- #211
TheStatutoryApe
- 296
- 4
How so?Smurf said:Yes, of course. Well, maybe not *I* (actually definitely not me, I'm pretty well off on account of my family) but more people would have more freedom of choice, yes.
8910
How so?Smurf said:Yes, of course. Well, maybe not *I* (actually definitely not me, I'm pretty well off on account of my family) but more people would have more freedom of choice, yes.
Well it wouldn't help me any, I'm shamelessly taking loads of money from my parents to pay for my education. But not everyone has that financial aid, and often times people sink themselves into debt trying to pay for it. Even more limiting if someone has a baby or other relative to take care of. This is touching on education alone. Do you seriously think this is the most freedom of choice people could ever get?TheStatutoryApe said:How so?
I don't entirely get what you're saying here...Smurf said:Well it wouldn't help me any, I'm shamelessly taking loads of money from my parents to pay for my education. But not everyone has that financial aid, and often times people sink themselves into debt trying to pay for it. Even more limiting if someone has a baby or other relative to take care of. This is touching on education alone. Do you seriously think this is the most freedom of choice people could ever get?
Oh right, talking about products, I don't know. In many forms of anarchism (and communism) it would be entirely localised. You could get a different product just by going to the next town.TheStatutoryApe said:If there was no private ownership of the means of production why would the community allow for competition between providers of product? Wouldn't that be a waste of time and resources that could better be alocated else where? Just let one operation come up with the product that is needed and a lot the man power and resources that would go toward competition in a capitalist model toward other things. That would seem the logical solution to me for the anarchistic model you are advocating as well as communism. So where are the choices? It looks to me like they disappear in both of these models.
Imagine if Windows really had a monopoly and it was the only OS available to use...Smurf said:Oh right, talking about products, I don't know. In many forms of anarchism (and communism) it would be entirely localised. You could get a different product just by going to the next town.
If your talking about nationalised production like in Cuba or something, then yeah I guess there would be fewer brands. But I don't really see any real practical reason why you would need any more. You could have 1 brand of say, organic tomatoes, and then non-organic tomatoes, and then specially GM spliced tomatoes with fingernails sticking out of them for that "other" crowd. Why do you need 10 brands of the same product with pretty much the same ingredients?
I'm assuming that "windows" was a joke. okay, I'm imagining there's an OS monopoly in a socialist-like country, what's the problem?TheStatutoryApe said:Imagine if Windows really had a monopoly and it was the only OS available to use...
What I mean is without choice of "brands" or "designs" you're stuck with the "choice" that has been made by the rest of the people in your community, even if they are too ignorant of the possibilities to make an informed choice. Consider the US elections... You are now stuck with the Bush of OSs.Smurf said:Oh! Come on! You can't take a capitalist scenario and apply it to a non-capitalist enviroment. That's like saying "Imagine if monsanto really had monopoly and it was the only company experimenting with the gene code."
of course it could happen. But it happens here too. There are lots of stuff that I can't buy here that I wish I could. Because no one else wants to. Everyone buys the sugar-filled synthesized easy-bake-oven crap these days. So that's the only thing companies sell. I'm stuck with the 'choice' that has been made by the rest of the people in my community. And yet there is almost no way I can change this.TheStatutoryApe said:What I mean is without choice of "brands" or "designs" you're stuck with the "choice" that has been made by the rest of the people in your community, even if they are too ignorant of the possibilities to make an informed choice. Consider the US elections... You are now stuck with the Bush of OSs.
Anttech said:We really don't have that much choice, and as these huge corps get bigger and bigger we are going to have less and less choice...
If there are types of food that you want but can't get that means there is a market there to be tapped. If it's just a market of a handful of people you may not have much hope excepting that a good grocery store do what they ought to by finding what you want and supplying it in order to intice you to shop at their store. If there is a decent market then someone, possibly even you, could open a store that caters to it. The consumer and the business owner both win. And young college students who need jobs win too since there is now a larger job market.Smurf said:of course it could happen. But it happens here too. There are lots of stuff that I can't buy here that I wish I could. Because no one else wants to. Everyone buys the sugar-filled synthesized easy-bake-oven crap these days. So that's the only thing companies sell. I'm stuck with the 'choice' that has been made by the rest of the people in my community. And yet there is almost no way I can change this.
I don't see why it would be any worse, and I think it could quite possibly be improved by a command economy that made sure several choices were available to people.
It's plausible but a command economy generally isn't very dynamic and responsive to consumer needs and demands.Smurf said:Yes, and why couldn't a command economy couldn't provide these options too?
hmmm okay. and what do you base that statement on?TheStatutoryApe said:It's plausible but a command economy generally isn't very dynamic and responsive to consumer needs and demands.
Smurf said:hmmm okay. and what do you base that statement on?
the problem with your "common sense" townsend, is that it's too common and not enough sense.Townsend said:Common sense perhaps?
Smurf said:the problem with your "common sense" townsend, is that it's too common and not enough sense.
This is the common exageration of inflexible "command economies".TheStatutoryApe said:It relies on the central planning body to predict trends in supply and demand which historically has been shown to not work out so well. They fix their numbers and put their plan into action but something goes wrong and the plan barely limps along or they have to go back to the drawing board and rework the plan while the economy and the people wait for them patiently, or perhaps not so patiently.
Smurf said:This whole bogus that the government can't do it equally well is completely unfounded.
If it's as obvious as you imply it is then why don't you show me these mountains of "Empirical evidence" you have. Where's the problem?Townsend said:Reality doesn't mean much to you does it Smurf?
Smurf said:If it's as obvious as you imply it is then why don't you show me these mountains of "Empirical evidence" you have. Where's the problem?
Maybe you should point me towards it then. Give an explanation - try to make a case, instead of just pointing me towards generic google searches. All you've said is "I don't trust the government" which doesn't mean a whole lot to me.Townsend said:The mountians of empirial evidence are everywhere...the only problem is your refusal to see it...
Smurf said:Maybe you should point me towards it then. Give an explanation - try to make a case, instead of just pointing me towards generic google searches. All you've said is "I don't trust the government" which doesn't mean a whole lot to me.
Townsend, a command economy is NOT a free market. It is not subject to the same rules.Townsend said:Why don't you explain how this command economy is suppose to know where to set prices and how much of a certain good it should produce. It is not correct to present a theory with NO evidence supporting it and then demand I prove it false and then when I show a counter example that you don't agree with you ask me to prove it and so on...pathetic Smurf.
I don't suppose you'd countenance the argument that US sanctions against Cuba would have anything to do with the 'economic mismanagement' you are quoting, you true-blue lovers of lovely, lovely capitalism and 'democracy'?Townsend said:Price controls are terrible business practices and every government is inefficent. Combine the two and you get conditions exactly like in Cuba's hospitals...hell!
Thursday, 19 March, 1998, 21:22 GMT
US sanctions against Cuba explained
The United States imposed sanctions against Cuba in 1962 shortly after Fidel Castro seized power in a revolution on the island.
The embargo was a response to Castro's nationalisation of American-owned enterprises; it sought to deprive Cuba of foreign exchange and hasten the end of communism.
Before 1962, more than two-thirds of Cuba's foreign trade had been with the United States -- so when the embargo came into effect Cuba had to find alternative markets, and itbecame highly dependent on the Soviet Union.
The embargo has since been strengthened, most recently by a 1996 bill -- the Helms-Burton bill -- which punishes foreign companies dealing with Cuba. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/67554.stm
This point you make (that pure capitalism does not sanction or result in monopoly corporatism) is arguable. Extending on Marxist theory, Lenin clearly foresaw that capitalism would have to result in monopoly corporatism. If you look at capitalism from a critical point of view, it *must* develop the way it has - there is no other option. How exactly do you propose that monopolies be tamed? Legally? Ha! Who makes the laws? Who can afford to 'buy' the laws that suit themselves? Honestly, I just cannot understand what part of this very clear picture you cannot see?loseyourname said:I don't think there is anybody here that is pro-corporate monopoly. The difference seems to be that you think these things are inevitable given capitalism. Russ and Townsend and I do not. We see that, historically speaking, corporations have only been able to grow to their ridiculous sizes and market shares with help from governments. Corporations are legal entities that would not even exist in a pure capitalist state. Essentially, you are arguing with a strawman, something that pure capitalism does not either sanction or result in (at least theoretically - in practice, we have never experienced pure capitalism and so cannot know for certain).
This is an intriguing statement, TSA - what defines capitalism then, if not profit? I am really interested in seeing an alternative definition of capitalism that does not include profit in it; I've never, myself, come across such a definition (not a technical one, in any case).TheStatutoryApe said:Remember that the creators of Linux hadthe benefit of a capitalist system where they could own means of production and use them as they saw fit. Just because they don't make a profit doesn't mean it isn't a capitalist endevour. If you look up capitalism you will find that profit is not required for a system to be capitalist.
But all command economies of the past were in less industrialised countries. One of the main reasons the USSR 'failed' is that it did not have a well-enough developed industrial base to meet the needs of the population. 'Socialism' was first achieved, contrary to Marx's prediction of how societies would progress, in a 'backward' country (Russia was barely emerging from feudalism at the time and had not developed anywhere near full capitalism). So they tried to make up for the backwardness by instituting these 'plans'. But the world is very different today - you wouldn't have to rely on central planning bodies predicting trends. For starters, the Internet provides a great tool for facilitating planning for meeting global needs. The very integration of the world economy and of production sets up a perfect system for global socialism. As I've said before (in other threads), I have never discounted the value of capitalism - it is a necessary stage of social development and results in many technological innovations. Capitalism was progressive, but it's not the best we can do...TheStatutoryApe said:It relies on the central planning body to predict trends in supply and demand which historically has been shown to not work out so well. They fix their numbers and put their plan into action but something goes wrong and the plan barely limps along or they have to go back to the drawing board and rework the plan while the economy and the people wait for them patiently, or perhaps not so patiently.
alexandra said:This point you make (that pure capitalism does not sanction or result in monopoly corporatism) is arguable. Extending on Marxist theory, Lenin clearly foresaw that capitalism would have to result in monopoly corporatism. If you look at capitalism from a critical point of view, it *must* develop the way it has - there is no other option.
How exactly do you propose that monopolies be tamed? Legally? Ha! Who makes the laws? Who can afford to 'buy' the laws that suit themselves? Honestly, I just cannot understand what part of this very clear picture you cannot see?
alexandra said:This is an intriguing statement, TSA - what defines capitalism then, if not profit? I am really interested in seeing an alternative definition of capitalism that does not include profit in it; I've never, myself, come across such a definition (not a technical one, in any case).
alexandra said:But all command economies of the past were in less industrialised countries.
Actually Marxist economics has been developed for some time after Marx's original writings. It's been developed quite a bit by many other people over the years.loseyourname said:Of course Marxist theorists thought that capitalism would have to result in monopolies. Look at the time they lived in! Industry was extremely expensive then and just about every market was capital-intensive and resistant to new entries. If they predicted that we would move in the direction of further concentration of industry power, they were wrong.
loseyourname said:Price floors on dairy products have resulted in surpluses. Government-provided subways and trains in Los Angeles are empty half the time. Government-employed civil servants either have no work to do half the time (Parks and Rec maintenance) or way too much (constant long-lines at the DMV). Private industry does not make these mistakes because it cannot afford to make these mistakes. When a company does, they go out of business and a better company takes their place. The government just raises taxes or cuts spending in other areas that probably supported more important programs.