that example, that for many (not all) redistribution is clearly not fair. And here's something that does apply as an absolute: redistribution always requires a loss in efficiency.

Redistribution ALWAYS requires a loss in efficiency. I'm not sure that applies totally to social systems. Allow me an example. A child who would remain uneducated if the society did not provide for education through the means of taxation. They would likely be less productive in adulthood, more likely to become a revenue drain or provide less in future tax revenues, etc. than if that child got a useful, good education and became productive as an adult. Right? Its a positive feedback mechanism which requires a redistribution to accomplish.