On May 06 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote: As has been pointed out many times, money is simply a tool to make the distribution of goods more effective. Rather than wasting my time ridiculing the proposition that money should be abolished, I would like to adress a larger issue in the hopes it will make the discussion of economics on this board a just a tiny bit more productive. I am interested in economics, and am interested in reading the thoughts of actually intelligent people, but I get the feeling most of them don't bother posting because the discussion is often just terribly confused, and full of economic illiterates.
Posts backing both 'sides' show only a very limited understanding of economic theory, often citing concepts and research as though they completely back their side of the story. The truth is often much more complicated, so please employ some nuance and avoid grand sweeping statements. There is also a large amount of confusion regarding terminology.
For example the terms Capitalism and Socialism are ill-defined, all economies that exist in the real world are mixed to a certain degree. The choice is not between two opposing ideologies, and any argument that aims to absolutely support the other while denouncing the other is, frankly, ridiculous to most people with some sort of relevant education. Please define your argument well, specific problems in specific markets with specific solutions. Try to back up your argument with some sort of theory. Chances are, smarter people than you have already done a much better job explaining the concepts that apply to your argument. If you oversimplify your argument and start talking in terms of evil-capitalism and benevolent socialism, or the other way around, it will simply turn into another internet shouting match in which neither side learns anything. Avoid false dichotomies.
The term 'laissez-faire' does not refer to free markets where there is no regulation. Laissez-faire is simply a prevalent attitude within a company or industry. It means that companies will only comply minimally with written laws and will otherwise engage in profit-maximizing behavior, without regard for any other social goals. It is possible for an industry to have a laissez-faire attitude even if they operate in a heavily regulated market. Similarly, it is possible for companies operating in very free markets to place strong emphasis on social responsibilty. This is actual quite common all over the western world. But especially so in Japan and Korea, where societal pressures cause companies to believe it is in their own best interest to voluntarily comply to certain, unwritten, social standards. The point is, if you use a technical term, please make sure you are using it correctly.
There is also confusion among people who agressively defend free markets. Economic theory does not lead us to always believe that markets function best when left to their own devices. In fact, pretty much all models of imperfect markets (which all real-world markets are to some degree) suggest considerable room for government to improve overall welfare. Models have shown that things like offering incentives, subsidies, regulations, temporary protectionism and much more can lead to more overall welfare, given the right conditions. The only thing I can think of that pretty much always leads to deadweight losses are taxes. Arguments for libertarianism are primarily ethical, not economical. Sadly, basic economic classes usually do not teach models of imperfect markets, but limit themselves to the relatively simple cases of perfect competition and monopoly. While this is understandable due to time constraints, it does create the problem that many people feel that they have much greater knowledge of economics than they actually do. If you have only very limited knowledge of economics, please make sure that what you are posting is accurate, especially if you are going to state it authoritatively. If you don't know shit, ask questions instead.
From the socialist camp, there is the common claim that people have been brainwashed somehow by undefined evil corporations employing powerful lobby groups, with unlimited control of 'the media'. The statements are always vague and almost never is any supporting argument, or any evidence offered. This is not actually an argument for anything, it is a completely invalid and worthless way of reasoning and little more than an ad hominem. "You are just against central planning because you are brain-washed", is what they are saying. Please formulate your actual argument so we can consider them, and yes people will actually try to debunk everything you say because that is how critical thinking works.
In short, please try not to be an idiot. It scares off all the good people
Good post sir, I sompletely agree with what you said, although the ignorance part may be applicable to me, as I never had any notable economic education
On May 06 2012 06:01 Lumi wrote: We have a resource based economy. Money is just a universalizer so that the guy with the fish can trade with the guy with the chair, even if the guy with the chair doesn't want any fish. Money has been a universal evolution to all original examples of moneyless resource-based economies. Ugh please get a clue and stop pointing your finger at things that really aren't the problem. The concept of wealth is probably what you'd like to do something about and so you should just be advocating socialism, not this laughing stock.
In a Resource based economy there is no such thing as trade, because there is no ownership resources are made abundant and if they are not research power is allocated into solving the problem, We dont have enough money to feed everyone on the planet but we have enough food for 10 billion people all thou were only 7.
What does that mean? We have both the money and the food to feel everyone. Unfortunately actually doing it is easier said than done. You can't just buy the food and then FedEx it to them. If it was that easy the UN World Food Program and charities would have solved hunger a loooong time ago.
On May 06 2012 06:01 Lumi wrote: We have a resource based economy. Money is just a universalizer so that the guy with the fish can trade with the guy with the chair, even if the guy with the chair doesn't want any fish. Money has been a universal evolution to all original examples of moneyless resource-based economies. Ugh please get a clue and stop pointing your finger at things that really aren't the problem. The concept of wealth is probably what you'd like to do something about and so you should just be advocating socialism, not this laughing stock.
In a Resource based economy there is no such thing as trade, because there is no ownership resources are made abundant and if they are not research power is allocated into solving the problem, We dont have enough money to feed everyone on the planet but we have enough food for 10 billion people all thou were only 7.
What does that mean? We have both the money and the food to feel everyone. Unfortunately actually doing it is easier said than done. You can't just buy the food and then FedEx it to them. If it was that easy the UN World Food Program and charities would have solved hunger a loooong time ago.
sigh.. hunger will never be solved by donating money or sending food to those in need. you can feed them for a few extra days, but the problem will remain until an infrastructure is set up that provides for them, which unfortunately won't happen in the current system because it's not profitable to do so in places where people have no purchasing power.
I also suggest looking at the actualy Freeworldcharter video and pick one point in the video that you feel dont make sense. and go on a smal tangen on why you dont feel its right.
Speak with your emotion sometimes they offer greater clarity.
Ok, I'll bite.
2:20 "just about everything we produce is done by machines or computers."
Nope, not true. The millions of people that have jobs and work very hard are empirical evidence that proves otherwise. If a machine was more efficient then the crafty, profit motivated business owner would replace the worker with the machine.
2:30 "the machines are taking our jobs."
Nope, not true either. They're just making room for new jobs. The entire history of the industrial revolution proves that.
3:10 "our economy is just about moving money around."
Nope, it's not just moving money. Moving money prompts goods / services to be produced. They are one and the same thing.
3:20 "the constraint should be what's physically possible."
That's exactly what we have now.
Everything after this points just says that things will be better without money without saying how they will actually do it because they can't!!
On May 06 2012 06:01 Lumi wrote: We have a resource based economy. Money is just a universalizer so that the guy with the fish can trade with the guy with the chair, even if the guy with the chair doesn't want any fish. Money has been a universal evolution to all original examples of moneyless resource-based economies. Ugh please get a clue and stop pointing your finger at things that really aren't the problem. The concept of wealth is probably what you'd like to do something about and so you should just be advocating socialism, not this laughing stock.
In a Resource based economy there is no such thing as trade, because there is no ownership resources are made abundant and if they are not research power is allocated into solving the problem, We dont have enough money to feed everyone on the planet but we have enough food for 10 billion people all thou were only 7.
What does that mean? We have both the money and the food to feel everyone. Unfortunately actually doing it is easier said than done. You can't just buy the food and then FedEx it to them. If it was that easy the UN World Food Program and charities would have solved hunger a loooong time ago.
sigh.. hunger will never be solved by donating money or sending food to those in need. you can feed them for a few extra days, but the problem will remain until an infrastructure is set up that provides for them, which unfortunately won't happen in the current system because it's not profitable to do so in places where people have no purchasing power.
It should be plenty profitable for those areas to use their own cheap labor to grow their own food. It's not a lack of profit that's holding their economies back. It's that their societies are broken on many levels (wars, genocide, corrupt governments).
So, simply replacing profit motive with something else (something stupid) will not solve the underlying issues.
On May 06 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote: As has been pointed out many times, money is simply a tool to make the distribution of goods more effective. Rather than wasting my time ridiculing the proposition that money should be abolished, I would like to adress a larger issue in the hopes it will make the discussion of economics on this board a just a tiny bit more productive. I am interested in economics, and am interested in reading the thoughts of actually intelligent people, but I get the feeling most of them don't bother posting because the discussion is often just terribly confused, and full of economic illiterates.
Posts backing both 'sides' show only a very limited understanding of economic theory, often citing concepts and research as though they completely back their side of the story. The truth is often much more complicated, so please employ some nuance and avoid grand sweeping statements. There is also a large amount of confusion regarding terminology.
For example the terms Capitalism and Socialism are ill-defined, all economies that exist in the real world are mixed to a certain degree. The choice is not between two opposing ideologies, and any argument that aims to absolutely support the other while denouncing the other is, frankly, ridiculous to most people with some sort of relevant education. Please define your argument well, specific problems in specific markets with specific solutions. Try to back up your argument with some sort of theory. Chances are, smarter people than you have already done a much better job explaining the concepts that apply to your argument. If you oversimplify your argument and start talking in terms of evil-capitalism and benevolent socialism, or the other way around, it will simply turn into another internet shouting match in which neither side learns anything. Avoid false dichotomies.
The term 'laissez-faire' does not refer to free markets where there is no regulation. Laissez-faire is simply a prevalent attitude within a company or industry. It means that companies will only comply minimally with written laws and will otherwise engage in profit-maximizing behavior, without regard for any other social goals. It is possible for an industry to have a laissez-faire attitude even if they operate in a heavily regulated market. Similarly, it is possible for companies operating in very free markets to place strong emphasis on social responsibilty. This is actual quite common all over the western world. But especially so in Japan and Korea, where societal pressures cause companies to believe it is in their own best interest to voluntarily comply to certain, unwritten, social standards. The point is, if you use a technical term, please make sure you are using it correctly.
There is also confusion among people who agressively defend free markets. Economic theory does not lead us to always believe that markets function best when left to their own devices. In fact, pretty much all models of imperfect markets (which all real-world markets are to some degree) suggest considerable room for government to improve overall welfare. Models have shown that things like offering incentives, subsidies, regulations, temporary protectionism and much more can lead to more overall welfare, given the right conditions. The only thing I can think of that pretty much always leads to deadweight losses are taxes. Arguments for libertarianism are primarily ethical, not economical. Sadly, basic economic classes usually do not teach models of imperfect markets, but limit themselves to the relatively simple cases of perfect competition and monopoly. While this is understandable due to time constraints, it does create the problem that many people feel that they have much greater knowledge of economics than they actually do. If you have only very limited knowledge of economics, please make sure that what you are posting is accurate, especially if you are going to state it authoritatively. If you don't know shit, ask questions instead.
From the socialist camp, there is the common claim that people have been brainwashed somehow by undefined evil corporations employing powerful lobby groups, with unlimited control of 'the media'. The statements are always vague and almost never is any supporting argument, or any evidence offered. This is not actually an argument for anything, it is a completely invalid and worthless way of reasoning and little more than an ad hominem. "You are just against central planning because you are brain-washed", is what they are saying. Please formulate your actual argument so we can consider them, and yes people will actually try to debunk everything you say because that is how critical thinking works.
In short, please try not to be an idiot. It scares off all the good people
The underlying problem has to be addressed which is the global profit-oriented socioeconomic system. Theorizing about tweaking areas of monetary economic models is not going to fix the fundamental problem. Bottom line is, profit is primary to everything else. Such mentality cannot sustain for much longer. A shift is inevitable, whether we resist or not, as the wealth gap along with privatization of vital resources, environmental destruction, and technological advancement leading to practical automation of mundane labor increases ever further.
On May 06 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote: As has been pointed out many times, money is simply a tool to make the distribution of goods more effective. Rather than wasting my time ridiculing the proposition that money should be abolished, I would like to adress a larger issue in the hopes it will make the discussion of economics on this board a just a tiny bit more productive. I am interested in economics, and am interested in reading the thoughts of actually intelligent people, but I get the feeling most of them don't bother posting because the discussion is often just terribly confused, and full of economic illiterates.
Posts backing both 'sides' show only a very limited understanding of economic theory, often citing concepts and research as though they completely back their side of the story. The truth is often much more complicated, so please employ some nuance and avoid grand sweeping statements. There is also a large amount of confusion regarding terminology.
For example the terms Capitalism and Socialism are ill-defined, all economies that exist in the real world are mixed to a certain degree. The choice is not between two opposing ideologies, and any argument that aims to absolutely support the other while denouncing the other is, frankly, ridiculous to most people with some sort of relevant education. Please define your argument well, specific problems in specific markets with specific solutions. Try to back up your argument with some sort of theory. Chances are, smarter people than you have already done a much better job explaining the concepts that apply to your argument. If you oversimplify your argument and start talking in terms of evil-capitalism and benevolent socialism, or the other way around, it will simply turn into another internet shouting match in which neither side learns anything. Avoid false dichotomies.
The term 'laissez-faire' does not refer to free markets where there is no regulation. Laissez-faire is simply a prevalent attitude within a company or industry. It means that companies will only comply minimally with written laws and will otherwise engage in profit-maximizing behavior, without regard for any other social goals. It is possible for an industry to have a laissez-faire attitude even if they operate in a heavily regulated market. Similarly, it is possible for companies operating in very free markets to place strong emphasis on social responsibilty. This is actual quite common all over the western world. But especially so in Japan and Korea, where societal pressures cause companies to believe it is in their own best interest to voluntarily comply to certain, unwritten, social standards. The point is, if you use a technical term, please make sure you are using it correctly.
There is also confusion among people who agressively defend free markets. Economic theory does not lead us to always believe that markets function best when left to their own devices. In fact, pretty much all models of imperfect markets (which all real-world markets are to some degree) suggest considerable room for government to improve overall welfare. Models have shown that things like offering incentives, subsidies, regulations, temporary protectionism and much more can lead to more overall welfare, given the right conditions. The only thing I can think of that pretty much always leads to deadweight losses are taxes. Arguments for libertarianism are primarily ethical, not economical. Sadly, basic economic classes usually do not teach models of imperfect markets, but limit themselves to the relatively simple cases of perfect competition and monopoly. While this is understandable due to time constraints, it does create the problem that many people feel that they have much greater knowledge of economics than they actually do. If you have only very limited knowledge of economics, please make sure that what you are posting is accurate, especially if you are going to state it authoritatively. If you don't know shit, ask questions instead.
From the socialist camp, there is the common claim that people have been brainwashed somehow by undefined evil corporations employing powerful lobby groups, with unlimited control of 'the media'. The statements are always vague and almost never is any supporting argument, or any evidence offered. This is not actually an argument for anything, it is a completely invalid and worthless way of reasoning and little more than an ad hominem. "You are just against central planning because you are brain-washed", is what they are saying. Please formulate your actual argument so we can consider them, and yes people will actually try to debunk everything you say because that is how critical thinking works.
In short, please try not to be an idiot. It scares off all the good people
The underlying problem has to be addressed which is the global profit-oriented socioeconomic system. Theorizing about tweaking areas of monetary economic models is not going to fix the fundamental problem. Bottom line is, profit is primary to everything else. Such mentality cannot sustain for much longer. A shift is inevitable, whether we resist or not, as the wealth gap along with privatization of vital resources, environmental destruction, and technological advancement leading to practical automation of mundane labor increases ever further.
But it's not a problem! What you fail to realize is that in a market system it is through profit seeking (a natural human tendency) that social goals are achieved. You want food? The greedy profit seeking farmer is here to serve. You want to be entertained? Greedy Blizzard is about to release Diablo 3.
The only way your hippie ways will work is if you either:
1) Fundamentally change human nature (good luck) 2) Enforce your utopia through force (communist Russia / China)
Technology is what brings us welfare not opinions not markets not ideals and not self serving human behaviour. They assumed the guy who discovered the cure for pollio would patent it because thats how capitalistic the society was back then, He just scuffed and said ofc im giving it for free to everyone.
The term 'laissez-faire' does not refer to free markets where there is no regulation.
Yes it does. From the french for 'leave it alone' laissez-faire is a socio-economic system wherein the government does not regulate the economy. This is what the term commonly means.
On May 06 2012 09:07 DeliCiousVP wrote: Technology is what brings us welfare not opinions not markets not ideals and not self serving human behaviour. They assumed the guy who discovered the cure for pollio would patent it because thats how capitalistic the society was back then, He just scuffed and said ofc im giving it for free to everyone.
And how do you the vast majority of technology is discovered? By people pursuing their ambitions/goals, not by someone telling them too.
On May 06 2012 09:07 DeliCiousVP wrote: Technology is what brings us welfare not opinions not markets not ideals and not self serving human behaviour. They assumed the guy who discovered the cure for pollio would patent it because thats how capitalistic the society was back then, He just scuffed and said ofc im giving it for free to everyone.
And how do you the vast majority of technology is discovered? By people pursuing their ambitions/goals, not by someone telling them too.
i agree now imagine everyone given the freedom to pursure their own ambitions and goals.
On May 06 2012 09:07 DeliCiousVP wrote: Technology is what brings us welfare not opinions not markets not ideals and not self serving human behaviour. They assumed the guy who discovered the cure for pollio would patent it because thats how capitalistic the society was back then, He just scuffed and said ofc im giving it for free to everyone.
What's your point? It's not that zero new technology will be created its that technology would move at a slower pace. The profit motive behind new cures pours billions into research. Professors and researchers that come up with new technology and cures often start their own companies to make progress happen quicker. That's why Cambridge, MA is so full of VC funded biotech firms. Super smart people at MIT and Harvard come up with new technology then start their own companies to get the funding they need and bring the technology to market faster.
Here's an example:
Donald Sadoway developed a new grid scale battery at MIT to make renewable energy work better. Here's his story:
On May 06 2012 09:07 DeliCiousVP wrote: Technology is what brings us welfare not opinions not markets not ideals and not self serving human behaviour. They assumed the guy who discovered the cure for pollio would patent it because thats how capitalistic the society was back then, He just scuffed and said ofc im giving it for free to everyone.
And how do you the vast majority of technology is discovered? By people pursuing their ambitions/goals, not by someone telling them too.
i agree now imagine everyone given the freedom to pursure their own ambitions and goals.
If there's no idea of wealth, it takes away the ambition and dream for a lot of people, sorry to burst your utopian bubble. Yes, some people are perfectly fine working towards something for lower wages, but a lot of people want to be rewarded for their work, and if you take away that reward then there is no drive for them to do anything. This is a basic economic principle.
thats an american fantasy the profit incentive. Its a myth People are the most incentvised when their pursuing their intrest not when their slaving for a wage.
On May 06 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote: As has been pointed out many times, money is simply a tool to make the distribution of goods more effective. Rather than wasting my time ridiculing the proposition that money should be abolished, I would like to adress a larger issue in the hopes it will make the discussion of economics on this board a just a tiny bit more productive. I am interested in economics, and am interested in reading the thoughts of actually intelligent people, but I get the feeling most of them don't bother posting because the discussion is often just terribly confused, and full of economic illiterates.
Posts backing both 'sides' show only a very limited understanding of economic theory, often citing concepts and research as though they completely back their side of the story. The truth is often much more complicated, so please employ some nuance and avoid grand sweeping statements. There is also a large amount of confusion regarding terminology.
For example the terms Capitalism and Socialism are ill-defined, all economies that exist in the real world are mixed to a certain degree. The choice is not between two opposing ideologies, and any argument that aims to absolutely support the other while denouncing the other is, frankly, ridiculous to most people with some sort of relevant education. Please define your argument well, specific problems in specific markets with specific solutions. Try to back up your argument with some sort of theory. Chances are, smarter people than you have already done a much better job explaining the concepts that apply to your argument. If you oversimplify your argument and start talking in terms of evil-capitalism and benevolent socialism, or the other way around, it will simply turn into another internet shouting match in which neither side learns anything. Avoid false dichotomies.
The term 'laissez-faire' does not refer to free markets where there is no regulation. Laissez-faire is simply a prevalent attitude within a company or industry. It means that companies will only comply minimally with written laws and will otherwise engage in profit-maximizing behavior, without regard for any other social goals. It is possible for an industry to have a laissez-faire attitude even if they operate in a heavily regulated market. Similarly, it is possible for companies operating in very free markets to place strong emphasis on social responsibilty. This is actual quite common all over the western world. But especially so in Japan and Korea, where societal pressures cause companies to believe it is in their own best interest to voluntarily comply to certain, unwritten, social standards. The point is, if you use a technical term, please make sure you are using it correctly.
There is also confusion among people who agressively defend free markets. Economic theory does not lead us to always believe that markets function best when left to their own devices. In fact, pretty much all models of imperfect markets (which all real-world markets are to some degree) suggest considerable room for government to improve overall welfare. Models have shown that things like offering incentives, subsidies, regulations, temporary protectionism and much more can lead to more overall welfare, given the right conditions. The only thing I can think of that pretty much always leads to deadweight losses are taxes. Arguments for libertarianism are primarily ethical, not economical. Sadly, basic economic classes usually do not teach models of imperfect markets, but limit themselves to the relatively simple cases of perfect competition and monopoly. While this is understandable due to time constraints, it does create the problem that many people feel that they have much greater knowledge of economics than they actually do. If you have only very limited knowledge of economics, please make sure that what you are posting is accurate, especially if you are going to state it authoritatively. If you don't know shit, ask questions instead.
From the socialist camp, there is the common claim that people have been brainwashed somehow by undefined evil corporations employing powerful lobby groups, with unlimited control of 'the media'. The statements are always vague and almost never is any supporting argument, or any evidence offered. This is not actually an argument for anything, it is a completely invalid and worthless way of reasoning and little more than an ad hominem. "You are just against central planning because you are brain-washed", is what they are saying. Please formulate your actual argument so we can consider them, and yes people will actually try to debunk everything you say because that is how critical thinking works.
In short, please try not to be an idiot. It scares off all the good people
The underlying problem has to be addressed which is the global profit-oriented socioeconomic system.Theorizing about tweaking areas of monetary economic models is not going to fix the fundamental problem. Bottom line is, profit is primary to everything else. Such mentality cannot sustain for much longer. A shift is inevitable, whether we resist or not, as the wealth gap along with privatization of vital resources, environmental destruction, and technological advancement leading to practical automation of mundane labor increases ever further
You just made a whole bunch of statements that need to be justified, but make no attempt to do so.
First, what is a global profit-oriented socioeconomic system? To my knowledge socioecnonomic systems are not global, significant differences exist between nations such that it cannot be considered integrated. Second, you state that this system is profit-oriented, which I geuss I will give you a pass for. But then what do you propose replaces the profit seeking mechanism that sustains economic activity at the present? I assume you wish to replace this with central planning? Who will do the planning? Or do you think everyone in the world is just going to wake up one day and suddenly decide not to be self-interested anymore? You go on to make a claim that such a mentality cannot be sustained, what leads you to this belief? And what will cause the 'system' to collapse? None of this is self-evident.
I don't understand your statement about 'tweaking areas of monetary economic models to fix a problem'. The purpose of a model is to gain understanding, not to solve a problem. And what exactly make these models monetary? The models I spoke of are not monetary models; they do not deal with money.
On May 06 2012 09:36 DeliCiousVP wrote: thats an american fantasy the profit incentive. Its a myth People are the most incentvised when their pursuing their intrest not when their slaving for a wage.
Sure, but their interests might not serve humanity. I might be interested in playing SC2 all day, or going on lovely vacations. But how does that put food on anyone's table?
"Slaving for a wage" is how people contribute to society beyond themselves. Again, the system is such that to get what you want you have to work for it (give back to society). As people serve their own profit seeking interests they give back to society.
wheres the theory. the plans for reforming or destroying the system. the economics. the analysis. the failsafes. the contingency. Marx wrote thousands of pages, dozens of essays, hundreds of speaches. This guy has a youtube video.
Just another loon exploting the idealistic to carve out a niche for himself in society. How can anyone take him seriously?
EPT
