Capitalism is the only way...

[Syphor]

Why is it the most efficient, productive and effective way to run an economy?

Why are centrally planned economies so aledgedly innefficant by comparison? Is it possible to overcome these inefficiencies while retaining a centrally planned system?

Corporations are centrally planned, a lot of them run quite well. Why is it that when we start talking economices on the national scale the whole idea of central planning MUST take a backseat to the free market?

[Seeker630]

I wouldn't say it's the only viable economic/social system. Under certain circumstances in various countries, different forms of socialism seem to have worked out well, more so in some than in others. Sometimes only certain parts of an economy get socialized, like health care.

[Syphor]

The thing is that when people start talking about nationalising industries all the capitalists get all uppity about how it's going to be mired in red tape and become hopelessly inefficient.

I don't believe the issue is with the particular system the industry is owned under, but rather how the industry is managed by those that own it.

[premjan]

Corporations are generally not democratic entities like government. Unfettered capitalism is good as long as the basic standard of living in a country is adequate, otherwise some socialism is needed to hold together the "national fabric".

The reason why capitalism can be good is because it is geared towards wealth creation, whereas government isn't.

I don't believe the free market is the same as capitalism. Capitalism can be centrally planned too. In most countries there is a lot of central planning - notably in Japan where it was an essential part of the economic boom there.

[Syphor]

One could say that while capitalism is certainly a good generator of weath, it also is a good generator of waste.

Now if the market doesn't want purple sneakers, red tables or orange car tires then they soon stop being made but it doesn't change the fact that the resources that produced these 'waste' items could have been directed toward the production of goods and services the society actually needed.

So in this case the government can direct resources exactly where the society needs them most.

I don't see why government, or technically public, owned industries have to be poor generators of wealth at all. I don't see any intrinsic reason why this has to be the case.

Another point is the interesting dichotomy between democratic government and capitalism. Now we say democracy is necessary for liberty and so forth and thus we favour it over a single party authoritarian system which would be an unquestionably more efficient decision maker. On the other hand we seem quite happy to sacrifice egalitarianism and class wealth parity just to make a few extra bucks.

[premjan]

Democracy is required where there is no single consensus goal. Where there is, democracy may not be required. Governments can make money too, but generally it may interfere with their other priorities of e.g. citizen welfare. As for directing resources "where a society needs them most", this is OK as long as there exists consensus on what a society needs most - for instance national highways are better to build up in this manner probably. But often efficient resource allocation is a distributed problem with emergent solutions. So a centralized decision maker cannot make an optimal decision in this regard. Of course it could technically be done in a decentralized manner by local govenrments. But still government is a different type of thing than commerce typically, so the same hammer will not work on all nails.

[Syphor]

Democracy is required where there is no single consensus goal. Where there is, democracy may not be required.

Isn't the consensus of any nation generally to maintain or improve prosperity/living standards, adapt to future trends, respond the threats etc?

If that is the general goal then in the interests of capitalistic-esque efficiency shouldn't we do away with parliaments, senates, courts and just elect one guy to run the show? It'd be really efficient.

Naturally we restrain the free market because if we don't then serious issues of equality, monopolies etc arise. Yet I do wonder why egalitarianism is held in so low regard and personal liberties are foisted up on a mantle all the time? What good is liberty if you lack the means (i.e. wealth and opportunity) to properly express it?

Governments can make money too, but generally it may interfere with their other priorities of e.g. citizen welfare.

If so then it's really a management issue. If everything is going to be publically owned then it can't be very well owned by one institution. It's probably where pure socialist states have fallen in a hole in the past; I think the answer is decentralisation as you said, in much the same way that federal governments don't manage local community issues, socialist governments shouldn't manage every industry under the sun either.

Obviously in a capitalist world, a lone-pure socialist state bucking the trend isn't exactly realistic. But I think this is much less a problem with the system and more a problem with the actual management of the system and the environment the system is in.

[premjan]

The consensus of a nation may be to improve living standards in many cases, but the nitty gritty details are sometimes hard to agree on. I agree that democracy is not compulsory as in many cases it leads to squabbling rather than progress. Really, it is more needed where there is a chance of exploitation by elites. It may not prevent the exploitation but it does offer a way out.

The other problem with governments trying to make profits is just that the urgency is not there as long as you don't have to make ends meet on your profit. In the case of a government, their power is such that the escape route of taxation is always present.

[Hooboy !!]

I think the answer is simple. Capitalism is driven by what people want not by what they need.

[premjan]

No reason why a government can't drive the development of wants rather than needs of course, though I guess a certain amount of capitalist greed may expedite the process.

[RationalMaterialist]

I deny the argument that Capitalism is good because it generates wealth.

This is rather like saying that cars a good because they go fast. If going fast is required then great, but you cannot use it as an argument against boats whos very virtue, to some, is that they go slow.

Wealth is only a good thing in the eyes of the capitalist... therefore to propose capitalism on the grounds of wealth generation is rather circular.

Other conceptual frameworks exist where wealth is not the aim.

The problem with wealth is that it is relative. One cannot have it unless some other does not. This creates a tiered society... maintains the third world... retains poverty... and generates unrest and discontent. In order to provide fuel for ever more effecient production and higher revenue and, of course, create artificial markets.

More ideal systems place value upon art and freedom. If everyone got a good deal and were free to explore their potential to the fullest possible extent regardless of social biases such as wealth and lineage. All essentials are covered and the minimum standard of living is at once the highest standard of living. We therefore strive not to increase our wealth but to increase the national standard of living. The problem is that in the global economy one must fight to stay alive, one must generate wealth to keep from slipping into a third world state... unable to compete for goods and resources.

So, such ideal systems cannot co-exist with capitalism, but must replace it completely on a world-wide basis... or, at least, on a continental basis... Europe, for example, has the resources to abandon capitalism and remain largely unaffected by the global market.

This CAN happen too. Just like the painful transition to mass-market industrialisation it will be difficult. But it IS possible.

But, still, I reject wealth generation as a necessary truth. It is necessary in a free market capitalism, yes, but this is like saying scuba gear is neccessary if you live under water... It is true, but of course, one can choose NOT to live under water.

The only REAL problem here is basic human greed. I am reminded of what the economist David Friedman said:

"In the ideal socialist state, power will not attract power freaks. People who make decisions will show no slightest bias toward their own interests. There will be no way for a clever man to bend the institutions to serve his own ends.... And the rivers will run uphill."

But, don't tell me capitalism and wealth generation is a good thing... it is not. It is just the natural dog-eat-dog order of things. One day it will be considered as primal... just one more embarassing stage in our social evolution. That is, of course, if we don't destroy ourselves competing for resources first.


-Gary

[premjan]

Well, everyone likes wealth if they have it. Ideally they could get it without depriving others of course.

[Stinger]

Well, everyone likes wealth if they have it. Ideally they could get it without depriving others of course. We are upper middle class. I started off at the bottom and am now doing okay. Who have I "deprived"? It seems to me that socialists believe that there is a finite economic pie. And that if one has more - they must be taking it from someone else. (I'm not accusing you of being a socialist.)

[Metaphor]

Well, everyone likes wealth if they have it. Ideally they could get it without depriving others of course. We are upper middle class. I started off at the bottom and am now doing okay. Who have I "deprived"? It seems to me that socialists believe that there is a finite economic pie. And that if one has more - they must be taking it from someone else. (I'm not accusing you of being a socialist.)

It is simply the case that resources are not infinite, and that whilst the pie can be increased, that isn't the only, or perhaps even the easiest, way to get more for yourself.

[Stinger]

We are upper middle class. I started off at the bottom and am now doing okay. Who have I "deprived"? It seems to me that socialists believe that there is a finite economic pie. And that if one has more - they must be taking it from someone else. (I'm not accusing you of being a socialist.)

It is simply the case that resources are not infinite, and that whilst the pie can be increased, that isn't the only, or perhaps even the easiest, way to get more for yourself. If this were the sole reason, why does Japan, with less population and zero natural resources, produce more than 10 times the average GNP as Russia?

[premjan]

Resources are finite, but our ability to exploit resources does improve due to technology. It is also not clear that the pie is infinite in size though it can certainly grow.

And Japan doesn't have zero national resources.

[Stinger]

Resources are finite, but our ability to exploit resources does improve due to technology. It is also not clear that the pie is infinite in size though it can certainly grow.

And Japan doesn't have zero national resources. Ah, I forgot that they are third in the world in the farming of strawberries!! They have the second highest GDP in the world as of 2005 and probably have the fewest natural resources of any similar sized country or bigger in the world:

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/pageinfo_pays.php3?Pays=JAP&Opt=economy

http://www.theodora.com/wfb1991/japan/japan_economy.html

[premjan]

Japan has a stranglehold on manufacturing of course. And they are partially responsible for rampant overfishing of the oceans.

[Metaphor]

It is simply the case that resources are not infinite, and that whilst the pie can be increased, that isn't the only, or perhaps even the easiest, way to get more for yourself. If this were the sole reason, why does Japan, with less population and zero natural resources, produce more than 10 times the average GNP as Russia?

That has nothing to do with the fact that resources are finite. That's not just economics, it is physics. Of course different countries have different economies.

[Syphor]

I think the answer is simple. Capitalism is driven by what people want not by what they need.

Wants are constructs of culture. I assure you, the natives of Indoneasia don't give a toss about television or the internet. They have, and will continue to live in much the same way they have for thousands of years.

[Syphor]

But, don't tell me capitalism and wealth generation is a good thing... it is not.

I think you've raised something rarely touched on in debates like these; that is the implied claim of the capitalist that wealth is the ONLY incentive for risk and innovation.

I just don't believe that is true.

[premjan]

Something like linux can be innovated without corporations, but maintaining it in the long-term may be more effective in the private sector. Of course there are disadvantages there too - such as microsoft's pandering to the user interface at the cost of a solid architecture. There are pluses and minuses to both commercial and noncommercial development of technology. Theoretically the former has a better customer orientation.

[Stinger]

But, don't tell me capitalism and wealth generation is a good thing... it is not.

I think you've raised something rarely touched on in debates like these; that is the implied claim of the capitalist that wealth is the ONLY incentive for risk and innovation.

I just don't believe that is true. Okay. Let's do a thought exercise. Let's say that you are a content wage slave and you live a comfortable life. However, you've just come up with a great new idea. What would it take for you to quit your job, invest your own money into your new business, put up all your assets as collateral for the new company, borrow from all your family members, and work 80 hours a week to get the new business started? What incentive would it take for you personally to make that leap?

[Syphor]

I'm talking on a much grander scale; in some hypothetical society where respect and recognition are what drives people to create as opposed to purely on the basis of how much one can profit.

[premjan]

I think even in a capitalistic system, some social recognition is required as in my experience people don't necessarily work well in total isolation, even if they are getting paid for it. But money can also serve as a compensation and people will learn to work for it. And respect and recognition can fail to motivate a lazy person where money possibly will.

[Preno]

I think the answer is simple. Capitalism is driven by what people want not by what they need.No, capitalism is driven by what wealthy people want. Inhabitants of the third world want access to drinking water and adequate medical care. Capitalism is unable to provide that, however, because there is no profit for the capitalist to be derived from providing people with people who live on $1/day with them.

[Syphor]

What incentive would it take for you personally to make that leap?

Obviously money.

The reason why I say money is because that is what I need to get by under this system. Money is the engine that drives the system we live in, so if I don't want to be destitute that has to be my answer. I've also been socially conditioned to want money; to want the things it provides. To be greedy.

This says a lot about the system we live in, it says nothing about alternative systems.

I made reference to indigenous tribes earlier. What incentive do they have to hunt? To wash? To build shelter? Why not be greedy and say 'give me ten coconuts and I'll built a hut?' Things don't happen that way because if they took the same sort of selfish, individualistic attitude we take, their social oriented system would fall apart. Everyone has their responsibilities and everyone works together for the good of the society as a whole.

Different systems require different responses. That's what this thread is about, challenging the individualism and greed of the capitalist system and proposing alternatives.

[Syphor]

I think even in a capitalistic system, some social recognition is required as in my experience people don't necessarily work well in total isolation, even if they are getting paid for it. But money can also serve as a compensation and people will learn to work for it. And respect and recognition can fail to motivate a lazy person where money possibly will.

Obviously there has to be some incentive in any system; but I challenge the notion of that incentive having to be money aka material greed. No doubt materialism has to be the primary incentive of the capitalist system, but it doesn't have to be an incentive in every system.

[Stinger]

I think the answer is simple. Capitalism is driven by what people want not by what they need.No, capitalism is driven by what wealthy people want. Inhabitants of the third world want access to drinking water and adequate medical care. Capitalism is unable to provide that, however, because there is no profit for the capitalist to be derived from providing people with people who live on $1/day with them. And yet, western mixed-capitalist societies (including Europe and America) have the best drinking water in the world. So, why do western capitalist countries have good drinking water while third world capitalist countries do not? I think that it has more to do with the strength of the economy and population base. In America, we demand clean water. And the politicians provide it, or they get booted out of office. If you want clean water, improve the conditions for business to thieve (because it takes taxes to provide clean water) and strengthen the ability of the population to vote out ineffective politicians, and you'll get clean water.

[premjan]

I don't think money is the best incentive for creative tasks, but for bog standard and repetitious tasks, money will get the person out of bed in the morning and keep them at their job 9-5.

[Preno]

No, capitalism is driven by what wealthy people want. Inhabitants of the third world want access to drinking water and adequate medical care. Capitalism is unable to provide that, however, because there is no profit for the capitalist to be derived from providing people with people who live on $1/day with them. And yet, western mixed-capitalist societies (including Europe and America) have the best drinking water in the world. So, why do western capitalist countries have good drinking water while third world capitalist countries do not? I think that it has more to do with the strength of the economy and population base. In America, we demand clean water. And the politicians provide it, or they get booted out of office. If you want clean water, improve the conditions for business to thieve (because it takes taxes to provide clean water) and strengthen the ability of the population to vote out ineffective politicians, and you'll get clean water.Simple, because the inhabitants of Western capitalist countries are much richer than the inhabitants of the Third World. You said it yourself, basically. Capitalists are not motivated to provide the most basic services for most people in the third world, because of their poverty. In fact, you yourself admit that it is an issue that is not solved by the forces of the market on their own (when you talk about politicians providing it), thus illustrating my point.
I don't think money is the best incentive for creative tasks, but for bog standard and repetitious tasks, money will get the person out of bed in the morning and keep them at their job 9-5.I agree. But curiously enough, proponents of capitalism typically argue exactly the other way around - "who would want to be a philosopher if you can be a janitor for the same salary". The mind boggles.

[premjan]

Of course a caveat is that Hollywood employ does earn large sums of money, and so do major authors. Not sure if those are objectively the best creative work, but they aren't the worst either. They are certainly the most popular in general. It is a question of worker vs. customer orientation perhaps.

[atonal chaotic]

Any useful view of economics needs to take into account the fact that economies, and civilizations in general, are too complex for any person to comprehend (the classic example being, 'how do you make a pencil?') This is the reason planned economies fail, no planner (or group of planners or nation of planners) can know enough to make the right decisions.

So capitalism will always have an edge over top-down economic models. That doesn't necessarily mean the market will always generate optimum results, nor preclude the possibility of understanding some systems within an economy well enough to introduce feedback loops that make them work better. But thinking should be along the lines of an emergent, feedback-oriented approach. Any attempt to create particular economic results by the fiat of legislatures, leaders, councils, or committees will fail.

[Preno]

So what makes you think that socialist economy cannot be "feedback-oriented"? I for one think that's the key element of any actual socialist economy.

[coloradoatheist]

Hooboy answered it that capitalism provides what people want instead of need and there is more to a human physche than having a 450 foot apt, food and some water. However more things have to happen for capitalism to work where the govts have to respect and encourage private property(EA's argument aside for now), have a fair and efficient court system, fair and efficient police enforcement that respects private property, need schools but also encourage entrepenereuship and a non-corrupt govt. It wasn't as if the US had perfect water etc but built it over time.


Mike

[atonal chaotic]

So what makes you think that socialist economy cannot be "feedback-oriented"? I for one think that's the key element of any actual socialist economy.I thought it was implicit in my post that they could.

[Stinger]

So what makes you think that socialist economy cannot be "feedback-oriented"? I for one think that's the key element of any actual socialist economy.I thought it was implicit in my post that they could. Yes, they can be "feedback-oriented". The problem is that they are lously at it! Below is an interesting story about a guy in Poland who was in a coma for 18 years

"When I went into a coma there was only tea and vinegar in the shops, meat was rationed and huge petrol lines were everywhere," Grzebski told TVN24, describing his recollections of the communist system's economic collapse.
"Now I see people on the streets with cell phones and there are so many goods in the shops it makes my head spin."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/02/polish.coma.reut/index.html

[Preno]

So what makes you think that socialist economy cannot be "feedback-oriented"? I for one think that's the key element of any actual socialist economy.I thought it was implicit in my post that they could.Alright then.
I thought it was implicit in my post that they could. Yes, they can be "feedback-oriented". The problem is that they are lously at it! Below is an interesting story about a guy in Poland who was in a coma for 18 years

"When I went into a coma there was only tea and vinegar in the shops, meat was rationed and huge petrol lines were everywhere," Grzebski told TVN24, describing his recollections of the communist system's economic collapse.
"Now I see people on the streets with cell phones and there are so many goods in the shops it makes my head spin."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/02/polish.coma.reut/index.htmlYeah, I just saw that guy on TV today.

Anyway, socialism is not necessarily lousy at reacting to feedback. It's simply that the old Soviet system did not. Since socialism implies the democratic management of production, it also follows that it necessarily contains a democratic feedback mechanism. (The painful lack of which in the Eastern bloc I don't deny.)

[Bonniedundee]

Why is it the most efficient, productive and effective way to run an economy?

Why are centrally planned economies so aledgedly innefficant by comparison? Is it possible to overcome these inefficiencies while retaining a centrally planned system?

Corporations are centrally planned, a lot of them run quite well. Why is it that when we start talking economices on the national scale the whole idea of central planning MUST take a backseat to the free market?
Our modern economies are exceedingly cartelised and planned, to talk of free markets in these economies is a joke.

[Hooboy !!]

I think the answer is simple. Capitalism is driven by what people want not by what they need.

Wants are constructs of culture. I assure you, the natives of Indoneasia don't give a toss about television or the internet. They have, and will continue to live in much the same way they have for thousands of years.
Precisely.

[PaineInTheBrain]

Wealth is only a good thing in the eyes of the capitalist...
Uh, I'm sorry, this is the most ridiculous thing ever. Wealth is a good thing in the eyes of everyone. That's why it's called wealth. You require wealth to survive. Whatever else can be said of capitalism, it's certainly reasonable to say that one good aspect of capitalism is that it generates wealth; most socialists are concerned with the distribution of wealth.

[Bonniedundee]

I think the answer is simple. Capitalism is driven by what people want not by what they need.Modern capitalism tends to a "push" economy actually, instead of passively adapting to consumer demand products are pushed on people through advertising and marketing.

[Trout]

Corporations are centrally planned, a lot of them run quite well. Why is it that when we start talking economices on the national scale the whole idea of central planning MUST take a backseat to the free market?

In my experience, some large corporations are often as mired as government in internal red tape but that's off topic slightly.

I would argue that "capitalist" economies are certainly planned though. Not like the communist economies of the past century with often arbitrary goals but a vast amount of effort is put into making sure economies are guided in the way government would like them to be. We tend to believe that the current western economic system is "free" but that's not really true. If you want to see at least "freer" places in action head to parts of the- developing world. Like more centrally planned efforts, the success is mixed at best.

[Stinger]

Corporations are centrally planned, a lot of them run quite well. Why is it that when we start talking economices on the national scale the whole idea of central planning MUST take a backseat to the free market?

In my experience, some large corporations are often as mired as government in internal red tape but that's off topic slightly.

I would argue that "capitalist" economies are certainly planned though. Not like the communist economies of the past century with often arbitrary goals but a vast amount of effort is put into making sure economies are guided in the way government would like them to be. We tend to believe that the current western economic system is "free" but that's not really true. If you want to see at least "freer" places in action head to parts of the- developing world. Like more centrally planned efforts, the success is mixed at best. You guys are confusing what "planned economy" means. In a capitalist country, Microsoft decides how many windows programs to manufacture and sell. They try to determine what is the maximum sales that they can do while maximizing profit. In a centrally planned economy, a bunch of government guys sit around a villa and they tell Microsoft how many programs to deliver. The capitalist system is really designed to meet the wants of the consumer. The consumer is king. In a centrally planned society, it's the planners or government guys who are the kings.

[Trout]

In a centrally planned society, it's the planners or government guys who are the kings.

Interest rates are still set, unemployment and welfare are still operated, research grants given, corporate law still made, taxes taxen and tax breaks allowed, etc all by government to push and prod the economy.

Not strictly set as in "you must produce x number of widgets" but certainly government spends a large amount of time fiddling.

[Stinger]

In a centrally planned society, it's the planners or government guys who are the kings.

Interest rates are still set, unemployment and welfare are still operated, research grants given, corporate law still made, taxes taxen and tax breaks allowed, etc all by government to push and prod the economy.

Not strictly set as in "you must produce x number of widgets" but certainly government spends a large amount of time fiddling. Yes, we have a mixed economy. I wouldn't want to live in a pure capitalist country.

[Nitrousoxide]

Yes, we have a mixed economy. I wouldn't want to live in a pure capitalist country.


Very true, a lot of libertarians seem to forget the step between a full free market and full central planning.

Actually, the US is on the rather free end of the mixed economy spectrum with European countries being on the more planned side.

[Gamera]

Wealth is only a good thing in the eyes of the capitalist...
Uh, I'm sorry, this is the most ridiculous thing ever. Wealth is a good thing in the eyes of everyone. That's why it's called wealth. You require wealth to survive. Whatever else can be said of capitalism, it's certainly reasonable to say that one good aspect of capitalism is that it generates wealth; most socialists are concerned with the distribution of wealth.


It also generates poverty. Sweat shops are the result of capitalism's destruction of indigenous economies that worked pretty well for a very long time.

[Gamera]

No, capitalism is driven by what wealthy people want. Inhabitants of the third world want access to drinking water and adequate medical care. Capitalism is unable to provide that, however, because there is no profit for the capitalist to be derived from providing people with people who live on $1/day with them. And yet, western mixed-capitalist societies (including Europe and America) have the best drinking water in the world. So, why do western capitalist countries have good drinking water while third world capitalist countries do not? I think that it has more to do with the strength of the economy and population base. In America, we demand clean water. And the politicians provide it, or they get booted out of office. If you want clean water, improve the conditions for business to thieve (because it takes taxes to provide clean water) and strengthen the ability of the population to vote out ineffective politicians, and you'll get clean water.

Read Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" and you may get an inkling. And it has nothing to do with capitalism.

[PaineInTheBrain]

Uh, I'm sorry, this is the most ridiculous thing ever. Wealth is a good thing in the eyes of everyone. That's why it's called wealth. You require wealth to survive. Whatever else can be said of capitalism, it's certainly reasonable to say that one good aspect of capitalism is that it generates wealth; most socialists are concerned with the distribution of wealth.
It also generates poverty. Sweat shops are the result of capitalism's destruction of indigenous economies that worked pretty well for a very long time.
Fair enough. My point was just that criticizing wealth creation itself is silly; there's really no such thing as too much wealth.

[Gamera]

It also generates poverty. Sweat shops are the result of capitalism's destruction of indigenous economies that worked pretty well for a very long time.
Fair enough. My point was just that criticizing wealth creation itself is silly; there's really no such thing as too much wealth.

Maybe not generally, but intergenerationally, perhaps. I suppose if the wealth results in the overuse of resources for the benefit of one generation, leaving the next generation with a depauperate earth and less wealth, one could conclude that too much wealth was a bad thing, especially if you are the one to inherit the resulting deplete ecosystem.

I think one can make an argument that that exactly the effect of consumer driven corporate economies may result in.

[Loren Pechtel]

It also generates poverty. Sweat shops are the result of capitalism's destruction of indigenous economies that worked pretty well for a very long time.

Except third world "sweatshops" are generally superior to the other jobs around. It's not like they can force people to work there. The whole issue about third world sweatshops is a deception by the unions that actually want to screw the third world workers by making such outsourcing uneconomic.

(Note: Sweatshops in the US with illegal workers are a very different issue. There the factory does have undue influence due to the illegal status of the workers and they don't pay market value for the labor received.)

The third world economies simply aren't as rosy as you like to think. That's why they are third world nations!

[Loren Pechtel]

And yet, western mixed-capitalist societies (including Europe and America) have the best drinking water in the world. So, why do western capitalist countries have good drinking water while third world capitalist countries do not? I think that it has more to do with the strength of the economy and population base. In America, we demand clean water. And the politicians provide it, or they get booted out of office. If you want clean water, improve the conditions for business to thieve (because it takes taxes to provide clean water) and strengthen the ability of the population to vote out ineffective politicians, and you'll get clean water.

Read Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" and you may get an inkling. And it has nothing to do with capitalism.

No. I have read his book, it does explain a lot of what we see in the world.

However, it is *NOT* the answer anymore. There's nothing that precludes the behind areas from importing the tech from the areas that have it.

It explains why they are behind, it doesn't explain why they are doing such a poor job of catching up.

[Gamera]

Read Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" and you may get an inkling. And it has nothing to do with capitalism.

No. I have read his book, it does explain a lot of what we see in the world.

However, it is *NOT* the answer anymore. There's nothing that precludes the behind areas from importing the tech from the areas that have it.

It explains why they are behind, it doesn't explain why they are doing such a poor job of catching up.

Nothing except having 200 years of infrastructure deficits and 200 years of domination by wealthier society who have established institutions that promote the profits of foreign corporations over economic growth for the benefit of all the citizens of those countries. And that's something.

[Gamera]

Except third world "sweatshops" are generally superior to the other jobs around. It's not like they can force people to work there. The whole issue about third world sweatshops is a deception by the unions that actually want to screw the third world workers by making such outsourcing uneconomic.

A remarkable and unsupported statement. Tying 12 year old girls to sewing machines may seem "superior"r than an agricultural society in your self-serving mythology. I doubt the girls would look at it that way. Indiginous economies feed people for thousands of years without sweat shops. It wasn't their idea. Nor was the conversion of their economies to service industrialized consumer societies. Nobody asked them.

I think your claim that if somebody did, and allowed them to unionize and get better working conditions and pay they would decline, is pure fantasy or self-deception.

(Note: Sweatshops in the US with illegal workers are a very different issue. There the factory does have undue influence due to the illegal status of the workers and they don't pay market value for the labor received.)

Like workers in the third world get paid value?

The third world economies simply aren't as rosy as you like to think. That's why they are third world nations!

You bet they aren't. After 200 years in which industrialized societies destroyed their indigenous economies, it isn't rosey at all. All the more reason to insist that workers in the third world get complete union rights and worker protection, or tariffs should be imposed.

I must say I find your nonchalant defense of the exploitation of poor people in the third world (many of them children) rather disturbing. It's amazing you buy into the corporate rhetoric that it's for "their own good."

[Loren Pechtel]

No. I have read his book, it does explain a lot of what we see in the world.

However, it is *NOT* the answer anymore. There's nothing that precludes the behind areas from importing the tech from the areas that have it.

It explains why they are behind, it doesn't explain why they are doing such a poor job of catching up.

Nothing except having 200 years of infrastructure deficits and 200 years of domination by wealthier society who have established institutions that promote the profits of foreign corporations over economic growth for the benefit of all the citizens of those countries. And that's something.

The point is that they should be catching up, not falling behind. That's not because we are in the lead, it's because their government is corrupt and looting the society rather than helping it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Except third world "sweatshops" are generally superior to the other jobs around. It's not like they can force people to work there. The whole issue about third world sweatshops is a deception by the unions that actually want to screw the third world workers by making such outsourcing uneconomic.

A remarkable and unsupported statement. Tying 12 year old girls to sewing machines may seem "superior"r than an agricultural society in your self-serving mythology. I doubt the girls would look at it that way. Indiginous economies feed people for thousands of years without sweat shops. It wasn't their idea. Nor was the conversion of their economies to service industrialized consumer societies. Nobody asked them.

You still have a very idealistic idea of what those societies used to be like. In the time before birth control the population was normally limited by how much food they could grow.

We came along and changed things:

1) We pretty much removed war as a factor in keeping populations in check.

2) We provided medicine that greatly upped the survival rate of children. The population exploded and the old system didn't work anymore.

I think your claim that if somebody did, and allowed them to unionize and get better working conditions and pay they would decline, is pure fantasy or self-deception.

When you're working at a job with a long waiting list of people who want it labor actions don't make much sense!

Like workers in the third world get paid value?

You realize they produce nowhere near as much as an equivalent US worker?

The third world economies simply aren't as rosy as you like to think. That's why they are third world nations!

You bet they aren't. After 200 years in which industrialized societies destroyed their indigenous economies, it isn't rosey at all. All the more reason to insist that workers in the third world get complete union rights and worker protection, or tariffs should be imposed.

They didn't destroy much.

I must say I find your nonchalant defense of the exploitation of poor people in the third world (many of them children) rather disturbing. It's amazing you buy into the corporate rhetoric that it's for "their own good."

I've seen a lot of the third world. I don't have the starry-eyed notion that things were all fine before the colonial era. I've been back to a couple of places and I've made many visits to China. The only place I haven't noted obvious improvement between visits is Japan--and that was because it was already doing pretty well the first time and the second visit was very short.

On the surface the less developed areas look better off but that's only on the surface. That 12 year old on the sewing machine? Before it would have been some farm implement. She would have been working, though.

[premjan]

You haven't seen the third world before the colonial era, though I don't doubt it had its share of problems then.

[Syphor]

The point is that they should be catching up, not falling behind. That's not because we are in the lead, it's because their government is corrupt and looting the society rather than helping it.

I think that's a really simplistic notion that overlooks the complexity of why the world is the way it is. It's easy to point fingers at perceived scapegoats, it's much more to take a deep look at the underlying conditions that give rise to said corruption.

To put forward my own little simplified version, people are a product of their societies. Why are they corrupt and not holy and altruistic like us in the west? Call it centuries of conflict, colonialism, poverty, disease and what have you, a really long time of shaping countries and regions in particular ways and a current global capitalist system that thrives on the concept of cheap, plentiful labour.

I can tell you right now that these countries are never going to 'catch up' as you put it without social policies in place which guarantee basic worker rights such as working hours and safety. They're never going to develop while foreign companies exploit their resources for foreign markets. Protectionism is the name of the game whether you like it or not, protecting and subsidising local industries to produce products for local markets. That's how the west developed, that's how these countries must develop.

[Syphor]

Precisely.

Then you'll acknowledge that wants are a transient thing, that they can change from culture to culture from outright greed to virtual non-existance?

[Syphor]

I also add this...while I'll often argue against Capitalism (as it is a bitterly flawed system) I thoroughly accept its need at this point in history. However, I subscribe to the concept of social/economic evolution in that as technology dictates the concept of capitalism will ultimately be replaced by more advanced, superior socio-economic systems.

It is most certainly not 'the end of history'.

[coloradoatheist]

The point is that they should be catching up, not falling behind. That's not because we are in the lead, it's because their government is corrupt and looting the society rather than helping it.

I think that's a really simplistic notion that overlooks the complexity of why the world is the way it is. It's easy to point fingers at perceived scapegoats, it's much more to take a deep look at the underlying conditions that give rise to said corruption.

To put forward my own little simplified version, people are a product of their societies. Why are they corrupt and not holy and altruistic like us in the west? Call it centuries of conflict, colonialism, poverty, disease and what have you, a really long time of shaping countries and regions in particular ways and a current global capitalist system that thrives on the concept of cheap, plentiful labour.

I can tell you right now that these countries are never going to 'catch up' as you put it without social policies in place which guarantee basic worker rights such as working hours and safety. They're never going to develop while foreign companies exploit their resources for foreign markets. Protectionism is the name of the game whether you like it or not, protecting and subsidising local industries to produce products for local markets. That's how the west developed, that's how these countries must develop.

If you put those in place then companies will never set up in the first place. Worker's rightswill come, it's one that takes time and it's a continous cycle of improvement. However the need to work on encouraging entrepeneurship, lowering taxes, ending corruption at all levels of govt, and creating and protecting private property.

Mike

[Syphor]

If you put those in place then companies will never set up in the first place. Worker's rightswill come, it's one that takes time and it's a continous cycle of improvement. However the need to work on encouraging entrepeneurship, lowering taxes, ending corruption at all levels of govt, and creating and protecting private property.

Perhaps this will see some development...in the greatness of time.

On the other hand one may say that such a system of development is terribly inefficient. The trouble I have is simply this, there is little multiplier factor going on...that is, wage earners are not able to reinvest their wages in local industries and create local demand and subsequently local jobs because local industries simply cannot compete with multinationals.

[PaineInTheBrain]

The trouble I have is simply this, there is little multiplier factor going on...that is, wage earners are not able to reinvest their wages in local industries and create local demand and subsequently local jobs because local industries simply cannot compete with multinationals.
Yes, we're told that increased employment leads to increased inflation for some reason, but I don't understand why that should be the case, because increased employment should be accompanied by increased demand.

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that's a really simplistic notion that overlooks the complexity of why the world is the way it is. It's easy to point fingers at perceived scapegoats, it's much more to take a deep look at the underlying conditions that give rise to said corruption.

To put forward my own little simplified version, people are a product of their societies. Why are they corrupt and not holy and altruistic like us in the west? Call it centuries of conflict, colonialism, poverty, disease and what have you, a really long time of shaping countries and regions in particular ways and a current global capitalist system that thrives on the concept of cheap, plentiful labour.

Yes, it's cultural. There was an interesting study of parking tickets and the UN. They used to cost the people involved nothing, thus they provided a good measure of how people would behave if they could truly flaunt the law with impunity.

There was a very strong relationship between how corrupt a country was and how many parking tickets it's UN diplomats racked up.

Note, however, that not all the abusers were ex-colonial countries.

I can tell you right now that these countries are never going to 'catch up' as you put it without social policies in place which guarantee basic worker rights such as working hours and safety. They're never going to develop while foreign companies exploit their resources for foreign markets. Protectionism is the name of the game whether you like it or not, protecting and subsidising local industries to produce products for local markets. That's how the west developed, that's how these countries must develop.

The policies you are after will ensure they don't catch up!

You're trying to raise the price of workers. It won't work, though--it's not worth it to the companies. They'll quit hiring the workers instead and the people there will end up worse off than before you tried to help them.

Leaving things alone will fix the problem in time, however. As the standard of living rises the worker protections will show up.

[Gamera]

Nothing except having 200 years of infrastructure deficits and 200 years of domination by wealthier society who have established institutions that promote the profits of foreign corporations over economic growth for the benefit of all the citizens of those countries. And that's something.

The point is that they should be catching up, not falling behind. That's not because we are in the lead, it's because their government is corrupt and looting the society rather than helping it.

On the contrary, it is because multinationals impoverish them by (a) destroying local economies; and (b) structuring their economies to serve industrialized nations by exploiting their labor and resources to produce cheap consumer goods.

I'm not saying a class of people in the third world doesn't collaborate with the multinationals. Of course they do. Real democracies would not allow the type of exploitation going on in the third world. But you seem to think that the multinationals are just peachy and that they're doing Botswana a favor by building sweatshops. I think that argument is beyond contempt.

[Gamera]

You still have a very idealistic idea of what those societies used to be like. In the time before birth control the population was normally limited by how much food they could grow.

We came along and changed things:

1) We pretty much removed war as a factor in keeping populations in check.

2) We provided medicine that greatly upped the survival rate of children. The population exploded and the old system didn't work anymore.

Who is this we, you're refering to, and who is being naive in claiming "we" brought peace and prosperity to the third world. You have to be kidding.



When you're working at a job with a long waiting list of people who want it labor actions don't make much sense!

Yep, in the context of nations that do the bidding of multinationals by destroying the local economies of most citizens, taking their land, and leaving them penniless and without a means of support, they will flock to sweatshops. But of course those aren't the only two options.

You realize they produce nowhere near as much as an equivalent US worker?

And?


I've seen a lot of the third world. I don't have the starry-eyed notion that things were all fine before the colonial era. I've been back to a couple of places and I've made many visits to China. The only place I haven't noted obvious improvement between visits is Japan--and that was because it was already doing pretty well the first time and the second visit was very short.

You seem to be talking to yourself. My point is the third world is an utter mess -- thanks to the economic imperialism of multinationals. What's your point? That history started yesterday and the multinationals are just trying to help?

On the surface the less developed areas look better off but that's only on the surface. That 12 year old on the sewing machine? Before it would have been some farm implement. She would have been working, though.

Nobody claims people don't need to work. But if you can't see the difference between owning land and working in sweatshop (often being beaten and raped by the goons of the multinationals), then I can't help you.

[Loren Pechtel]

You still have a very idealistic idea of what those societies used to be like. In the time before birth control the population was normally limited by how much food they could grow.

We came along and changed things:

1) We pretty much removed war as a factor in keeping populations in check.

2) We provided medicine that greatly upped the survival rate of children. The population exploded and the old system didn't work anymore.

Who is this we, you're refering to, and who is being naive in claiming "we" brought peace and prosperity to the third world. You have to be kidding.

No. We removed a couple of important checks on the population. Of course the population exploded.

Yep, in the context of nations that do the bidding of multinationals by destroying the local economies of most citizens, taking their land, and leaving them penniless and without a means of support, they will flock to sweatshops. But of course those aren't the only two options.

The economies were destroyed by the population boom--not that they had much before then.

You seem to be talking to yourself. My point is the third world is an utter mess -- thanks to the economic imperialism of multinationals. What's your point? That history started yesterday and the multinationals are just trying to help?

I'm not saying they are trying to help. I'm saying that you are blaming them for damage that didn't happen.

On the surface the less developed areas look better off but that's only on the surface. That 12 year old on the sewing machine? Before it would have been some farm implement. She would have been working, though.

Nobody claims people don't need to work. But if you can't see the difference between owning land and working in sweatshop (often being beaten and raped by the goons of the multinationals), then I can't help you.

Her plight would have been similar.

I do agree that being raped is out of line. That's already illegal, though.

[Ghostdog]

Why is it the most efficient, productive and effective way to run an economy?

Why are centrally planned economies so aledgedly innefficant by comparison? Is it possible to overcome these inefficiencies while retaining a centrally planned system?

Corporations are centrally planned, a lot of them run quite well. Why is it that when we start talking economices on the national scale the whole idea of central planning MUST take a backseat to the free market?

Capitalism is basically the "Screw you im out to protect my own ass" system thats wrapped in pretty paper to make it look good and clean. It sucks. Whether you like it or not someone gets the short end of the stick no matter what. Not everyone can lead healthy lifestyles. Personaly I think a good community could be far more prosperous on Communism rather than the unforgiving ways of Capitalism.

[Gamera]

No. We removed a couple of important checks on the population. Of course the population exploded.


Who the heck is this "we" you keep refering to? Exxon?

So you're saying that industrialized countries don't engage in war and undeveloped countries did, and we taught them the ways of peace, is that it?

BWHAHAHHAHAHH!

The economies were destroyed by the population boom--not that they had much before then.

Well this is a new low in revisionist history.

I'm not saying they are trying to help. I'm saying that you are blaming them for damage that didn't happen.

The idea that health care for third world people caused damages is odd indeed.

Her plight would have been similar.

Maybe we should ask her instead of letting Walmart decide.

I do agree that being raped is out of line. That's already illegal, though.

Apparently you don't know as much about third world sweat shops as you purport to know.

[Loren Pechtel]

Capitalism is basically the "Screw you im out to protect my own ass" system thats wrapped in pretty paper to make it look good and clean. It sucks. Whether you like it or not someone gets the short end of the stick no matter what. Not everyone can lead healthy lifestyles. Personaly I think a good community could be far more prosperous on Communism rather than the unforgiving ways of Capitalism.

Except the average person under communism is generally worse off than the poor person under capitalism.

[Loren Pechtel]

No. We removed a couple of important checks on the population. Of course the population exploded.


Who the heck is this "we" you keep refering to? Exxon?

The west.

So you're saying that industrialized countries don't engage in war and undeveloped countries did, and we taught them the ways of peace, is that it?

BWHAHAHHAHAHH!

It's not that we taught them the ways of peace. It's that in the colonial era we controlled whether they went to war or not.

Well this is a new low in revisionist history.

Overpopulation has devastated most of the third world.

The idea that health care for third world people caused damages is odd indeed.

That doesn't mean it didn't.

I do agree that being raped is out of line. That's already illegal, though.

Apparently you don't know as much about third world sweat shops as you purport to know.

The point is we don't need worker protection laws to address it. Simply enforce the existing rape laws. The problem isn't a lack of worker protections, it's a corrupt police department.

[Gamera]

The west.

Given the west colonized the undeveloped world and destroyed their indigenous economies, to claim the west brought medicines that caused "overpopulation" (measured by what standard?) and that destroyed the indigenous economies, seems ass backwards.

It's not that we taught them the ways of peace. It's that in the colonial era we controlled whether they went to war or not.

By going to war with them and killing off large portions of indigenous peoples. Several million in the US alone. This seems like a losing argument.

Overpopulation has devastated most of the third world.

No, destruction of indigenous economies have.

The point is we don't need worker protection laws to address it. Simply enforce the existing rape laws. The problem isn't a lack of worker protections, it's a corrupt police department.

The reason the police are corrupt is because they are in the employ of the rich who are in the employ of the multinationals who require cheap labor, which the rich in the third world deliver by exploiting and raping the poor.

[Ghostdog]

Except the average person under communism is generally worse off than the poor person under capitalism.

Because they are not contributing fully to their community and thusly bring the whole down.

[Ghostdog]

The west.

Given the west colonized the undeveloped world and destroyed their indigenous economies, to claim the west brought medicines that caused "overpopulation" (measured by what standard?) and that destroyed the indigenous economies, seems ass backwards.

By going to war with them and killing off large portions of indigenous peoples. Several million in the US alone. This seems like a losing argument.

No, destruction of indigenous economies have.

The point is we don't need worker protection laws to address it. Simply enforce the existing rape laws. The problem isn't a lack of worker protections, it's a corrupt police department.

The reason the police are corrupt is because they are in the employ of the rich who are in the employ of the multinationals who require cheap labor, which the rich in the third world deliver by exploiting and raping the poor.

The west sucks... doesn't anything good ever come from western madness?

[PaineInTheBrain]

The west sucks... doesn't anything good ever come from western madness?
It's not like the east is any better. It was just weaker at a key moment in history.

[Loren Pechtel]

Except the average person under communism is generally worse off than the poor person under capitalism.

Because they are not contributing fully to their community and thusly bring the whole down.

Exactly--the root problem with communism.

[Loren Pechtel]

The west.

Given the west colonized the undeveloped world and destroyed their indigenous economies, to claim the west brought medicines that caused "overpopulation" (measured by what standard?) and that destroyed the indigenous economies, seems ass backwards.

You're simply asserting what happened without evidence.

There wasn't much of an economy around before we showed up.

And the measure of overpopulation is what the place can support. We see all sorts of problems in the third world now because there are more people than the land can support.

By going to war with them and killing off large portions of indigenous peoples. Several million in the US alone. This seems like a losing argument.

The people in the US were far more devastated by disease than anything deliberately done. They didn't have resistance to the diseases of the old world, the deaths were inevitable.

The reason the police are corrupt is because they are in the employ of the rich who are in the employ of the multinationals who require cheap labor, which the rich in the third world deliver by exploiting and raping the poor.

No. They are corrupt because there's no decent system in place to deal with corrupt police. They're just as corrupt in dealing with westerners.

[Bonniedundee]

Except the average person under communism is generally worse off than the poor person under capitalism.How do you know?

[Loren Pechtel]

Except the average person under communism is generally worse off than the poor person under capitalism.How do you know?

1) Read! Don't just look at the political thoughts of those you agree with, look at what's happening in the world.

2) I've actually been behind the Iron Curtain, although we never got into Russia itself.

The most dramatic difference was West Berlin vs East Berlin. East Berlin was good by communist standards but still *FAR* below West Berlin--once you got far enough away from the border that it couldn't be seen from West Berlin.

[Bonniedundee]

1) Read! Don't just look at the political thoughts of those you agree with, look at what's happening in the world.

2) I've actually been behind the Iron Curtain, although we never got into Russia itself.

The most dramatic difference was West Berlin vs East Berlin. East Berlin was good by communist standards but still *FAR* below West Berlin--once you got far enough away from the border that it couldn't be seen from West Berlin.
My point was these countries were not communist in the generic or Marxist sense nor claimed to be. They claimed to be socialist but where not.

They did not distribute according to need so they are not communist, and to be Marxist communist they would have to be classless and stateless which they were not, they didn't even give the workers full control of the fruits of their labour therefore they are not socialist.

I suggest you make sure you are more accurate with your terms in future.

[Gamera]

[[QE]You're simply asserting what happened without evidence.

There wasn't much of an economy around before we showed up.

Your cultural chauvenism is almost comical. People in the third world existed for thousand of years on their indigenous economies and had higher populations than the west. You're simply uninformed.


And the measure of overpopulation is what the place can support. We see all sorts of problems in the third world now because there are more people than the land can support.


Pure ideological nonsense. There is plenty of food and resources in the third world to feed, clothe and prosper everybody. The problem is it is allocated to the rich first, due to our intervention and the intervention of multinationals.

The people in the US were far more devastated by disease than anything deliberately done. They didn't have resistance to the diseases of the old world, the deaths were inevitable.

So much for your argument that "we" helped the third world flourish. In America, we all but extirminated the native population with disease and genocide.


No. They are corrupt because there's no decent system in place to deal with corrupt police. They're just as corrupt in dealing with westerners.

Thanks to the influence of US foreign policy and corporate intervention. Are you really unaware of the history of US undemocratic interference in Central and South America, or are you being coy?

[Nitrousoxide]

Gamera, do you have ANY evidence that there's massive collusion going on between the US government, corporate entities, and the foreign governments and warlords in Africa and other 3rd world nations?

[B.S. Lewis]

Re: OP, at least some of the failures of planned economies can be accounted for by the fact that central planning was paired with a fear/punishment motive. For example, in Soviet nations, factory owners who were able to produce more than their annual quota would stockpile all their excess as an insurance against falling below quote the following year (and probably losing their job or worse as a consequence).

[Gamera]

Gamera, do you have ANY evidence that there's massive collusion going on between the US government, corporate entities, and the foreign governments and warlords in Africa and other 3rd world nations?

Let's see.

The US invaded Central America countries about 10 times during the last century, explicity to protect corporate interest.

The US deposed the elected government in Chile, using the CIA, explicitly to protect corporate interest.

The US supported terrorists in Central America that killed populist opposition members, peasants, and a number of American nuns, for proposing restricting corporate interests in those countries.

The US has made treaties with third world countries that globalize capital and labor, but not labor protection, thus giving corporations the ability to exploit third world labor and drive down US wages.

The US refused to impose tariffs on nations that exploit workers and allow horrendous abuses, from China to Pakistan. Indeed, the US has given them most favored nation status in many cases.

The US has refused to penalize US corporations that benefit from the exploitation of third world workers, like Walmart.

Do you have any evidence that US has ever taken any action since Reagan that hasn't been to exploit the third world for the benfit of the top 1% of this country. Think hard.

[Bonniedundee]

Gamera, do you have ANY evidence that there's massive collusion going on between the US government, corporate entities, and the foreign governments and warlords in Africa and other 3rd world nations?

I thought this was common knowledge? Look at Pinochet and Guatemala.

[Loren Pechtel]

Gamera, do you have ANY evidence that there's massive collusion going on between the US government, corporate entities, and the foreign governments and warlords in Africa and other 3rd world nations?

I thought this was common knowledge? Look at Pinochet and Guatemala.

Just because the sort of sites you like to read say it doesn't make it true.

[Ghostdog]

Because they are not contributing fully to their community and thusly bring the whole down.

Exactly--the root problem with communism.[/QUOTE]

Everyone is to lazy to work for the good of the community, yes I know. Capitalism is the same either way. Everyone works hard, some poepl get extremely poor. Everyone is lazy and you get the same thing.

[Gamera]

[QUOTE=Loren Pechtel;4516594
You're simply asserting what happened without evidence.

There wasn't much of an economy around before we showed up.
.[/QUOTE]

Are you denying the west colonized the third world or that it destroyed their local economies.

If the former, you're not to be taken seriously.

If the latter, explain how millions of people lived in the third world for millennia without capitalism and did quite well before you came along. Go into detail.

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you denying the west colonized the third world or that it destroyed their local economies.

If the former, you're not to be taken seriously.

If the latter, explain how millions of people lived in the third world for millennia without capitalism and did quite well before you came along. Go into detail.

The problem here is your assertion of "did quite well". Pre-industrial societies are pretty much subsistence farming.

[Gamera]

Are you denying the west colonized the third world or that it destroyed their local economies.

If the former, you're not to be taken seriously.

If the latter, explain how millions of people lived in the third world for millennia without capitalism and did quite well before you came along. Go into detail.

The problem here is your assertion of "did quite well". Pre-industrial societies are pretty much subsistence farming.

So was the economy of Greece and Rome. What's your point?

[NZSkep]

gettring back to the OP, I always figured that the reason centrally planned economies don;t really work too well was because of the massive beurocracy and inefficiencies in planning and entire economy.
You can see this in the west too. the larger the corporation (which are centraly planned) the more red tape bullshit you have to go through to get anything done and make any decisions. A centrally planned government makes for one hell of a large 'corporation' and so the diseconomies of scale and inefficiencies would be huge.

Does this make sense?

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem here is your assertion of "did quite well". Pre-industrial societies are pretty much subsistence farming.

So was the economy of Greece and Rome. What's your point?

How much of an economy is there in such a place?? Only the upper classes deal with money at all.

[ZeusTKP]

If the latter, explain how millions of people lived in the third world for millennia without capitalism and did quite well before you came along. Go into detail.

Yeah, millions of people lived in the third world before Europeans colonized it. Now billions of people live in the third world.

Are you seriously trying to say that food productivity decreased in the third world?

[ZeusTKP]

Getting back to the OP, centralized economies don't work because there's no incentive and no accountability.

If you're on a planning committee and you have a choice between working your ass off to make the optimal decision or make a suboptimal decision that takes a lot less work, why would you do the former?

If someone makes a good or bad decision, how will that reflect on the person?

And obviously, most decisions have to be delegated to the lower levels anyway. Systems where the top controllers try to micro-manage everything fail, just because there's too many things to manage.

[Gamera]

If the latter, explain how millions of people lived in the third world for millennia without capitalism and did quite well before you came along. Go into detail.

Yeah, millions of people lived in the third world before Europeans colonized it. Now billions of people live in the third world.

Are you seriously trying to say that food productivity decreased in the third world?

Billions of people now live in the advanced countries, most of them living on resources from the third world, whereas there used to only be millions of people in the industrialized world..

What's your point?

The advanced nations destroyed the indigenous economies of the third world, decimated their populations, and then reconstructed their economies to serve the advanced nations. That resulted in ultimately in increased population growth due to the availability of modern medicine,which had nothing to do with colonization.

[Gamera]

So was the economy of Greece and Rome. What's your point?

How much of an economy is there in such a place?? Only the upper classes deal with money at all.

Kind of like what the advanced nations did to the third world: exploited it to support its upper classes.

[ZeusTKP]

Billions of people now live in the advanced countries, most of them living on resources from the third world.

Some of the resources were plundered from the third world, but definitely not all. Most resources today are acquired through legitimate trade and there's a decent amount of aid flowing back. Pennance, if you will.

Protectionists, like yourself, pretend that this trade is not beneficial to the third world. Which is just not the case.

The advanced nations destroyed the indigenous economies of the third world, decimated their populations, and then reconstructed their economies to serve the advanced nations. That resulted in ultimately in increased population growth due to the availability of modern medicine,which had nothing to do with colonization.

When you say "destroyed the indigenous economies", are you saying that the Europeans replaced them with other industries, or that the actual net output of the New World decreased?

[Loren Pechtel]

If the latter, explain how millions of people lived in the third world for millennia without capitalism and did quite well before you came along. Go into detail.

Yeah, millions of people lived in the third world before Europeans colonized it. Now billions of people live in the third world.

Are you seriously trying to say that food productivity decreased in the third world?

Oh, come on now! It was heaven before the coming of the white man!

[Bonniedundee]

Just because the sort of sites you like to read say it doesn't make it true.But it is true, the CIA was involved in the Pinochet coup and the US was involved in Guatemala's coup in the 50s.

Are you denying this?

[Syphor]

Getting back to the OP, centralized economies don't work because there's no incentive and no accountability.

That's not exactly an original insight is it? Nor is it a correct one either.

I'll grant you that risk and innovation are more likely to go unrewarded if the system is not correctly structured. I will not grant you the absolute 'there is no incentive'. That's absurd, and on the basis of human history, utterly wrong.

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is it the most efficient, productive and effective way to run an economy?

It isn't.

That is why you don't see pure capitalism anywhere in the world.

Pure capitalism, with no socialism tied in with it, would lead very quickly to feudelism. I think we can see this trend amongst corporations in the US (which is not purely capitalistic but moreso than most other first world countries).

[ZeusTKP]

That's not exactly an original insight is it? Nor is it a correct one either.

I'll grant you that risk and innovation are more likely to go unrewarded if the system is not correctly structured. I will not grant you the absolute 'there is no incentive'. That's absurd, and on the basis of human history, utterly wrong.

OK, and what's a "correctly structured" centrally planned economy?

[Syphor]

OK, and what's a "correctly structured" centrally planned economy?

Whoa there, before you go charging headlong into picking apart whatever model I propose, I think it would be nice to see you support your original claim that incentive does not and can not exist in a centrally planned economy.

Because after all, that's what you said...it's a mighty generalising claim too. So one step at a time.

[Gamera]

[QUO]
Some of the resources were plundered from the third world, but definitely not all. Most resources today are acquired through legitimate trade and there's a decent amount of aid flowing back. Pennance, if you will.

You can aid poor people without first making them poor by destroying their local economies. It's cold comfort they way you're proposing to do it.

Protectionists, like yourself, pretend that this trade is not beneficial to the third world. Which is just not the case.

Trade is only beneficial if workers have protection. Corporations don't move capital to countries with worker protection, because the whole point is to exploit desperate powerless workers and drive down wages here and abroad.

See a pattern forming?


When you say "destroyed the indigenous economies", are you saying that the Europeans replaced them with other industries, or that the actual net output of the New World decreased?

No, I'm saying the political, social and economic structures that worked in those countries for millennia were destroyed by colonizing powers and the economy reconstructed to serve international capital, and not benefit people in the poor countries.

Net output in the New World certainly increased for native Americas -- they were basically killed off.

Try to focus on people and not "nations" and you'll understand the issue better.

[Gamera]

Yeah, millions of people lived in the third world before Europeans colonized it. Now billions of people live in the third world.

Are you seriously trying to say that food productivity decreased in the third world?

Oh, come on now! It was heaven before the coming of the white man!

Those aren't the only two options. It is typical of market fundis to put issues in simplistic, distorted terms like this.

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh, come on now! It was heaven before the coming of the white man!

Those aren't the only two options. It is typical of market fundis to put issues in simplistic, distorted terms like this.

You don't really think I was being serious, do you??

[ZeusTKP]

OK, and what's a "correctly structured" centrally planned economy?

Whoa there, before you go charging headlong into picking apart whatever model I propose, I think it would be nice to see you support your original claim that incentive does not and can not exist in a centrally planned economy.

I didn't mean to imply that incentive cannot theoretically exist in some centrally planned economy. I meant that practically, this has not been the case. The central economies that I know of did not have incentive.

But until you show me a counter-example, I have no reason to believe one exists.

[ZeusTKP]

[QUO]
Some of the resources were plundered from the third world, but definitely not all. Most resources today are acquired through legitimate trade and there's a decent amount of aid flowing back. Pennance, if you will.

You can aid poor people without first making them poor by destroying their local economies. It's cold comfort they way you're proposing to do it.

Actually, I'm not saying that we should be giving them aid. At least not the way we're doing it now.

Trade is only beneficial if workers have protection.

No.

Corporations don't move capital to countries with worker protection, because the whole point is to exploit desperate powerless workers and drive down wages here and abroad.

See a pattern forming?

There's no such thing as "exploiting" workers unless you're actively enslaving them or robbing them of their posessions. Some corporations might be doing that, but most don't. Offering low pay to someone is not exploitation.


When you say "destroyed the indigenous economies", are you saying that the Europeans replaced them with other industries, or that the actual net output of the New World decreased?

No, I'm saying the political, social and economic structures that worked in those countries for millennia were destroyed by colonizing powers and the economy reconstructed to serve international capital, and not benefit people in the poor countries.

Net output in the New World certainly increased for native Americas -- they were basically killed off.

Try to focus on people and not "nations" and you'll understand the issue better.

Obviously the killing of indigineous peoples was criminal, but "morals" were different back then. It was normal for some cultures to wipe out others.

One can make a case for reparations, but I simply don't think that's feasible anymore except in some isolated cases.

[untermensche]

It is funny to hear some claim the US economy is not a centralized economy.

The US economy relies on enormous Federal wasteful spending and enormous Federal spending on research and development.

Without this massive Federal spending we saw what US so-called capitalism gives you, in 1929.

[ZeusTKP]

It is funny to hear some claim the US economy is not a centralized economy.

The US economy relies on enormous Federal wasteful spending and enormous Federal spending on research and development.

Without this massive Federal spending we saw what US so-called capitalism gives you, in 1929.

Are you referring to the crash or the depression that followed? Neither was caused by lack of centralization.

[Nice Squirrel]

It is funny to hear some claim the US economy is not a centralized economy.

The US economy relies on enormous Federal wasteful spending and enormous Federal spending on research and development.

This is often forgotten about, especially when we bring up the subject of individuals such as Ronald Reagan. He is often portrayed as some kinda of anti-big government president when (as with the current president) he continued the expanse of government spending as part of his trickle-down economics.

[Nitrousoxide]

The US economy is pretty darn free. It's many times freer than it's counterparts in Europe, but many of them are realising the errors in their ways and reducing government intervention (example: France and Germany).

Political scientists will often even put the US into the catagory of having a free market economy, rather than it having a mixed economy.

So while it may have some government intervention, it's a far cry from central planning or a command economy.

[untermensche]

Are you referring to the crash or the depression that followed? Neither was caused by lack of centralization.
Sure, it wasn't the system itself that broke down until they figured out it needed massive Federal spending to make it work. And that is what we have had practically ever since, except when they moved away a little after the second world war and the economy headed right back towards depression.

That's a good one.

[untermensche]

This is often forgotten about, especially when we bring up the subject of individuals such as Ronald Reagan. He is often portrayed as some kinda of anti-big government president when (as with the current president) he continued the expanse of government spending as part of his trickle-down economics.
It's not forgotten. It's ignored and denied.

The grand illusion of a non-centralized modern capitalist economy survivng without massive Federal spending to maintain it.

[ZeusTKP]

Are you referring to the crash or the depression that followed? Neither was caused by lack of centralization.
Sure, it wasn't the system itself that broke down until they figured out it needed massive Federal spending to make it work. And that is what we have had practically ever since, except when they moved away a little after the second world war and the economy headed right back towards depression.

That's a good one.

You lost me. What exactly do you mean by "system"?


And, is you overall argument that capitalist enterprise is helped by "massive government spending"? That's absurd. Why would companies need the government to spend their money? Why can't they do it themselves?

[Nice Squirrel]

Ever notice how many of the highest taxed states also have the most robust economies? Is it the chicken or the egg?

As far as how massive government spending helps: many revolutionary business product have their start in government programs and R&D. For example: Computers. Far too expensive and imprcaticle for business in their early days, probably wouldn't have been developed without massive government support. Internet? Yep. Gov't. And who do all those defense contractors sell to? Gov't. Not to mention all the supplies that keep gov't running. Businesses make billions off the government.

[Nitrousoxide]

Actually, the ones with an effective tax rate of near 100% (communist countries) had some pretty crappy economies.

[Nice Squirrel]

I meant US states. And if the tax rate was 100% who would have spending money?

[Nitrousoxide]

Oh, in that case, those states which have really high taxes also had large businesses already before the US states started becoming more hungry for revenue.

New York has historically been a major trade hub, the same with cities on the west coast. They were wealthy places long before taxes were raised substancially there.

[untermensche]

You lost me. What exactly do you mean by "system"?


And, is you overall argument that capitalist enterprise is helped by "massive government spending"? That's absurd. Why would companies need the government to spend their money? Why can't they do it themselves?
You are joking right?

Many many corporations would cease to exist without the Federal monies or results of Federal research given them, which enables them to survive.

Take away this massive government spending and the US economy would begin spiralling towards permanent Depression.

Capitalism is not a system that does very well without massive government spending.

Look at capitalist Haiti. Capitalist Guatemala. Capitalist Indonesia.

[ZeusTKP]

You lost me. What exactly do you mean by "system"?


And, is you overall argument that capitalist enterprise is helped by "massive government spending"? That's absurd. Why would companies need the government to spend their money? Why can't they do it themselves?
You are joking right?

No, are you?

Many many corporations would cease to exist without the Federal monies or results of Federal research given them, which enables them to survive.

Many more other corporations and smaller companies would be better off. It would be a good thing.

Take away this massive government spending and the US economy would begin spiralling towards permanent Depression.

No.

Capitalism is not a system that does very well without massive government spending.

Spending of what? Money? That came from what? Taxes? That were paid by...???

Look at capitalist Haiti. Capitalist Guatemala. Capitalist Indonesia.

What about them?

[Nice Squirrel]

Oh, in that case, those states which have really high taxes also had large businesses already before the US states started becoming more hungry for revenue.

Really? Conneticut and Wisconsin? Remember that alot of these higher taxed states put much of that tax money into the economy to stimulate business.

[untermensche]

Many more other corporations and smaller companies would be better off. It would be a good thing.
How will they be better off in the resultant Depression which would follow?
Spending of what? Money? That came from what? Taxes? That were paid by...???
Taxes and other revenues. That is what the government spends with. And we saw in 1929 what happens when the spending was too low. And we saw how the spending during WWII was the only thing that got the so-called capitalist economy out of the Depression.
What about them?
Great examples of capitalist economies that lack the proper level of government spending.

[ZeusTKP]

Many more other corporations and smaller companies would be better off. It would be a good thing.
How will they be better off in the resultant Depression which would follow?
There's not going to be one.

Taxes

Texes that came from where?

and other revenues. That is what the government spends with. And we saw in 1929 what happens when the spending was too low. And we saw how the spending during WWII was the only thing that got the so-called capitalist economy out of the Depression.
What about them?
Great examples of capitalist economies that lack the proper level of government spending.

The absolute level of spending is not what's important as long as the government fulfills it's legitimate functions. Primarily to keep law and order.

[Nice Squirrel]

So ZeusTKP are you saying that Govenrment spending in programs that grow and enhance economic activity/opportunity are bad?

(I'll let you define "bad")

[ZeusTKP]

So ZeusTKP are you saying that Govenrment spending in programs that grow and enhance economic activity/opportunity are bad?

(I'll let you define "bad")

depends on the program.

'Massive' spending is most likely 'bad', ie it will slow down overall growth.

[Gamera]

So ZeusTKP are you saying that Govenrment spending in programs that grow and enhance economic activity/opportunity are bad?

(I'll let you define "bad")

depends on the program.

'Massive' spending is most likely 'bad', ie it will slow down overall growth.

Since money is fungible and it doesn't matter who spends it, this simply isn't true. If government builds a dam or if private industry builds a dam, the economic effect is still the same - both pay the construction workers with cash and the worker go out and buy stuff with their income or save it.

If anything, government spending is more efficient since profit isn't required.

[Gamera]

It is funny to hear some claim the US economy is not a centralized economy..

By "free" you mean that the rules are designed mostly to benefit owners and harm workers. Why does that make it more "free"? Go into detail

[Gamera]

Actually, the ones with an effective tax rate of near 100% (communist countries) had some pretty crappy economies.

This is a red herring since communism countries don't tax at 100%.

And the sole real example of communist economies, the Soviet Union, produced a superpower from a feudal economy in about 50 years. Quite a feat, especially since the SU fought a world war in the interim and was invaded by numerous countries and was under constant threat by the US.

[Nitrousoxide]

If anything, government spending is more efficient since profit isn't required.

A lack of a need for profit does not a more efficient system make.

[Nitrousoxide]

Actually, the ones with an effective tax rate of near 100% (communist countries) had some pretty crappy economies.

This is a red herring since communism countries don't tax at 100%.

And the sole real example of communist economies, the Soviet Union, produced a superpower from a feudal economy in about 50 years. Quite a feat, especially since the SU fought a world war in the interim and was invaded by numerous countries and was under constant threat by the US.

The Soviets were never able to keep pace with the West in economic terms. The Chinese never managed to make any progress in their economy under Mao. Not until they switched over to a fairly free market economy and allowed a lot of foreign investments did they see any real growth in the GDP. Vietnam is still dirt poor today. North Korea spends all of it's resources to feed it's army. East Germany never had enough food to feed it's people, none of the countries in the Soviet bloc did.

[Gamera]

[[OTE]
Actually, I'm not saying that we should be giving them aid. At least not the way we're doing it now.

That of course doesn't surprise. It suggests that all your claims about how the west has helped the third world by colonizing it was spoken in bad faith. As it turns out you weren't even for that aid, such as it is.


There's no such thing as "exploiting" workers unless you're actively enslaving them or robbing them of their posessions. Some corporations might be doing that, but most don't. Offering low pay to someone is not exploitation.

Passing laws that prevent unionization exploits workers. Allowing the globalization of capital but not worker protection exploits workers. Making workers work in unsafe conditions exploits workers. Taking peasants lands and then forcing them to work in sweatshops to survive exploits workers.

I guess we have a different definition of what "exploit" means. You're apparently worried about Paris Hilton's tax rate being to high, and I'm worried about poor people working under slave labor conditions. Do you detect a difference?

Obviously the killing of indigineous peoples was criminal, but "morals" were different back then. It was normal for some cultures to wipe out others.

What an argument! Modern corporations get the benefit of its prior bad morals. At least you've admitted the criminal background that led to the current economic system.

[Gamera]

This is a red herring since communism countries don't tax at 100%.

And the sole real example of communist economies, the Soviet Union, produced a superpower from a feudal economy in about 50 years. Quite a feat, especially since the SU fought a world war in the interim and was invaded by numerous countries and was under constant threat by the US.

The Soviets were never able to keep pace with the West in economic terms. The Chinese never managed to make any progress in their economy under Mao. Not until they switched over to a fairly free market economy and allowed a lot of foreign investments did they see any real growth in the GDP. Vietnam is still dirt poor today. North Korea spends all of it's resources to feed it's army. East Germany never had enough food to feed it's people, none of the countries in the Soviet bloc did.


So the Soviet Union wasn't a superpower and all that conservative fear mongering was just claptrap? Which is it?

[Nitrousoxide]

The Soviet Union had a fraction of the US's economy.

That doesn't mean that their military was not a threat to us or their neighbors. They funneled a much larger fraction of their GDP into their military than we did.

The arms race and bad leadership were probably the two biggest reasons why they collapsed. They just couldn't keep up with the free market US despite all their best efforts. We managed to maintain a better military at all times throughout the Cold War, rebuilt Europe and Japan, and still managed to have a much smaller portion of our economy devoted to those things thanks the simple size of it.

[Gamera]

The Soviet Union had a fraction of the US's economy.

That doesn't mean that their military was not a threat to us or their neighbors. They funneled a much larger fraction of their GDP into their military than we did.

The arms race and bad leadership were probably the two biggest reasons why they collapsed. They just couldn't keep up with the free market US despite all their best efforts. We managed to maintain a better military at all times throughout the Cold War, rebuilt Europe and Japan, and still managed to have a much smaller portion of our economy devoted to those things thanks the simple size of it.


A red herring.

The Soviet Union started with a feudal peasant economy with no infrastructure and in 50 years had become a modern industrialized nation and threatened the hegemony of the US.

Go figure.

[Loren Pechtel]

The Soviets were never able to keep pace with the West in economic terms. The Chinese never managed to make any progress in their economy under Mao. Not until they switched over to a fairly free market economy and allowed a lot of foreign investments did they see any real growth in the GDP. Vietnam is still dirt poor today. North Korea spends all of it's resources to feed it's army. East Germany never had enough food to feed it's people, none of the countries in the Soviet bloc did.


So the Soviet Union wasn't a superpower and all that conservative fear mongering was just claptrap? Which is it?

The Soviet Union was a military threat but they never came close to matching us economically.

They spent *FAR* more of their GNP on military things than we did.

Furthermore, lives are a currency in military terms. We spend a lot more on protecting our soldiers than they did so they were getting more bang for their buck.

[Gamera]

So the Soviet Union wasn't a superpower and all that conservative fear mongering was just claptrap? Which is it?

The Soviet Union was a military threat but they never came close to matching us economically.

They spent *FAR* more of their GNP on military things than we did.

Furthermore, lives are a currency in military terms. We spend a lot more on protecting our soldiers than they did so they were getting more bang for their buck.

Irrelevant. The Soviet Union took a feudal mediaeval economy and transformed it into a modern industrialized nation in 50 years while fighting off a German invasion and US hostility. These modern institutions laid the ground work for its present democratic (though imperfect) form of government.

It was the economic accomplishment of the 20th century.

[Nitrousoxide]

A red herring.

The Soviet Union started with a feudal peasant economy with no infrastructure and in 50 years had become a modern industrialized nation and threatened the hegemony of the US.

Go figure.


Well not really, their growth rate never really got close to or exceeded our growth rate for any decent amount of time. It's a lot easier to catch up than to innovate too, as China is showing today.

If you want to look at an amazing recovery, look at Japan throughout the Cold War. It maintained something around a 10% growth rate for quite a while, and eventually reached second place in Nominal GDP. And they started at pretty much the same level that the Soviets were thanks to our bombing.

The Soviets couldn't even beat that little island nation.

[Nice Squirrel]

So ZeusTKP are you saying that Govenrment spending in programs that grow and enhance economic activity/opportunity are bad?

(I'll let you define "bad")

depends on the program.

'Massive' spending is most likely 'bad', ie it will slow down overall growth.

But history has shown that such spending has a stimulating effect on the economy. (such as war spending in the 1940's) It does depend on what the money is spent on, but since you are making blanket assertions with little back-up I can only respond with such on my own: Overall government spending stimulates the economy.

[Nice Squirrel]

If you want to look at an amazing recovery, look at Japan throughout the Cold War. It maintained something around a 10% growth rate for quite a while, and eventually reached second place in Nominal GDP. And they started at pretty much the same level that the Soviets were thanks to our bombing.

The Soviets couldn't even beat that little island nation.

That "little" island nation which is actually a very big island nation had massive help and was still an industrialized society with skilled factory workers after it's defeat. In addition the giant corporate cartels were allowed to operate unregulated monopolies killing any semblence of free trade. (Unions were forced on employers/employees as official government policy.) The Korean War and Cold War saw the US Government pumping millions of dollars into the economy to keep it out of commie hands. The US also operated their defenses hence almost none of their annual budget was spent on defense, while the US taxpayer picked up the tab. Shall we continue to speak about the free trade policies of this not-so-little island nation?

[untermensche]

There's not going to be one.
History is not on your side here.

There is no history of a successful modern industrial capitalist economy that survived without massive government spending to stimulate the economy.
Taxes that came from where?
It's a cyclical process.

The government stimulates the economy and people make more and there are greater revenues. The government does not and depression ensues and revenues dwindle. That is how history shows it works with modern capitalism.
The absolute level of spending is not what's important as long as the government fulfills it's legitimate functions. Primarily to keep law and order.
Again, history and these suffering capitalist nations right before your eyes argue against you here. I don't have to.

[Gamera]

A red herring.

The Soviet Union started with a feudal peasant economy with no infrastructure and in 50 years had become a modern industrialized nation and threatened the hegemony of the US.

Go figure.


Well not really, their growth rate never really got close to or exceeded our growth rate for any decent amount of time. It's a lot easier to catch up than to innovate too, as China is showing today.

If you want to look at an amazing recovery, look at Japan throughout the Cold War. It maintained something around a 10% growth rate for quite a while, and eventually reached second place in Nominal GDP. And they started at pretty much the same level that the Soviets were thanks to our bombing.

The Soviets couldn't even beat that little island nation.

You keep comparing apples and orange. To compare the Soviet Union, which started with nothing in the early 20th century to the US, an advanced industrialized country, doesn't tell us much.

Rather compare where the Soviet Union was in 1920 with where it was in 1970. In those 50 years it developed from a third world country into a modern economic powerhouse, by any standard, while fighting off a German invasion and US hostility.

Japan's recovery was of course subsidized by the US taxpayers, so that hardly makes your point.

[ZeusTKP]

depends on the program.

'Massive' spending is most likely 'bad', ie it will slow down overall growth.

Since money is fungible and it doesn't matter who spends it

Yes it does

, this simply isn't true. If government builds a dam or if private industry builds a dam, the economic effect is still the same - both pay the construction workers with cash and the worker go o