Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread - Page 14

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
For example (if you are being serious), the directives to 'make shoes' out of certain amount of leather resulted in abnormally high production of baby shoes, because it was easier to produce more of them from the same leather. Of course, what was needed was more adult shoes, but without real market forces (outside some farms) it wasn't gonna happen. Hence, reward inefficiency (because the managers would get bonuses).

So all you have to do is add the specifications which I'm sure happened.

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 19:12

That's pretty amazing, Kid, since as of Feb of this year the unemployment rate was 5.8%. So, you're telling us (with a straight face, even!) that it nearly doubled in five months?

-=Vel=-

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

So all you have to do is add the specifications which I'm sure happened.

Actually it didn't! Which is the sad thing

.

And amazinging most metal production in the USSR was sheet metal, because it was easiest to make that out of metal ore than other kinds of metal products.

Why the bureaucrats never made specifications I dunno, because maybe it was because the system made them not give a ****

.

alva · June 20, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

If your glorious revolution is all it's cracked up to be, people would be falling all over themselves to be a part of it.....so, show me an example of it in action today.

People still have something to loose, maybe?

JohnT · June 20, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
Che was right. The REAL US unemployment rate is 9.1%. I read it this morning.

Also, 2% of the male US workforce is incarcerated.

Fine. Show me the DOL data that proves it. This is what I get:

(Year, J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D)

1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9
2001 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8
2002 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
2003 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.1

6.1 % in May.

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 19:14

a graphical aid...

JohnT · June 20, 2003, 19:16

Include the discouraged worker rate of... what was it, .3%(?), and you get 6.4%.

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 19:18

Oh, c'mon John! So they're off by a measley 32%....that's pretty good compared to some "book-cooking"

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Good one, Alva!

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Another issue outside the actual enterprise was the design of the planning system itself, creating "rewards" for inefficient behaviors and disincentives for higher efficiency. I'd expect talented people in middle and upper management would be extremely discouraged by those problems

I have no idea what are you talking about. Really. ( unlike that Iran thread.

)

The process of allocating resources to enterprises via the central planning process - since enterprises weren't free to set prices, etc. You got problems like bonuses based on the number of employees you had working for you, so getting rid of drunks and slackers would actually worsen your net results.

I have a few detailed books on Soviet economics and central planning in the Khrushchev through Gorbachev era, but I have to borrow them back from my dad. I'd have to look up stuff to give you exact info without garbling it.

JohnT · June 20, 2003, 19:19

Damn, Vel, that matches my information! Oh... it's from the same source... the people whose job it is to collate and publish this info.

Imagine that! Those dumbasses at the Department of Labor don't even know how to calculate the unemployment rate!

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why the bureaucrats never made specifications I dunno, because maybe it was because the system made them not give a ****

.

No, it was because of corruption. Corruption wasn't policed and dealt with properly.

JohnT · June 20, 2003, 19:24

Perhaps they'll tell us not to trust the numbers because they come from a government source.

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 19:26

Quote:

No, it was because of corruption. Corruption wasn't policed and dealt with properly.

Part and parcel of the system. When you have an elite that live much better than the average folk with access to Western goods, even though you are supposed to have an equal society with only Russian goods, much corruption will probably arise.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Damn, Vel, that matches my information! Oh... it's from the same source... the people whose job it is to collate and publish this info.

Imagine that! Those dumbasses at the Department of Labor don't even know how to calculate the unemployment rate!

You don't think I would just pull it out of my hat did you.

Quote:

And today's unemployment rate could be much higher -- if the 4.7 million people who want a job but have given up looking all started looking for work again, thus rejoining the labor force, the unemployment rate would skyrocket to 9.1 percent.

CNN Money

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

No, it was because of corruption. Corruption wasn't policed and dealt with properly.

Part and parcel of the system. When you have an elite that live much better than the average folk with access to Western goods, even though you are supposed to have an equal society with only Russian goods, much corruption will probably arise.

The economic planning system is not responsible for criminal enforcement the police are.

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 19:38

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Kidicious
Che was right. The REAL US unemployment rate is 9.1%. I read it this morning.

Quote:

Also, 2% of the male US workforce is incarcerated.

I guess the unemployment of those burglars, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, armed robbers, etc., should be mourned? Or perhaps we should put them back on the street? Or just separate social issues such as crime rates and punishment from economic issues, since many of those incarcerated (especially long-term) are not incarcerated for economic crimes, and the rate of economic crimes has not gone up radically.

The Templar · June 20, 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

"At the mercy" - nice hyperbole, but hardly suited to the reality of the situation. I don't know where you live in the US, but you're a little behind the times on the law - there is plenty of precedent in numerous states for changes in zoning laws or discretionary regulatory action being compensable at law.

You're confusing Richard Epstein's theory of regulatory takings with actual case law and statutes. Look at Penn Central Transportation. Or for that matter, the rent control laws in NYC. There's a guy in lower Manhattan with a 7 room apartement paying $200/mo. The market value is closer to 20K/mo. That is almost a complete taking. But guess what? It's not complete so there is no taking.

If you've worked in the utility context, your probably thinking of the "physical invasion" doctrine. Namely, if there is a physical invasion, there is a taking.

At any rate, Amendments can be changed ('tis the very meaning of the word!). But my own theory is that a switch to socialism or communism might in itself count as due compensation for the taking. But like regulatory takings, its only a theory.

Quote:

Property ownership is a recognition of a naturally occuring phenomena. When I pick up a piece of rock and make a stone tool, that's my tool, unless I decide to give it to you or let you use it. Take it from me, and if you don't give it back, I'll spear you and mount your head on a spear to let the neighbors know I don't like people taking my stone tools.

A Lockean!

Of course, labor theory has nothing to do with the actual historical development of the common law property system. You see, what happened was William the Conqueror conquered England. He then traded rights to land for services. Basically, I have the right to use a parcel for what ever reason I choose as long as I and thrity men show up to fight for the king when called. I couldn't sell the land, and I couldn't will the land. Those rights were granted later. That's right! Granted by the state.

The same thing happened in the US. The US issued land patents regardless of actual improvement.

Moreover, according to Locke, I can't own a stretch of rain forest because there was no initial acquisition by admixing labor to "improve" it. So the rainforest cannot be subsequently bought by me since it was not propertized. This means that environmentalists who want to buy rainforests to preserve them can't. Rather, the forests have to be "improved" first. But once they're improved, they're gone. So much for any sort of libertarian theory about environmental protection through property entitlements.

Quote:

Some primitive cultures were communal, some were mixes of individual "stuff" and communal stuff, but the general notion evolved that it was a lot easier to function as a group if there were consistent notions as to who had what. The reason wasn't that "government regulation" created property rights. Your spear arm or club arm did that. Goverment regulation occured because it was a smoother system of managing those issues than de facto trial by combat without rules.

Yes, and the government had the biggest spear-arm! David Koresh learned this the hard way when Janet Reno took his gun from his crispy dead hand. As under William, the King controlled it all and parceled out usage rights in exchange for feudal obligations. You had to preserve your own land though. With usage rights came protective responsibilities. Fail to live up to your obligations and the King took your estate away and gave it to someone else.

Of course this theory contradicts your earlier Lockean view. Which is it? Force that creates property or labor?

Quote:

Actually, this is just the commie pseudo-philosophy conveniently ignoring the real purposes of the original formation of the state, to instead create a world view where the state itself is the be-all and end-all source of all things, and the citizens thereof are subservient to the state.

Uh, the citizens are subserviant to the state. Its a question of degree. Besides, what do you think the state is? In a representative system, the state is merely the agent of the people - a way to overcome the collective action problem. If you're against the state, then you're against the people - including yourself.

Quote:

If "the community" decides to say "**** the system of rights, privileges, participatory government, due process, etc., we're all just going to help ourselves to what of yours we want, and tell you what we think we'll deign to let you keep" then I'll be stackin' 'em like cordwood. Bring plenty of firepower, and a strong faith in the mercy of God, because you'll need both.

Temper, temper! Between running down protestors and using force to defend property you've demonstrated the sort of human being you are. Valuing mere stuff over people's lives? I though you right-wingers were big on Jesus? Didn't Jesus say that if a man asks for your coat give him your shirt as well?

Lastly, if the property system is reconfigured, you won't be defending "your stuff" because it won't be yours. You'll be a thief and a criminal, shoot anybody to misappropriate communal property and you'll be a murder as well.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I guess the unemployment of those burglars, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, armed robbers, etc., should be mourned? Or perhaps we should put them back on the street? Or just separate social issues such as crime rates and punishment from economic issues, since many of those incarcerated (especially long-term) are not incarcerated for economic crimes, and the rate of economic crimes has not gone up radically.

I'll give you a lesson in the connection between crime and the economy shortly. Just kind of relaxing right now.

The Templar · June 20, 2003, 19:46

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

The process of allocating resources to enterprises via the central planning process - since enterprises weren't free to set prices, etc. You got problems like bonuses based on the number of employees you had working for you, so getting rid of drunks and slackers would actually worsen your net results.

So central planning can fail. Big suprise, will your next feat be to prove the sky is blue?

Obviously, the Soviet model provides examples of what not to do. That's the great thing about learning from mistakes. You can avoid them next time. I think the great depression did that for capitalism.

Quit being so dogmatic.

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 19:48

Absolutely shocking, eh Brother John?

Ohhhhh, so it all boils down to corruption.

It's funny how communism draws a whole litany of similar lines:

*If not for the dictators, communism would work
*If not for the corruption, communism would work
*If not for the dissenters (who REQUIRE killing, obviously) communism would work.

If not for the humans, communism would work, eh?

-=Vel=-

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'll give you a lesson in the connection between crime and the economy shortly. Just kind of relaxing right now.

You mean by punting like this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

The economic planning system is not responsible for criminal enforcement the police are.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
So central planning can fail. Big suprise, will your next feat be to prove the sky is blue?

Poogas · June 20, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Granted, capitalism has had it's failures too, however, right now, *today* we can point to thriving capitalist-oriented nations as proof positive that it works. But where are the shining examples of Communism?
-=Vel=-

There are none I suppose, because none have exsisted yet. I forget who said it (I'm new to OT ) but someone mentioned that his point was that a true communist nation has not arisen yet.

Can someone explain how the Family is a example of Communisim. I don't doubt it does in any way or anything, just that I'm new to this whole discussion, and I find it all very interesting hearing both sides of the argument, and I can't follow with the Family - Communist thing, atleast not completely, I sort of get it.. :/

Last question, anyone got a link to the first thread???? I'd like to read it, but Apolyton always seems to load things slow, and I can't seem to find the first thread you guys talked about.

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 19:59

Yes....wouldn't it be nice if we could point to communist revolutionaries who have learned from earlier mistakes.

Let's see now....obviously we can't use Russia, cos they're the mistake to learn from.

China? Whoops! Looks like the same dog and pony show going on there (Great Leap "Forward" anyone?)

How 'bout the little communist hellholes in SE Asia? Nope....same stuff going on there too.

Latin America perhaps? Nahhh, same song and dance.

It would appear....not, but again, just as soon as one comes along, feel free to point him out on the map!

-=Vel=-

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 20:01

Quote:

The economic planning system is not responsible for criminal enforcement the police are.

This is the way the system was set up. When you have central planning, of course, the planners themselves are going to set themselves above the rest. You think they'll plan for themselves to be the same as everyone else? HELL no! They'll say we are doing the important work, why shouldn't we get more?

When you have a system of 'more equals', corruption will be rampant, and surprise, the police will be involved as well.

Quote:

So central planning can fail. Big suprise, will your next feat be to prove the sky is blue?

You missed the lesson. The lesson is central planning ALWAYS fails.

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 20:04

Here you go, Kid! I can play the numbers game too!

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/07/news.../unemployment/

**From the article**
There are currently 8.45 million unemployed people in the United States, with another 74,000 not counted in the labor force, which includes all the people who've quit looking for work.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Here's the link to the old discussion, and welcome!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=89181

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Poogas
Can someone explain how the Family is a example of Communisim. I don't doubt it does in any way or anything, just that I'm new to this whole discussion, and I find it all very interesting hearing both sides of the argument, and I can't follow with the Family - Communist thing, atleast not completely, I sort of get it.. :/

Communism expands the Family to the whole social group. Che can tell you more. I think he's busy though.

Quote:

Originally posted by Poogas
Last question, anyone got a link to the first thread???? I'd like to read it, but Apolyton always seems to load things slow, and I can't seem to find the first thread you guys talked about.

The name is "Why Capitalists are Capitalists." It's on page 6 I think, or maybe 5.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is the way the system was set up. When you have central planning, of course, the planners themselves are going to set themselves above the rest. You think they'll plan for themselves to be the same as everyone else? HELL no! They'll say we are doing the important work, why shouldn't we get more?

Show me where any respected communist has ever said that corruption should be part of the system.

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Show me where any respected communist has ever said that corruption should be part of the system.

I could ask you to show any respected free-market capitalist theorist that has ever said that poverty should be part of the system. But, I won't.

I consider it telling that you have never heard of the law of unintended consequences.

Btw, not ALL communists believe in central planning. In fact, MOST of them do not!

The Templar · June 20, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

So central planning can fail. Big suprise, will your next feat be to prove the sky is blue?

You missed the lesson. The lesson is central planning ALWAYS fails.

Too strong a conclusion to draw from the historical evidence.