ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags socialism , worker cooperatives

Reply
Old 29th August 2017, 05:22 AM   #161
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Yeah, the difference being, in these discussions with you about that, that I don't have "thoughts" - I have conclusions based on evidence. And I also have no interest whatsoever in your "thoughts" if you keep failing to back them up with evidence. So I'm glad we figured this out, and can now get on with the actual topic at hand. And the topic is not the anti-communist ravings of the next right-wing CT nut.
No, the topic at hand is workers' ownership and control. Any thoughts on that? You may answer the points I have made about worker ownership in Soviet grain production in 1928 if you want.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 05:27 AM   #162
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No, the topic at hand is workers' ownership and control.
It seems to have drifted more into the specifics of a planned economy. Which arguably is an independent variable to worker control of the means of production.

Quote:
Any thoughts on that?
Yes, as you might have noticed by me expressing them in several posts in this thread.

Quote:
You may answer the points I have made about worker ownership in Soviet grain production in 1928 if you want.
No thanks.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 02:53 PM   #163
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
How unsurprising. Here's your homework: think of and present at least one such system which doesn't use free market pricing mechanisms.
I didn't say I cannot imagine anything else than market pricing, I said I cannot imagine anything better than market pricing.

To be more precise, a touch of governmental control in some aspects of pricing is welcome, in my opinion.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 05:19 AM   #164
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
I didn't say I cannot imagine anything else than market pricing, I said I cannot imagine anything better than market pricing.
I'm going to regret this, but ok, define "better".
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 05:24 AM   #165
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'm going to regret this, but ok, define "better".
Any response to that other than
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No thanks.
is more than you deserve.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 05:26 AM   #166
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Any response to that other thanis more than you deserve.
Really? And why would that be?

I didn't make any claim about your peasants, so I am under no obligation to defend anything about that. JIM did make claim about a free market being "better", so he should properly define the terms for his claim.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 30th August 2017 at 05:32 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 07:11 AM   #167
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
JIM did make claim about a free market being "better"
Hey, I'm not "JIM".

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
define "better"
This thread is all about what is "better" in someone's opinion. Why would the OP want a "worker owned and managed economy", to begin with? Apparently in hope of replacing the current economy with something "better" in his opinion.

You regard something as "better" than something else. Why else would you question my preferences?

What is "better", depends on what our objectives are, but also on what our perceptions of cause and consequence are. My objective is efficient production and distribution of goods and services, which fairly and equally satisfy the wishes (perceived needs) of everyone who wants to participate.

Not everyone shares this objective. I am not a dictator, so I refer to "everyone who wants to participate", which would mean the political Left.

And not everyone shares my perception of what causes would lead to these consequences.

So we have two things to disagree about: the objective, and the means that would lead to the objective.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 07:34 AM   #168
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Hey, I'm not "JIM".
Oh, right, sorry.

Quote:
My objective is efficient production and distribution of goods and services, which fairly and equally satisfy the wishes (perceived needs) of everyone who wants to participate.
Define "efficient", define "fair", and show how free market pricing is most "efficient" by your measure of "fair".

Quote:
I refer to "everyone who wants to participate", which would mean the political Left.
The political Left would be pretty much defined by opposition to capitalism and promotion of socialism in some form.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 11:15 AM   #169
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Really? And why would that be?

I didn't make any claim about your peasants, so I am under no obligation to defend anything about that. JIM did make claim about a free market being "better", so he should properly define the terms for his claim.
I'm sure he will, and I hope that when JJM 777 does, he will receive more from you than a refusal to discuss the issue any further, or further requests for definitions of word after word.

Last edited by Craig B; 30th August 2017 at 11:20 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 02:05 PM   #170
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Define "efficient", define "fair", and show how free market pricing is most "efficient" by your measure of "fair".
Efficient production is such which produces enough but not wastefully too much, preferably at locations that minimize transportation costs, and for an effective price-quality ratio.

Fair distribution of income is such where each works according to his abilities, and gets according to his needs. To simplify this a lot, we can speak of a flat rate salary, per hour. If you value leisure time, you can work less and earn less.

Children would get compensated directly from the state, so I don't count their costs into the "needs" of their parents. That would make the idea of flat rate per working hour more complex.

While market pricing is used for setting salaries, I don't consider it "fair". But goods and services don't emotionally mind getting varying price tags on them. Prices are necessary for easily and effectively quantifying the relative cost and potential total output of producing and transporting goods and services to consumers.

Without free market pricing, someone would need to _decide_ prices for everything. I am not sure that such decisions would be more meaningful than simply using the prices that already exist. Such decisions could potentially be much, much sillier and more useless.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The political Left would be pretty much defined by opposition to capitalism and promotion of socialism in some form.
In some form. And what a variety of forms the Left has been split into! Parties calling themselves Socialist have agendas ranging from Marxism to center-right Capitalism. Socialism is a sexy word, even if its spirit is not for everyone. The ruling party of China call themselves Communists. Hmm, the apple has fallen a tad far from the Marxist definition of the term.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I hope that when JJM 777 does, he will receive more from you than ... further requests for definitions of word after word.
I have been around the JREF => ISF forum since 2004 (with some looooong breaks), so I have seen a variety of discussion styles.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 02:52 PM   #171
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,126
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
This thread is all about what is "better" in someone's opinion. Why would the OP want a "worker owned and managed economy", to begin with? Apparently in hope of replacing the current economy with something "better" in his opinion.
To be fair, the OP doesn't say he WANTS it. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but here and now he just asks if it would work. Not even if it would work better, but just whether it would work.

I can't speak for him, of course, but some of us can be interested in all sorts of information and hypotheticals, without actually WANTING or implying any superiority on either side. E.g., the fellow who asked about how long ancient ships stayed in port, I'm pretty sure he didn't want to actually trade up the nile in a reed boat
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 03:03 PM   #172
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,126
THAT said, to answer the OP, I'd exclude a priori any arguments by anarchists. They invariably revolve around not understanding the difference that Dunbar's number makes.

People can actually care personally about around 150 other people. Without SOME form of organization, tribes form cliques and ultimately split when they get bigger than that.

Why does it matter? Because basically the root of considering anarchy an option is that some people notice stuff like, 'hey, I work well with Tom, Dick and Harry, and neither of us is trying to shaft his friends. Why can't we just work together without a boss?' Well, because that no longer works when the group gets to be some 160 people, much less when it gets to the size of a city or a country.

So, yeah, any arguments that are based on having no organization at all and still working, you can safely ignore. Now that's not to say that all forms of collective ownership falll into that category. Some have the foresight of thinking ahead to electing some kind of hierarchy or whatever.. But if it doesn't, if it just goes on about how well everything would work with no hierarchy and/or rules, then you can just ignore it and move on.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th August 2017 at 03:07 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 03:54 PM   #173
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Efficient production is such which produces enough but not wastefully too much, preferably at locations that minimize transportation costs, and for an effective price-quality ratio.
How much is "enough" and what is an "effective" price-quality ratio? Are you deliberately being vague?

Quote:
Fair distribution of income is such where each works according to his abilities, and gets according to his needs. To simplify this a lot, we can speak of a flat rate salary, per hour. If you value leisure time, you can work less and earn less.
Except that this "flat rate salary" is hardly an instance of "each works according to his abilities and gets according to his needs". It doesn't seem to have anything to do with it at all.

Quote:
Children would get compensated directly from the state, so I don't count their costs into the "needs" of their parents. That would make the idea of flat rate per working hour more complex.
What about the sick? The elderly? They don't have needs?

Quote:
While market pricing is used for setting salaries, I don't consider it "fair". But goods and services don't emotionally mind getting varying price tags on them. Prices are necessary for easily and effectively quantifying the relative cost and potential total output of producing and transporting goods and services to consumers.
You've yet to show your method is "effective" in the first place.

Quote:
Without free market pricing, someone would need to _decide_ prices for everything. I am not sure that such decisions would be more meaningful than simply using the prices that already exist. Such decisions could potentially be much, much sillier and more useless.
They could also potentially be much, much better and more useful.

Quote:
In some form. And what a variety of forms the Left has been split into! Parties calling themselves Socialist have agendas ranging from Marxism to center-right Capitalism. Socialism is a sexy word, even if its spirit is not for everyone. The ruling party of China call themselves Communists. Hmm, the apple has fallen a tad far from the Marxist definition of the term.
Don't forget Nazism, they call themselves socialist too (aka the NSDAP) so clearly they must be socialists as well. Just like North Korea is a democratic republic, it's what they call themselves.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 30th August 2017 at 04:05 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 04:04 PM   #174
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
THAT said, to answer the OP, I'd exclude a priori any arguments by anarchists. They invariably revolve around not understanding the difference that Dunbar's number makes.

People can actually care personally about around 150 other people. Without SOME form of organization, tribes form cliques and ultimately split when they get bigger than that.

Why does it matter? Because basically the root of considering anarchy an option is that some people notice stuff like, 'hey, I work well with Tom, Dick and Harry, and neither of us is trying to shaft his friends. Why can't we just work together without a boss?' Well, because that no longer works when the group gets to be some 160 people, much less when it gets to the size of a city or a country.

So, yeah, any arguments that are based on having no organization at all and still working, you can safely ignore. Now that's not to say that all forms of collective ownership falll into that category. Some have the foresight of thinking ahead to electing some kind of hierarchy or whatever.. But if it doesn't, if it just goes on about how well everything would work with no hierarchy and/or rules, then you can just ignore it and move on.
Interesting of you to let us know we can just ignore you and move on.

If you didn't get why: both the archaeological and anthropological record staunchly refute your musing. However, you want to exclude a priori such evidence and arguments which refute your musing, making you impervious to accounting for such evidence and hence to be ignored in your conclusions. And yes, I use the term "musing" because, even without the evidence explicitly refuting it, you never had any reason to believe it in the first place. You just wanted it to be true, so you asserted it to be true and declared to exclude counter-argument a priori. Nice one...
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 30th August 2017 at 04:26 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2017, 06:06 PM   #175
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,126
Really? Well, with evidence like Somalia and other places where large scale anarchy happened, what reason would you have to ever believe that anarchy works?

Also, I notice that as usual you just postulate that evidence exists -- ample even, apparently -- but you don't actually offer any. Whop-de-do, what else is new? Which is a pity, since if Dunbar were refuted, it would kinda be big news.

By anthropology, even? Well, do elaborate, because I did have a bit of interest in anthropology. I'm willing to learn.

And I'll ignore the first row, which is just a rewording of the kindergarten "I know you are, but what am I?" silliness. Especially since it doesn't even connect with the rest of your message. Running out of actual arguments or something?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th August 2017 at 06:11 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 02:21 AM   #176
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Not even if it would work better, but just whether it would work.
If this is the entire question, the second post of the thread could have been: "Yes", and thread closed.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
any arguments that are based on having no organization at all and still working, you can safely ignore.
Many things in life function without any formal organization. I believe that the individuals who would opt to participate in anarchist society, would mostly also tolerate its shortcomings, and adjust their own behaviour to fill the voids left by the lack of formal organization. That wouldn't work better than formally organized models, I expect it to work much worse, but the participants probably would not starve to death, so it would "work", sort of.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
with evidence like Somalia and other places where large scale anarchy happened, what reason would you have to ever believe that anarchy works?
Allow me to make a difference between the anarchist movement, which includes hippyish people who dream of a peaceful love-all-hug-all society without any laws or rules, versus de facto anarchy where the society has collapsed, and where anyone with weapons simply steals and kills and rapes as much has he can.

I believe that a society formed by the former of these would do remarkably better than what the latter have done. But the former has the disadvantage of doctrinally refusing to organize police forces, army etc. to defend their unwritten moral norms, such as the right to property and physical untouchability. Without an external power with such organized forces protecting the unorganized hippies, they would fall prey to the latter group of thugs sooner or later. But they doctrinally refuse to believe that. Well, the law of natural selection will take care of them, survival of the thuggest.

Last edited by JJM 777; 31st August 2017 at 02:25 AM.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 02:34 AM   #177
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
... I have been around the JREF => ISF forum since 2004 (with some looooong breaks), so I have seen a variety of discussion styles.
This one (endless requests for definitions) is being pursued with rigorous consistency
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
How much is "enough" and what is an "effective" price-quality ratio? Are you deliberately being vague?
I now predict that because you are being vague, you will be decreed not to merit a substantive response. What I can say with certainty is that on one pretext or another you will not receive such a response.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 02:51 AM   #178
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
How much is "enough"
"Enough" and "too much" are relative to demand from consumers. If consumers would like to drink 1,000,000 liters of beer per year, producing 500,000 liters per year would be "not enough", and producing 1,500,000 liters per year would be "wastefully too much".

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Are you deliberately being vague?
Compared to theories detailed by others here (umm, what are they?), I am not vague at all.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Except that this "flat rate salary" is hardly an instance of "each works according to his abilities and gets according to his needs". It doesn't seem to have anything to do with it at all.
It contains some deliberate deviations from it. I don't require each to work according to his full abilities. I allow a fair mechanism of "opt to work less or more, earn less or more", which the more famous motto does not mention.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What about the sick? The elderly? They don't have needs?
I mentioned only children above. Other groups funded directly by the state would be the above-mentioned.

I have also calculated this: Considering the relative number of people at different stages of the human lifetime, workers would need to pay 50% income tax, to fund all the typical necessities of the society (roads, schools, hospitals, police force etc. etc.) plus a standard of living which is equal to the standard of living of workers.

If you wonder why a worker can keep 50% of his salary, and the other 50% is enough to cover all the above-mentioned costs PLUS an equal standar of living to the non-working citizens, the reason is that workers are more numerous than the non-working groups (and young children require less money than adults to enjoy a fully enjoyable standard of living). I have a diagram for that too, how much an underage person of various ages would "fairly" need money per month, compared to the salary of adults. I have done my homework, years ago.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You've yet to show your method is "effective" in the first place.
Calculating how much you have raw materials and other resources is more effective than not calculating it. I can assure you that, take my word for it.

Rice costs 1 EUR per kilo, chocolate costs 10 EUR per kilo. The price tag concenses a remarkable amount of statistical information about the reality of actually going out there and producing this thing for the consumer, in an easily understandable figure. The price tag is a remarkably effective tool of communication.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
They could also potentially be much, much better and more useful.
I can imagine that in the housing market. I would like to ban any parasitic business activities, unnecessary buy-and-sell operations between the original producer and the final consumer. Not all such operations are unnecessary, retail shops serve a purpose.

But other than such relatively isolated examples, I doubt that a dictated value model could be equal or better than free market pricing, and ask for evidence.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Don't forget Nazism, they call themselves socialist too (aka the NSDAP) so clearly they must be socialists as well. Just like North Korea is a democratic republic, it's what they call themselves.
Sadly true. I have a hard time accepting that even USA is "democratic", looks more like plutocracy to me.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 02:53 AM   #179
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
This one (endless requests for definitions) is being pursued with rigorous consistency
There used to be a certain CFLarsen who pursued evidence with rigorous consistency. He beat the hell out of my vague theories. It taught me a lot about debate, and what is really required from a theory when skeptical opponents come around.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 03:37 AM   #180
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,126
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Many things in life function without any formal organization. I believe that the individuals who would opt to participate in anarchist society, would mostly also tolerate its shortcomings, and adjust their own behaviour to fill the voids left by the lack of formal organization. That wouldn't work better than formally organized models, I expect it to work much worse, but the participants probably would not starve to death, so it would "work", sort of.
If they're a rural hippie commune, then yes, they wouldn't starve.

My problem is more like: what happens when we're talking about New York? It's easy to underestimate the sheer infrastructure needed to make THAT one work, and the amount of management that makes that infrastructure work.

It doesn't even take much of an imbalance in how many of those nice and cooperative anarchists don't want to be garbage men, for it to turn into a literal landfill. Nor would it take more than a lack of enough communication -- since no formalized channels and organizations are supposed to exist -- to leave you without electricity, water or, yes, enough food.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 05:07 AM   #181
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Really?
Yes, really.

Quote:
Well, with evidence like Somalia and other places where large scale anarchy happened, what reason would you have to ever believe that anarchy works?
Are you claiming Somalia is non-hierarchical? How did you miss all those warlords and such? They seem pretty authoritarian and hierarchical to me. Do you even know what anarchism is?

Quote:
Also, I notice that as usual you just postulate that evidence exists -- ample even, apparently -- but you don't actually offer any. Whop-de-do, what else is new?
There's no reason for me to, since you declared to exclude it a priori anyway.

Quote:
Which is a pity, since if Dunbar were refuted, it would kinda be big news.
Dunbar's number isn't refuted, your musings about it are. And it's not big news, your musings are not that important.

Quote:
By anthropology, even? Well, do elaborate, because I did have a bit of interest in anthropology. I'm willing to learn.
You seem to have this peculiar idea that it's up to others to prove your musings wrong, rather than up to you to support them.

Quote:
And I'll ignore the first row, which is just a rewording of the kindergarten "I know you are, but what am I?" silliness. Especially since it doesn't even connect with the rest of your message.
Of course it connects, you've declared yourself a priori right on something which you're obviously wrong on. What else is one to do with someone like that other than ignore?

Quote:
Running out of actual arguments or something?
The irony.

How about you actually support your musings? Dunbar's number is the limit on the number of people you can have an emotional connection with. You then start musing about how that must also be the limit of people you can "care about". So nevermind the archaeological or anthropological record, let's start simple: if your musings are true, then how come charity organizations can exist? How come a soldier can willingly give his life "for his country"? And so on and so forth.

That's even ignoring that this concept of "caring about" has nothing to do with anarchism, but since you present Somalia as an example of anarchism you are clearly completely clueless about anarchism as well.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 05:53 AM   #182
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
"Enough" and "too much" are relative to demand from consumers. If consumers would like to drink 1,000,000 liters of beer per year, producing 500,000 liters per year would be "not enough", and producing 1,500,000 liters per year would be "wastefully too much".
Then you got yourself a problem. Since free market pricing at the market clearing price leaves at least some demand unfulfilled. Furthermore, with all demand fulfilled there is no scarcity and economics (ie economizing on resources) doesn't apply in the first place.

Quote:
Compared to theories detailed by others here (umm, what are they?), I am not vague at all.
The vagueness of your definitions stands on its own, not relative to others. But you solved the vagueness in your previous paragraph ("enough" means demand is fulfilled) but that then leads to more problems.

Quote:
It contains some deliberate deviations from it. I don't require each to work according to his full abilities. I allow a fair mechanism of "opt to work less or more, earn less or more", which the more famous motto does not mention.
It's simply not an instance of the famous motto, as you call it, in the first place. It's more akin to Bakunin's motto: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his contribution". I'm not sure why you even bring a Marxist position into it, your proposal has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
I have done my homework, years ago.
Sure I'll take your word for it. The exact percentage here isn't the issue though.

Quote:
Calculating how much you have raw materials and other resources is more effective than not calculating it. I can assure you that, take my word for it.
Who said anything about not calculating it?

Quote:
But other than such relatively isolated examples, I doubt that a dictated value model could be equal or better than free market pricing, and ask for evidence.
It's your claim that there is nothing better, it's your burden of proof.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 05:57 AM   #183
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
This one (endless requests for definitions) is being pursued with rigorous consistency I now predict that because you are being vague, you will be decreed not to merit a substantive response. What I can say with certainty is that on one pretext or another you will not receive such a response.
You're really butthurt about me not going into your obsession with Soviet peasants in the 1930's, aren't you?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 06:10 AM   #184
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,126
@Cavemman
Mate, I only needed to mention Dunbar's number at all. The rest of the "musings" are what it SAYS, actually, and the EVIDENCE it's based on.

And yes, unlikle your made up BS, it is actually based on:

- archaeological evidence (estimated size of neolithic villages)
- anthropological evidence (the breaking point of comunities like the Hutterites)

Basically even dismissing it as just "my musings" tells me up front that you have no frikken clue what you're even talking about. But as usual, that doesn't seem to stop you from talking out the rear end.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 06:38 AM   #185
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
If they're a rural hippie commune, then yes, they wouldn't starve.

My problem is more like: what happens when we're talking about New York?
These are reasons why anarchism is a small fringe ideology. They will never be relevant for the mainstream society, except in their own imaginary glorious future.

Well, quiet peasant life in the countryside sounds romantic for some. If you get all the medicine and smart phones from outside of the community.

Last edited by JJM 777; 31st August 2017 at 06:40 AM.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 06:43 AM   #186
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Dunbar's number
I had to Google it up to see what this is.

If it is to be discussed, a thread of its own would be the correct place. I might well join to throw in some of my suspicions.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 06:47 AM   #187
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
- archaeological evidence (estimated size of neolithic villages)
May I then implore your oracular highness to bestow upon us, a priori as always, an estimate of the size of some actual non-hierarchical neolithic villages, such as Çatalhöyük?

Quote:
- anthropological evidence (the breaking point of comunities like the Hutterites)
May I then implore your oracular highness to bestow upon us, a priori as always, an explanation for the existence of large-scale gift economies in the anthropological record.

Quote:
Basically even dismissing it as just "my musings" tells me up front that you have no frikken clue what you're even talking about. But as usual, that doesn't seem to stop you from talking out the rear end.
Blah blah blah.

And don't forget to account for the existence of charity organizations, things like soldiers giving their lives for "their country" (a large-scale abstract group of people), and while you're at it also feel free to explain why, when people who don't know each other are asked to play the prisoner's dilemma, they tend to choose cooperation.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 06:52 AM   #188
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
I had to Google it up to see what this is.

If it is to be discussed, a thread of its own would be the correct place. I might well join to throw in some of my suspicions.
It's completely irrelevant. It's a physiological limit on how many people someone can form an emotional connection with. Hans is ideologically in favour of hierarchy, so he starts musing that beyond this limit hierarchy is the only possible way to organize society. The implicit assumption being that non-hierarchical social relations are only possible between people with emotional connections to each other. No wonder this then gets defended by an a priori exclusion of counter-arguments, because that implicit assumption is so easy to refute.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 07:08 AM   #189
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Since free market pricing at the market clearing price leaves at least some demand unfulfilled. Furthermore, with all demand fulfilled there is no scarcity and economics (ie economizing on resources) doesn't apply in the first place.
I don't understand what problem you imagine to exist here.

I would also love to have a law which prohibits raising or lowering a price more than 1% per day, excluding quickly perishable products. That would ensure that the last bottle of beer in fridge doesn't cost 10 times more. Which is only a theoretical application of market economy anyway, I have never in my life seen any shop along the street raise the price of the last product of its kind in shelf. (This happens at the black market of sports tickets, a thing that I would love to criminalize.) A shop with such an opportunistic pricing policy would quickly get a negative public image. Shops are nowadays very careful about their image that the customer can walk in, take any product in shelf, and without even looking at the price ticket go to the cashier and buy it, without regretting later that it was heavily overpriced compared to some other shop. Shops want to gain and maintain the trust of their customers.

You imagine the market pricing to require a surplus, but it is not as necessary for it as you assume.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The vagueness of your definitions stands on its own
You are welcome to present more precise definitions, for whatever concept.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It's more akin to Bakunin's motto: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his contribution".
Hmmm, this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_eac...s_contribution

Something like that was used in Communist countries. People's salaries were not equalized anywhere as much as I would like to see. I don't support the extent of inequality in salaries per hour that this principle leads to. Especially if "contribution" of a medical doctor is considered 5 or 10 times more valuable than the "contribution" of the person who cleans the toilets.

The output of my model is closer to the Marxist one than this, with the mere difference that I bother to give people the option to exchange working time for leisure time, while the Marxist model fails take this possibility into account.

Just a quick side note (hmm this didn't become very quick after all): Medical doctors are extremely important, and a scarcer resource than cleaning ladies. In a world where they need to pay their own education, that is a reason for paying them back more in salary than to those who have a cheaper education. Well, they get much more than their money back indeed. My model would give free education, but also some obligations to work in the profession whose education the state pays for you. There would still be enough social stimulus and personal ambition for willing applicants to become highly revered medical doctors, even without an economic stimulus in the form of a high salary. In calculations about the price of labour for production and services, medical doctors would need to be priced higher than cleaning ladies, because the education is costly, it is a fact that medical doctors are more expensive for the society than cleaning ladies, per working hour, even if their salary were the same.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
> Calculating how much you have raw materials and other resources is more effective than not calculating it.

Who said anything about not calculating it?
So far I have not witnessed you say anything about calculating it, and how you would do it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It's your claim that there is nothing better, it's your burden of proof.
OK, let me rephrase myself: I am satisfied with free market pricing, and plan to rely on it, until someone demonstrates that some other model would be better, and at least as reliable and easy to use.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 07:28 AM   #190
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
I don't understand what problem you imagine to exist here.
The problem is called an "inconsistency":
1. There should be enough produced to fulfill demand.
2. Free market pricing should be used to determine distribution and production.
3. Free market pricing leaves at least some demand unfulfilled.

Quote:
You imagine the market pricing to require a surplus, but it is not as necessary for it as you assume.
No, market pricing leaves some demand unfulfilled.

Quote:
The output of my model is closer to the Marxist one than this, with the mere difference that I bother to give people the option to exchange working time for leisure time, while the Marxist model fails take this possibility into account.
The Marxist model (ie "to each according to his need") does not even have money or wage labour in the first place. Yours could hardly be more different.

Quote:
Just a quick side note (hmm this didn't become very quick after all): Medical doctors are extremely important, and a scarcer resource than cleaning ladies. In a world where they need to pay their own education, that is a reason for paying them back more in salary than to those who have a cheaper education. Well, they get much more than their money back indeed. My model would give free education, but also some obligations to work in the profession whose education the state pays for you. There would still be enough social stimulus and personal ambition for willing applicants to become highly revered medical doctors, even without an economic stimulus in the form of a high salary. In calculations about the price of labour for production and services, medical doctors would need to be priced higher than cleaning ladies, because the education is costly, it is a fact that medical doctors are more expensive for the society than cleaning ladies, per working hour, even if their salary were the same.
These things you call "facts" aren't facts. You're ignoring the return, if for example without medical doctors the cleaning ladies and other workers would get sick then that whole mess can cost more than the education costs for the doctors.

Quote:
OK, let me rephrase myself: I am satisfied with free market pricing, and plan to rely on it, until someone demonstrates that some other model would be better, and at least as reliable and easy to use.
No that still doesn't fly. Just because something currently exists does not mean that it is preferred. What other models have you considered?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 31st August 2017 at 07:30 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 11:40 AM   #191
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You're really butthurt about me not going into your obsession with Soviet peasants in the 1930's, aren't you?
They're the ones that died by millions in the famine. I suppose to Stalinist apologists being interested in that is a symptom of obsessiveness, presumably requiring long stay inpatient psychiatric treatment.

Others will see matters differently.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 12:35 PM   #192
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,126
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It's completely irrelevant. It's a physiological limit on how many people someone can form an emotional connection with. Hans is ideologically in favour of hierarchy, so he starts musing that beyond this limit hierarchy is the only possible way to organize society. The implicit assumption being that non-hierarchical social relations are only possible between people with emotional connections to each other. No wonder this then gets defended by an a priori exclusion of counter-arguments, because that implicit assumption is so easy to refute.
Again, if you had bothered to look it up, or even the evidence it used, you'd see that it says exactly that groups without some form of organization start to fragment around 150. That is HOW that number was calculated.

As for rejecting nonsense by default, it seems to me like it's the default position when one side is backed by a peer-reviewed scientific theory. I also discard by default the electric universe nutters, homeopathy, etc. If you want to argue the contrary, you have to somehow refute it with your own evidence, not just do some version of the butthurt song and dance that Hans doesn't take your nonsense for real from the start.

As for the rest, I see a lot of dodging and hot air, very little of substance. So I'll ignore all the flailings about why Hans needs to believe the mainstream science instead of your anecdotes. Sure, tell yourself whatever lullaby you need.

But to address the other nonsense:

- Çatalhöyük is very late neolithic, around the time where the first cities appear. It's hard to tell exactly how anarchistic they were. From what we can tell from tribes moving up in size (but without being at that level yet), invariablly you'll find they have chieftains and shamans (which Çatalhöyük seems to have had some form of too) to tell them what to do, and quite a bunch of rules to be able to function. The idea that it just transcended previous limitations without evolving any kind of such means is no more than wishful thinking.

- gift economies... actually there are none known that would strictly qualify as the ideal "pure gift" that anarchists like to believe in, nor span whole economines.

A) All examples we found are actually made work by a whole bunch of ritualized rules, in which the recipient is as good as formally in debt until he acquits himself by giving a counter-gift or doing a favour. So it's hardly some anarchistic goodwill of everyone for everyone. It's really an enforced system.

B) None of them are really the way the local economy works. There is an actual EXCHANGE of goods and services going on at all times, with the gifts being some additional social mechanism, not the core of the economy.

- charity organizations... are hardly a model you can hope to run a society on. Other than when there's a massive economic disparity between the givers and the recipients (e.g., Americans giving to Elbonians who lost everything in a tsunami) it rarely even makes a dent in the problem. E.g., if you hope that your pension in an anarchist state be paid by charity instead of a government organization, well, you may well starve.

And even when it makes a dent, it rarely makes a dent in even the right problem without some actual hierarchical organization behind it. Unorganized individual people are quick to donate their old jeans or (I kid you not) millions of teddy-bears, and the effects just range from ruining the local economy to just clogging the transport capacity for the actual helpful stuff. But if you want a hospital buit there, or a sewer system, or vaccines for those kids instead of useelss teddy-bears, the ones who get the job done are hierarchical organizations like the Unicef.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 01:58 PM   #193
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As for the rest, I see a lot of dodging and hot air, very little of substance. So I'll ignore all the flailings about why Hans needs to believe the mainstream science instead of your anecdotes. Sure, tell yourself whatever lullaby you need.
Mainstream science...

For the rest, the level of strawmanning and intellectual dishonesty you've now reached in trying to keep this up speaks for itself.

For example you weren't asked about "how anarchistic" you think Çatalhöyük was, but asked for an estimate of its population size. The example of the existence of charity organizations wasn't presented as "a model to hope to run a society on" but as a refutation of your claim that a person can only care about around 150 people. And so on and so forth.

Is that a debating tactic, pile so much strawmen and dishonest argumentation in a single post so as to make the other side not wanting to bother picking it all apart? Because it worked, so congratulations
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 31st August 2017 at 02:13 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 02:03 PM   #194
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
They're the ones that died by millions in the famine. I suppose to Stalinist apologists being interested in that is a symptom of obsessiveness, presumably requiring long stay inpatient psychiatric treatment.

Others will see matters differently.
No, it's because according to the same standard even more millions of people are killed each year by liberal capitalism. But you don't seem to obsess over that. Making your ideologically anti-communist, rather than humanitarian, grounds for that particular obsession clear.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 31st August 2017 at 02:42 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 04:00 PM   #195
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No, it's because according to the same standard even more millions of people are killed each year by liberal capitalism. But you don't seem to obsess over that. Making your ideologically anti-communist, rather than humanitarian, grounds for that particular obsession clear.
It would be hopeless to ask you to be specific about two things, I suppose.

What "liberal capitalist" regimes kill millions of people each year, and what are the circumstances of these deaths? In short, what events - specifically - are you referring to here?

By that "same standard", how many people died in the 1930s famine in the USSR? Or are you saying that there were no deaths, because the USSR was a society owned and managed by the working class?

Last edited by Craig B; 31st August 2017 at 04:14 PM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2017, 04:31 PM   #196
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
It would be hopeless to ask you to be specific about two things, I suppose.

What "liberal capitalist" regimes kill millions of people each year, and what are the circumstances of these deaths? In short, what events - specifically - are you referring to here?

By that "same standard", how many people died in the 1930s famine in the USSR? Or are you saying that there were no deaths, because the USSR was a society owned and managed by the working class?
Well you claimed (without evidence, as usual) that millions were killed in a famine which was caused by what you call communism, ie economic policy under Stalin. By that standard, there's at least 20 million people killed yearly by capitalism. And that is right now as opposed to almost a century ago, yearly as opposed to once, and whilst in the middle of plenty of available resources as opposed to in the middle of a massive harvest failure.

And I have no idea about how many people died in the 1930s famine. You see, unlike you, I don't have this pathological anti-communist need to go around making claims about the "millions" of victims of a "communist" famine. I actually understand that not only do both the census of 1926 and 1939 have problems of their own, and not only does the interpolation method used to get the "missing population" have problems, but even if all that were accounted for then there would still be multiple population-changing events in the period (suppression of kulaks, internal migration, ...) so that you couldn't separate the causes anyway.

It's the reason I didn't bother going into your "the question is how many millions died?" in the other thread, actually.

ETA: just for fun
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 31st August 2017 at 05:22 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 03:10 AM   #197
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
3. Free market pricing leaves at least some demand unfulfilled.
I don't see why this should necessarily be so. Actually, I insist that this is not the truth. You make a claim that something is forced to happen in a certain way. Burden of proof is on your side.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The Marxist model (ie "to each according to his need") does not even have money or wage labour in the first place. Yours could hardly be more different.
If you go into _that_ direction, it changes the situation. Moneyless distribution of goods to everyone, without rationing or calculating much of anything. This was one of the several grand mistakes of Marx, naive belief in the unlimited omnipotency of production capacity. Simply an impossibility. (I refer to the "final stage of Communism".) Marx failed to perceive the limitedness of the resources on the planet. Environmental awareness became mainstream only 100 years later.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You're ignoring the return, ... that whole mess can cost more than the education costs for the doctors.
The budgets of states calculate how much it costs to run the health care system. They don't bother to calculate how much it would cost not to have one at all. It is not relevant, because we intend to have one.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What other models have you considered?
Suggest something for me. Maybe a link?

Last edited by JJM 777; 1st September 2017 at 03:14 AM.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 04:58 AM   #198
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
I don't see why this should necessarily be so. Actually, I insist that this is not the truth. You make a claim that something is forced to happen in a certain way. Burden of proof is on your side.
Insist all you want, free market pricing leaves all demand at a lower price level than the market clearing price unfulfilled, pretty much by definition. The guy waving 1$ around whilst looking for a home ain't gonna get a home if they're market-priced. Same for any other product.

Quote:
If you go into _that_ direction, it changes the situation. Moneyless distribution of goods to everyone, without rationing or calculating much of anything. This was one of the several grand mistakes of Marx, naive belief in the unlimited omnipotency of production capacity. Simply an impossibility.
If it was the norm for almost all of humanity's existence then it's clearly not "simply an impossibility".

Quote:
Suggest something for me. Maybe a link?
Well there's so much you can think of. For example, necessities in abundance are free, necessities in shortage are rationed, and luxuries are over-priced to pay for the free necessities.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2017, 01:02 PM   #199
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,934
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The guy waving 1$ around whilst looking for a home ain't gonna get a home if they're market-priced. Same for any other product.
1$ is not only under the market price, it is also a lightyear under the production costs. If we sold a home to someone for 1$, practically that would mean that other people need to pay the raw materials and do all the work for free.

Do you insist that people should be able to pay homes for 1$? If yes, what is the rationale for that?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If it was the norm for almost all of humanity's existence then it's clearly not "simply an impossibility".
If you are ready to forget what you want, and accept whatever you get, then it functions. But most people want their wishes fulfilled more precisely than that.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
For example, necessities in abundance are free, necessities in shortage are rationed, and luxuries are over-priced to pay for the free necessities.
So you wouldn't abolish money altogether, at least. Which the final stage of Communism would do, they say.

You would allow wasting of free "necessities". What is free, can be used wastefully. Then you would punish people for wanting "luxuries". I think my model is more fair, nothing is free, everything has a cost of use, because everything has a cost of production. And the Dear Leader does not decide on behalf of his followers, what is "necessary" and what is "luxury".

I prefer my model compared to this one.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2017, 04:12 AM   #200
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
1$ is not only under the market price, it is also a lightyear under the production costs. If we sold a home to someone for 1$, practically that would mean that other people need to pay the raw materials and do all the work for free.

Do you insist that people should be able to pay homes for 1$? If yes, what is the rationale for that?
Actually I brought it up to show you how free market pricing leaves some demand unfulfilled.

Quote:
If you are ready to forget what you want, and accept whatever you get, then it functions.
You just arbitrarily say these things, don't you? If you must pay for something then you get what you want, but if you get it for free then it's not something you want, even though it's the same thing?

Quote:
So you wouldn't abolish money altogether, at least.
I didn't say that, I just gave you one example of a non free market pricing model - since you seemed to have trouble considering such models.

Quote:
You would allow wasting of free "necessities". What is free, can be used wastefully. Then you would punish people for wanting "luxuries". I think my model is more fair, nothing is free, everything has a cost of use, because everything has a cost of production. And the Dear Leader does not decide on behalf of his followers, what is "necessary" and what is "luxury".
It is more fair to have a shortage of everything rather than have enough basic necessities but a shortage of luxuries? And giving people free necessities rather than letting them go without them is "wasting" resources? And your completely unaccountable Dear Leaders, who set the prices, get to decide on behalf of the rest who gets access to basic necessities and who doesn't?

Quote:
I prefer my model compared to this one.
So you retract your earlier definitions of "better" and "efficient"? Because you're explicitly producing less than required to fulfill demand. If so, then by what new definitions do you consider your model "better"?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.