15
16

Responses to this thread? (np.reddit.com)

italme が 投稿

全 70 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]SovietFishGun 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Ahhhh why did you have to link it in a link post dammit the bot is telling them that you linked their thread.

[–]DrippingYellowMadnesMarxist-Awesomist 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (6子コメント)

All economies are planned. The question is who plans them?

The first smart-assed response is just silly. The OP's point is that a market economy doesn't give an equal say to all members. Suggesting that supply and demand account for communities making choices about what is produced assumes that all community members have a say. Those without access to wealth don't have a say, because those who own the means of production have no motivation to appeal to them.

The clown talking about exploding TVs in the USSR hardly deserves acknowledgement.

[–]audioredreclaiming communism 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

exploding TVs in the USSR

Soviet Russia had exploding TV. Capitalist America had exploding cars.

[–]DrippingYellowMadnesMarxist-Awesomist 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Aye. I'm sure this guy wouldn't be OK with the American economy of the past 75 years being summed up by a single product.

Yet somehow, it works for the USSR.

[–]KinoFistbumpCelluloid Socialist: This Camera Shoots Fascists 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Every bad thing that happened in the USSR is because of communism. Every bad thing that happened in America is a mistake, a personal failing, or a fluke. Duh! /s

[–]IamCosmonautAnarcho-Futurist||Market-Councilist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Agreed! But since we all here agree on what are the forces in control of the economy right now. I think the question is who should plan the economies?

Obligatory explanation to avoid unnecessary discussions: Arguing for markets is not arguing for no planning at all, but just against a rigid central planning. Any reasonable market apologist will recognize that planning is part of any functional economy.

[–]JackissocoolLibertarian Hyper Marxarchist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well if you're arguing specifically against rigid central planning, you're not gonna find a ton of opposition here. I think most people in this sub prefer democratized, decentralized planning. So it's just sort of a non-sequitur argument.

[–]IamCosmonautAnarcho-Futurist||Market-Councilist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You would be surprised.

And this is what leads my defense for markets. They are not only compatible with democratized decentralized planning, but they also play a important role in the process.

[–]JoeMcWatercastleLuxemburgist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

One thing they fail to acknowledge is that there is a difference between demand and need. For instance a 3rd world nation might need malaria medicine, but because they can't afford it, no demand is created and therefore the nation doesn't get any (or a sufficient amount). What we wanna do is distribute according to need, not demand. The same goes for food: we produce enough food for 120 % of the world's population, but a big part of the population barely get any share of it and therefore we still have lots of people dying of starvation every day. This is all due to the terribly ineffective capitalist economic system, where the economy is planned by the same people who reap the benefits of it.

[–]Michael123443☭Communism is the path to peace☭ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh my, they took one of my posts!

[–]MoontouchSexual Socialist 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (43子コメント)

Few if any of them have any serious refutations there at the time I'm reading the thread. /r/badeconomics is almost entirely reactionary and pro-capitalist in its bent.

[–]Oedium 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (37子コメント)

reactionary and pro-capitalist in its bent

What's funny is Austrians, an-caps, and market fundementalists libertarians regularly call /r/badeconomics "statist", socialist, government-shills.

There are definitely people on /r/socialism more versed in Marx, Bernstein and Gramsci than most of the badecon regulars, but radical economics is not what it was 60 years ago, and arguing for central planning against the academic consensus is a hell of an undertaking in 2015 to say the least.

[–]wumbotarian 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (27子コメント)

Advocating for central planning in 2015 is bad economics, plain and simple.

I thought only tankies held onto the central planning nowadays. I figured communists were too balls deep into post-modernism and critical theory to actually think about economics in any coherent fashion. Apparently not - socialists and communists are still today disregarding history in favor of blind ideology when it comes to central planning.

[–]G0VERNMENTCommunist Labor Party | IWW 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Read Towards A New Socialism by Paul Cockshott and Alan Cottrell http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

or read about Stafford Beer's work in cybernetics.

Planning is far more rational than markets and econophysics backs it. But keep telling yourself TINA is true it will totally make it so.

[–]GandalfsGolfClub 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I think it would be more useful to explain in your own words how planning is more rational than markets. One assumes you've read the book. If so it would be helpful to provide a breakdown for our - wumbotarian included - benefit.

[–]G0VERNMENTCommunist Labor Party | IWW 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Markets are wasteful, price signals necessarily imply over production and under production. Markets produce for effective demand not needs. Markets maximize profit not utility and can't take into account externalities like the environment and human rights.

The book is more explaining in technical terms how planning can work.

[–]wumbotarian 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

price signals necessarily imply over production and under production

Really? What proof do you have?

Markets produce for effective demand not needs

Needs can be part of demand. Hence why there is demand for food and clothing.

Markets maximize profit not utility

Firms maximize profits. Consumers maximize utility. Competitive markets are Pareto Efficient (First Welfare Theorem).

and can't take into account externalities like the environment

Yes they can. There's an entire specialization within economics called environmental economics that studies externalities and policies that can abate the issues arising from externalities.

and human rights.

Because we can't write laws that say "no child labor"?

And if you want to talk about human rights track records, I'd prefer to live in France or England than the USSR or Maoist China. Only people who have not lived under those regimes long for the policies imposed by those regimes.

[–]G0VERNMENTCommunist Labor Party | IWW 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Really? What proof do you have?

Do you not understand how the market works? For price signals to work you have to have fluctuations in demand which means that supply and demand won't always meet the rational price...

Needs can be part of demand. Hence why there is demand for food and clothing.

unless of course you don't have effective demand.

Firms maximize profits. Consumers maximize utility. Competitive markets are Pareto Efficient (First Welfare Theorem).

Yeah this is nonsense and doesn't match empirical reality at all. People aren't magic abstractions and again the liberal paradox shows that pareto efficiency is problematic.

Yes they can. There's an entire specialization within economics called environmental economics that studies externalities and policies that can abate the issues arising from externalities.

This requires public intervention, so 'not capitalism' according to you.

Because we can't write laws that say "no child labor"?

sure but that's making inroads on the market. Plus, by leaving the market in tact you leave social power in the hands of those who benefit from deregulation and they will gradually remove restrictions on themselves after they've been imposed. The US has some forms of child labor now.

And if you want to talk about human rights track records, I'd prefer to live in France or England than the USSR or Maoist China. Only people who have not lived under those regimes long for the policies imposed by those regimes.

Except most people in Russia want the USSR back lol.

[–]wumbotarian 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

For price signals to work you have to have fluctuations in demand which means that supply and demand won't always meet the rational price...

The last sentence makes absolutely no sense. So what if demand and supply fluctuate? That's how prices are changed.

unless of course you don't have effective demand

What are you even talking about? The only "effective" demand I know of refers to aggregate demand, which is entirely different from the "demand" we talk about in competitive markets.

Yeah this is nonsense and doesn't match empirical reality at all.

You're right - competitive markets suck at allocating scarce resources that's why the US had bread lines and the USSR didn't. Oh wait.

People aren't magic abstractions and again the liberal paradox shows that pareto efficiency is problematic.

You have not even stated this "liberal paradox".

This requires public intervention, so 'not capitalism' according to you.

Uh, I never stated that the government and "capitalism" are mutually exclusive.

Except most people in Russia want the USSR back lol.

Right, that's why my Russian professors who were born in the USSR and were able to leave the USSR and live successful and prosperous lives are just longing to return to the Motherland.

One of my math professors had a great story about waiting in line for potatoes in the 70s when they had a potato famine. There were 50 some potatoes for 800 people.

He now shops at Whole Foods, where there isn't a lack of potatoes at all.

[–]Integralds 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You have not even stated this "liberal paradox".

He might be talking about Sen's Paradox, an interesting result in social choice theory: here.

I don't find it particularly convincing, but to each their own. Social choice is riddled with awful negative results, but that doesn't stop political game theorists from finding decent second-best alternatives.

Uh, I never stated that the government and "capitalism" are mutually exclusive.

I'd like to reinforce that "capitalism" doesn't mean "anarcho-capitalism." Market-based interventions are well within the realm of standard (capitalist?) economic theory.

[–]G0VERNMENTCommunist Labor Party | IWW 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The last sentence makes absolutely no sense. So what if demand and supply fluctuate? That's how prices are changed.

Which means that at some point there will be not enough to meet demand at the rational price, or too much produced...

What are you even talking about? The only "effective" demand I know of refers to aggregate demand, which is entirely different from the "demand" we talk about in competitive markets.

If you have five dollars and want ten dollars worth of things. You only have five dollars of effective demand in the market.

You're right - competitive markets suck at allocating scarce resources that's why the US had bread lines and the USSR didn't. Oh wait.

http://www.amazon.com/Breadline-USA-Hidden-Scandal-American/dp/0981709117

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BukljzCIIAAUOkR.jpg

You do realize the reason there aren't "breadlines" in the US is because poor people simply don't go to the store since they can't get food right? In the USSR everyone was entitled to food.

You have not even stated this "liberal paradox".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox

Right, that's why my Russian professors who were born in the USSR and were able to leave the USSR and live successful and prosperous lives are just longing to return to the Motherland.

Muh anecdotes. My American professor who was born here totally never went hungry at night not ever.

[–]wumbotarian 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I am not reading an entire book. If you really want me to do so, go read MWG, specifically the section on the social planner's problem.

Planning is far more rational than markets and econophysics backs it.

Planning requires a fantasy land with a benevolent and omniscient dictator. If econophysics can prove the existence of God, then they've done more than just found the social planner.

[–]anti-utopianCWI | SAlt 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is the argument in that book about the classic "Socialist calculation debate"? If so, here's a paper responding to that.

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/calculation_debate.pdf

I'll read that part of MWG when I get a chance.

[–]wumbotarian 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it's about the social planner's problem.

You don't have to read Mises to think that planned economies can't work. Hence reading MWG.

[–]G0VERNMENTCommunist Labor Party | IWW 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Planning requires a fantasy land with a benevolent and omniscient dictator. If econophysics can prove the existence of God, then they've done more than just found the social planner.

LOL. No it doesn't. That's like saying it's impossible to model the climate or any other large scale phenomena. Humans act in mathematically predictable manners, we're not magic, we're material things that follow natural laws.

[–]wumbotarian 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Alright, then what's my preference relation between bananas, apples, pizza, milk, ice cream, hoodies, sneakers, cat toys, bricks, and pencils?

If you even know this for me you're way ahead of the central planners of the USSR. But you probably don't.

This is the problem for planners - not knowing utility functions, production functions and the social welfare function.

It has nothing to do with modeling (which can, and is done, in economics) but with deciding who gets what goods.

[–]G0VERNMENTCommunist Labor Party | IWW 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You fill out a survey. Boom.

[–]wumbotarian 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Do I do this every day? Because tomorrow my preferences may or may not change.

They may even change over the course of a day. Oh, and we live in an N-good (where N is large and finite) world. I am going to fill out a finitely large long survey relating N goods?

Furthermore, if this works so well, how come there were shortages in the USSR and currently in Venezuela but there weren't in the US or other capitalist countries? West Germany was more prosperous than East Germany, South Korea more prosperous than North Korea.

[–]G0VERNMENTCommunist Labor Party | IWW 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's not bigger a limitation than the limitation imposed by currency acting as a market of effective demand. Someone without money can't have their preferences met no matter how much they want something.

Furthermore, if this works so well, how come there were shortages in the USSR and currently in Venezuela but there weren't in the US or other capitalist countries?

There have been many shortages in the US LOL. There's right now a shortage of medicine here. What do you think happened with oil in the 70's? Are you completely ignorant? And the USSR was an industrializing economy, by the time it was finished industrializing reforms had been put in place that made it a de facto market economy namely the Kosygin reforms. Venezuela is a capitalist country, it does not have any sort of planning. East Germany actually would have had a higher GDP per capita than the west had it not been for extremely punitive reparations imposed by the USSR for WWII. And North Korea was more prosperous than the south in the early 80's. North Korea is currently a capitalist country anyway, they have SEZ's and private capitalists all over the country, hell a capitalist recently wrote a book about his experiences there.

Lets compare Cuba to every other Caribbean nation shall we?

[–]rp20 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cosma shalizi did a fun breakdown of central planning in crookedtimber.org. the title of that article was I think in soviet Russia, optimization problem solves you.

[–]Cyridius/r/SocialistPartyIreland | CWI | Trotskyism 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe the reason why you're so insufferably ignorant is the lack of reading about any of the things you're talking about.

You might want to work on that.

[–]wumbotarian 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So do you have anything substantial to say about the social planner's problem or what?

[–]dannyiscool4 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The real question though, is if planning is controlled by the average person (given that socialism is economic democracy), and the average person most likely doesn't know shit about "econophysics", would the planning end up working that well?

[–]G0VERNMENTCommunist Labor Party | IWW 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I think the average person is willing to accept the advice of experts who do know about it. The public is remarkably progressive in their actual policy preferences in general and when freed from capitalist propaganda about things like Climate Change, I definitely think they'll make the right decisions. I mean people in general defer to experts to a fault. Also, economic democracy would be more about setting general preferences and goals while the technical specifics of how to get there would be worked out by experts on the macro scale.

That said, one of the major tasks of any socialist government is the massive increase in the educational level of its society along with providing the greatest number possible with the leisure to be critical thinkers. Have you read Aristotle's Politics before? In his argument for slavery, despite being wrong about people having "natural roles" he makes an excellent point about how in order to run society, produce art, do philosophy and so on, the ruling class needs to have the free time to develop themselves in these capacities rather than being engaged in brute labour. Well, in socialism, with the workers being the ruling class the same holds true.

[–]rocktheprovinceMarxist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're literally talking to yourself, and you can actually do that privately in your own head.

[–]KinoFistbumpCelluloid Socialist: This Camera Shoots Fascists 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

We're at the point where being a Keynesian makes you the reincarnation of Lenin in mainstream discourse. It's frightening.

[–]Integralds 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wait, what?

The leading graduate macro textbook is Keynesian from cover-to-cover.

Let's look at the two leading macroeconomics journals: the Journal of Monetary Economics and the American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics. The most recent issues of both are deeply New Keynesian; the most recent issue of the AEJ:Macro is very nearly a special issue on the Phillips Curve, for crying out loud.

Being a (New) Keynesian puts you squarely in the center of professional economic discourse.

[–]KinoFistbumpCelluloid Socialist: This Camera Shoots Fascists 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hmmm, maybe I'm watching too much T.V. then. Every time I see a politician or pundit suggest that we raise taxes or increase public spending they quickly get yelled at.

[–]LordMises 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's not true at all. The best-selling intermediate macro textbook (Mankiw's) still uses the Keynesian IS-LM model for explaining short-run economic fluctuations.

[–]ThoctarDeLeonist Syndicalist ☭ -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ugh I had to read that textbook in first-year economics, reactionary garbage through and through.

[–]LordMises 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

reactionary garbage through and through.

In what way is it reactionary?

[–]ThoctarDeLeonist Syndicalist ☭ -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well for one the whole thing is riddled with value judgements and needless denigration of unions, most regulations, and other right-wing claptrap, although considering it's from one of Romney's campaign advisors I'd expect nothing different.

[–]LordMises 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You must be thinking of his principles text (which would make sense for a first year course). In his macro text he barely mentions unions at all and it's about as non-partisan as you can get from a policy perspective.

Edit: Out of curiosity I looked back at his principles text to see about the "needless denigration of unions."

He mentions them on a grand total of 4 pages in an ~850 page book. He concludes his remarks with this:

In the end, there is no consensus among economists about whether unions are good or bad for the economy. Like many institutions, their influence is probably beneficial in some circumstances and adverse in others.

So either you didn't read his book carefully enough or you don't remember what he actually said.

[–]jackrousseau 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

SRD seems to be full of them at this point in time, judging from my reception.

[–]italme[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

you don't think the economic calculation problem is worth rebutting?

[–]audioredreclaiming communism 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

http://fromalpha2omega.podomatic.com/entry/2015-03-25T06_53_16-07_00

[–]italme[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

too long didn't listen???

[–]audioredreclaiming communism 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It talks about the efforts at a planned economy in the USSR and the evolution of their methods and technology.

[–]vidurnaktisLuxemburgism | Revolutionary Social Democratic League of NY 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So that's where all those reactionaries were coming from.

[–]steeveperry 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

By abolishing private property, does that mean I can't have my iPhone, or other similar goods? Or is that geared towards other properties such as the means of productions, housing, and other essential entities which are necessary in a productive society?

[–]dannyiscool4 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Those are both types of private property. In socialism, you can still own your iPhone, your house, and other "luxury" goods, but you cannot own the means of productions (factories, etc.) , for if you did, you'd be able to exploit it for your own profit and hinder the workers' ability to make the full profit they deserve from their work (eg: many CEOs in America make 300-400 times as much as their average employee)

[–]Integralds 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is my laptop a means of production? I write code on it. I write lectures on it.

Not being snarky, I'm trying to feel things out here.

[–]shimptin 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The key word here is "I"; you write code and lectures using your laptop, hence you receive the full return of your labour. So it's not really 'private property' in the sense that you aren't using it to exploit a worker. If you instead outsourced your coding and lecture preparation to someone else, while not compensating them appropriately and you made a profit off what is actually their work simply because you own the laptop, that's another thing entirely.

[–]HalflingTeaDem. Socialism is redundant 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's a difference between personal and private property.