A world without money.

[The-Weapon]

Money is only proof of one thing. Money is proof that there is not one country that relies on itself. What would the rich, or even the poor, do If one day, they woke up to an age in which money no longer existed and everyone was equal. Would the rich think up another way that they are somehow superior? Or would they deal with the fact that they no longer control their government? Would the poor use up all of the resources on some excuse that the world owes them a living? Oh and by the way, I am not using stereotypes, I am asking about the majority. Could everyone ever really BE equal, or is equality just a pipe dream?

[fahrenheit]

At 4/26/07 02:15 AM, The-Weapon wrote: Could everyone ever really BE equal, or is equality just a pipe dream?

Its called communism, and its failed on many attempts.

[Boltrig]

Communism is great in principle, but is not possible due really to human nature.

Think about someone who goes to school then college, then uni, med school, spends years training and becomes a brain surgeon.

Now consider someone who works in a cafe, waiting tables.

Waiting tables may be a hard job, physicly taxing and whatnot, but you dont need to spend years training for it.

So all the people like the brain surgeon and other professionals think "why should I bust my ass with 16 hour operations and difficult procedures when I could get the same amount of resources as a waiter"

Plus you've got the people in charge. Power corrupts, and soon they'll have better stuff than the rest of the country.

Everone is equal, some more than others.

[XChainsawX]

communism ftw?

[Korriken]

in a world without money you would have a bartering system in place where the working class reign supreme. However, people would still become rich, mainly due to government, who would tax the working class by taking a percentage of their products.

[kidray76]

Money is the most wide known stardard for measuring. If there is no money, the USA would be on the same playing field with another country as country only 20 miles long. Besides, your forgetting one huge factor: Human nature. It is human nature to be superior. Everyone is giong to want to have the biggest house, the biggest wage etc. If there was no money, how in the world would u suggests of keeping that chaos down and the resources available? Gas is a problem now, take money away, and now gas becomes non existant since everyone will be able to get it.

[Der-Lowe]

Electronic banking ftw

[Boltrig]

At 4/26/07 12:43 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Electronic banking ftw

Ah, but money still exists, its just the physical representation of it that has dissapeared with ebanking. In this case (according to the topic starter) the rich can still opress the poor.

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/26/07 07:51 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 4/26/07 12:43 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Electronic banking ftw

Ah, but money still exists, its just the physical representation of it that has dissapeared with ebanking. In this case (according to the topic starter) the rich can still opress the poor.

Yes, I know, I consider electronic banking as the new step society will make as currency systems, I really don't believe in a world without money. Money is just an idea, it is not the reason for inequity. What the question should have been is how do we manage to adapt capitalism to a fair way of living, where nobody starves, for starters. And there we have Norway, for example.

[Gunter45]

People don't become equal, they just are relegated to an antiquated bartering system that is grossly inefficient and the global economy would stagnate. America would still be rich as all hell because we have a great deal of quality resources, products and services that we provide. Regardless of whether or not money is used, America has a great deal of capital at its disposal. In like manner, the only rich people that would suffer are userers because the ability to make money with money would be shot, however, wealthy businessmen and property owners would still be in positions of power.

[SyntheticTacos]

Even if we redistributed property as well as money to everyone equally, eventually an upper and lower class would quickly evolve once again. This kidn of massive change isn't feasible, and it's highly unlikely that it would be corrupted by individual greed from the people in charge. It also eliminates the free market and many civil liberties.

Sorry, it would be great if everyone had unlimited access to what they wanted, but scarcity prevents that. :(

[DeathDementor]

i mean that would be great to make everybody even but then the people that were rich would like just6 have more stuff than the poor so even without money the would still ahve there belongins and that is alot so not everyone would be equal

[EndGameOmega]

What the OP is suggesting is tantamount to communism, but is it truly so bad? Consider what communism actually is, the equal distribution of wealth and property, every one is inherently equal in terms of possessions.

The largest rallying cry against such a system is the general lack of work ethics with in the human species, but is that necessarily true? Consider this, would you work any less then you are now, if you knew your housing, your food, your medical care, etc... was a certainty? Would you become parasitical to society simply because you could? Or would you find your self enjoying what your doing more because you knew there was no unfair distribution in wealth, would you come home happier knowing that your life was equal to your CEO's, and congress man's?

Perhaps the greatest argument for communism is efficiency. The single most efficient system possible (at lest with humans in charge) is communism. With out the recourse or drive to produce a locally maximized profit from a single corporation or sector (as is the case of capitalism) the economic body would be free to maximize the global production of an economy to levels which are far exceed even an advanced capitalistic system. Given a system which is so heavily maximized in production would not only increase the quality of life for all but the elite of the elite, but also give the citizenry of the country more economic freedom to pursue things not quite so economically friendly, like art, or pure science.

Of all the things that can be said of communism, this one is by far the single best an true, it is maximally efficient.

[morefngdbs]

At 4/26/07 02:15 AM, The-Weapon wrote: Money is only proof of one thing. I am asking about the majority. Could everyone ever really BE equal, or is equality just a pipe dream?

;
I think that true equality is a pipe dream.
I even think that the way the social services system that is in place now contributes to the problem of the poor that are involved with it.

If you are not seriously handicapped, I mean literally mentally retarded you shouldn't be allowed any welfare monies unless you work for it.
For example -Going to school- or- college- can't do that cause you got 6 kids & no one to care for them, set up in school daycares. Employed by ---- other welfare moms who are taking care of your kids while you learn just like you did for the class of students befor you.
As for no money
In the past there are many examples of the barter system working.
There are organizations that do the barter system today much to the goverments dislike.
the ideals of communism may be to the good, but human nature so far always seems to ruin that ideal.

[Cybex]

At 4/26/07 02:15 AM, The-Weapon wrote: Money is only proof of one thing. Money is proof that there is not one country that relies on itself. What would the rich, or even the poor, do If one day, they woke up to an age in which money no longer existed and everyone was equal. Would the rich think up another way that they are somehow superior? Or would they deal with the fact that they no longer control their government? Would the poor use up all of the resources on some excuse that the world owes them a living? Oh and by the way, I am not using stereotypes, I am asking about the majority. Could everyone ever really BE equal, or is equality just a pipe dream?

WTF? You're acting as if money was created to make people feel better about themselves. Thats not the case at all. Before money, people used to trade bellonings. If you wanted some carrots, and you farmed turnips, you might go to the market and swap 10 parsnips for 5 carrots. But if the guy selling carrots wanted oranges, and not parsnips, you wouldn't be able to get your carrots.

So theres where currency fits in. A universal trading item. It's perfect. The world wouldn't work without money, we'd either all have to become self sufficient (i.e. farm our own food and not trade with anyone) or go back to the time where you traded bellonings. Either way, there'd still be rich and poor people.

And its impossibly to have equality. If you gave 2 people £50, at the end of the week, one person would have £500 and the other wouldn't have anything, and would be complaining that the other guy's richer than him. Then you give £250 of the other guy's money to the poor one, because everyone needs to be equal. But how is that equality? You've given 1 person £50 and taken away £250, and the other person you've given £300. Equality my arse.

[BeProf]

At 4/26/07 02:15 AM, The-Weapon wrote: Money is only proof of one thing. Money is proof that there is not one country that relies on itself. What would the rich, or even the poor, do If one day, they woke up to an age in which money no longer existed and everyone was equal. Would the rich think up another way that they are somehow superior? Or would they deal with the fact that they no longer control their government? Would the poor use up all of the resources on some excuse that the world owes them a living? Oh and by the way, I am not using stereotypes, I am asking about the majority. Could everyone ever really BE equal, or is equality just a pipe dream?

I think this is a great idea and I want to help make it a reality by properly disposing of all money sent to me by the fine citizens of NG.

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/27/07 04:34 PM, Cybex wrote: And its impossibly to have equality. If you gave 2 people £50, at the end of the week, one person would have £500 and the other wouldn't have anything, and would be complaining that the other guy's richer than him. Then you give £250 of the other guy's money to the poor one, because everyone needs to be equal. But how is that equality?

I agree that everyone shouldn't earn the same salary, but I think that the State should make sure that nobody lacked education, health, housing, and food.

[Cybex]

At 4/27/07 04:56 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I agree that everyone shouldn't earn the same salary, but I think that the State should make sure that nobody lacked education, health, housing, and food.

It already does.

[SkunkyFluffy]

Cory Doctorow envisioned a world in which people's approval of you is your wealth base in his novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Every action affected your savings. If you were a jerk, your worth went down. Really cool people were rich.

Not saying it's a workable idea, but it was a neat concept.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 4/27/07 04:56 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

I agree that everyone shouldn't earn the same salary, but I think that the State should make sure that nobody lacked education, health, housing, and food.

Those are basic functions of the State.

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/27/07 05:11 PM, Cybex wrote: It already does.

No, in the US there are people who starve and who have no home. And that can't happen in the most powerful nation in the world.

[Rad]

At 4/27/07 05:15 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Cory Doctorow envisioned a world in which people's approval of you is your wealth base in his novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Every action affected your savings. If you were a jerk, your worth went down. Really cool people were rich.

Not saying it's a workable idea, but it was a neat concept.

Sorry to ask, but how would that work? I mean was the world completely full of jerks or smart people or just totally mellow people that were fun to be around? I mean your savings would directly reflect the kind of people you live with.

[deepspace]

At 4/27/07 08:04 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: What the OP is suggesting is tantamount to communism, but is it truly so bad? Consider what communism actually is, the equal distribution of wealth and property, every one is inherently equal in terms of possessions.

Perhaps the greatest argument for communism is efficiency. The single most efficient system possible is communism.

Of all the things that can be said of communism, this one is by far the single best an true, it is maximally efficient.

How is Communism efficient?

It is not. It is very inefficient. Under Communism, the state sets quotas for workers to produce a certain amount of products in a command economy. Lacking the incentive to work, the result is products of poor quality and shortages of goods and services.
Communism is detrimental to an economy.

A Capitalist mixed market economy on the other hand, is by far the most efficient economic system ever created. It suits human nature well. Competition among companies and corporations brings innovation. Consumers demand the products and businesses supply it. Supply and demand determines the market value of products.

Consumers are better able to decide how many goods and services are needed to be produced than a government is able to manage.

A free market economy allows you many choices that you would never be able to make under a communist command economy. A Capitalist like economy overall brings the highest quality of life to people.

When consumers have power over what products corporations make, and corporations and workers are motivated by money and profit the result is products of high quality and plenty of goods and services to choose from. There is almost never a shortage of supplies under a free market economy.

I would like to make it clear to all of you Communist advocates on Newgrounds that Capitalism is no longer really that bad of a system. There is such a thing as a minimum wage and workers are no longer really exploited. Workers have the right to join and form their own unions and strike. Employers and employees can bargain and agree on a wage or salary. Companies can be boycotted if it angers customers or workers. Monopolies that are harmful can be broken up. Charities are allowed so even the poor are not as bad off.
Also, people can do want they want with their money provided they have enough.

The United States has beneifited from a Capitalist mixed economy to become the economic power of the world. Communism is clearly not in the best interest of any western nation.

[EndGameOmega]

At 4/28/07 01:39 AM, deepspace wrote:

How is Communism efficient?

The resources of the economy in question are allocated to the sectors that most need them. This as apposed to a capitalistic system, where recourse are fought over, and the strongest takes all.

It is not. It is very inefficient. Under Communism, the state sets quotas for workers to produce a certain amount of products in a command economy. Lacking the incentive to work, the result is products of poor quality and shortages of goods and services.

As opposed to a capitalistic system where workers are required to produce a cretin amount or be fired? The general quality of products produced by each is similar, and related to the general happiness of the workers.

Communism is detrimental to an economy.

Only if poorly implemented (the question of weather or not a communistic system can be properly implemented is another question entirely.).

A Capitalist mixed market economy on the other hand, is by far the most efficient economic system ever created. It suits human nature well. Competition among companies and corporations brings innovation. Consumers demand the products and businesses supply it. Supply and demand determines the market value of products.

No it doesn't. Competition among companies tend to stifle invocation, take a look at the current paten fiasco we have. Innovation with in companies (especially large ones) is near impossible, the only type of innovation which can occur is short term and even this is rather limited. The only place real innovation can happen is in a university or academic setting, and even this is disappearing as these structures move more towards a capitalistic system. It prevents smaller companies which might be better managed and have an Innovative product line from preforming well in the market due to Goliaths who are more able to engage and survive in an economic war (see ADM vs lintel).

As for supply and demand the best that this can do is find local minimum in the global economic equation. It's an inherently inefficient system. The market value isn't always the best, but simply what will work.

Consumers are better able to decide how many goods and services are needed to be produced than a government is able to manage.

Yes, and consumers are idiots, who seek to best serve there own interest (or what they think are there own intresst) over what is most efficient, and best for all even them selfs.

A free market economy allows you many choices that you would never be able to make under a communist command economy. A Capitalist like economy overall brings the highest quality of life to people.

Mostly true, a capitalistic system allows for the highest standard of living for a small group of individuals, the larger group or community has a tendency to suffer generally poorer conditions. A capitalistic system is able (in most situations) to find local minimums to problems, but has a tendency to side step the global minimums. In fact capitalism will never find the global minimum even if the only minimum is the global one (note, this s why monopolies are inherently bad, and tend to ether collapse under there own weight or bring down there entire sector, or possibly an entire economy) It rather hard to explain the benefits of a single economic system with out delving some what into game theory. If your interested I can dive into it a bit but I know it would go over the head of the vast majority of newgrounders.

When consumers have power over what products corporations make, and corporations and workers are motivated by money and profit the result is products of high quality and plenty of goods and services to choose from. There is almost never a shortage of supplies under a free market economy.

No, this isn't true. While the consumer dose have money and is able to chose what to do with there money, it is rarely for the economic good. For instance a consumer is more likely to buy something brand name over something generic, even if the brand name offers no positive incentives and is more expensive then the generic. The effect of this is that there is undo market pressure on the generic brand while the name brand enjoys higher sales, simply because of it's higher sales.

From this setup market inefficients will emerge, along with potential supply shortages. In the cases of supply shortages the company which is capable of offering the most of the required resource will be able to procure it regardless of the essentialness of said product. Such competition also tends to increase the price of a given product with out giving anything notable in return (except for said product).

I would like to make it clear to all of you Communist advocates on Newgrounds that Capitalism is no longer really that bad of a system. There is such a thing as a minimum wage and workers are no longer really exploited. Workers have the right to join and form their own unions and strike. Employers and employees can bargain and agree on a wage or salary. Companies can be boycotted if it angers customers or workers. Monopolies that are harmful can be broken up. Charities are allowed so even the poor are not as bad off.

I never said it was a bad system, just not very efficient, or rather to be more correct not the most efficient.

As an aside boycotting companies only works if there small, and generic. Larger companies can not be effectively boycotted by consumers due to the lack of cohesion and agreement between them.

Also, people can do want they want with their money provided they have enough.

Of course, freedom over efficient, it's a perfectly reasonable and respectable choose.

The United States has beneifited from a Capitalist mixed economy to become the economic power of the world. Communism is clearly not in the best interest of any western nation.

We benefited from what was at the time the most advance economic system available; However the world is changing, and the general market system to which capitalism works best is falling. The only way to keep the market system intact is to force artificial and negative rules, and economic limits on things. This simply adds further inefficiency to the system.

[Cybex]

At 4/27/07 07:15 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 4/27/07 05:11 PM, Cybex wrote: It already does.

No, in the US there are people who starve and who have no home. And that can't happen in the most powerful nation in the world.

The government isn't some super force that can fix anything. They can only do what's humanly possible. Homeless/unemployment rates are amazingly low compared to other countries.

At 4/28/07 04:13 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 4/28/07 01:39 AM, deepspace wrote:

How is Communism efficient?

The resources of the economy in question are allocated to the sectors that most need them. This as apposed to a capitalistic system, where recourse are fought over, and the strongest takes all.

You mean the monetary system? Thats the best system to go buy. It encourages healthy competition and therefore growth. In a communist state, theres no competition, no ones fighting for producing more efficiently, and so it becomes bloody difficult for growth.

As opposed to a capitalistic system where workers are required to produce a cretin amount or be fired? The general quality of products produced by each is similar, and related to the general happiness of the workers.

Just because you say that it doesn't make it true. Competition is the best way of getting results. If they do well, they get rewarded. If someone can do better than them, they take their place.

Where do you get the idea that the quality of the products is the same? Thats total bullshit, and 9 times out of 10 workers will be happier in a capitalist market, where they get rewarded for good results. The only workers who would prefer a communist state would be workers who want to get paid for nothing.

Communism is detrimental to an economy.

Only if poorly implemented (the question of weather or not a communistic system can be properly implemented is another question entirely.).

in which the answer is no. Just check out some inflation stats for communist russia.

No it doesn't. Competition among companies tend to stifle invocation, take a look at the current paten fiasco we have. Innovation with in companies (especially large ones) is near impossible, the only type of innovation which can occur is short term and even this is rather limited. The only place real innovation can happen is in a university or academic setting, and even this is disappearing as these structures move more towards a capitalistic system. It prevents smaller companies which might be better managed and have an Innovative product line from preforming well in the market due to Goliaths who are more able to engage and survive in an economic war (see ADM vs lintel).

You're talking about monopolies. It's true, monopolies can abuse their powers by producing inefficiently and gain abnormal profits, but thats why its important to have a mixed economy. There are regulators which take care of monopolies. They make sure they don't abuse their powers, and have the power to stop any business mergers. Not all monopolies are bad, so its all taken case by case. Apart from monopolies abusing their powers, competition is the whole bases behind supply and demand, a system which does work. You can't possibly say competition is a bad thing.

As for supply and demand the best that this can do is find local minimum in the global economic equation. It's an inherently inefficient system. The market value isn't always the best, but simply what will work.

Thats what tax is for. Of course there are externalities on some products, positive and negative, and the government taxes/subsidises those products to alter the supply/demand of a product so it fits the best price and quantity.

Yes, and consumers are idiots, who seek to best serve there own interest (or what they think are there own intresst) over what is most efficient, and best for all even them selfs.

I'm not even going to bother.

Mostly true, a capitalistic system allows for the highest standard of living for a small group of individuals, the larger group or community has a tendency to suffer generally poorer conditions. A capitalistic system is able (in most situations) to find local minimums to problems, but has a tendency to side step the global minimums. In fact capitalism will never find the global minimum even if the only minimum is the global one (note, this s why monopolies are inherently bad, and tend to ether collapse under there own weight or bring down there entire sector, or possibly an entire economy)

Yes, the free market isn't perfect, which is why its important to have a mixed economy. It would've been a better argument for you to say how merit and public good s wouldn't get accounted for, but what you're saying is just stupid.

It rather hard to explain the benefits of a single economic system with out delving some what into game theory. If your interested I can dive into it a bit but I know it would go over the head of the vast majority of newgrounders.

Try me.

No, this isn't true. While the consumer dose have money and is able to chose what to do with there money, it is rarely for the economic good. For instance a consumer is more likely to buy something brand name over something generic, even if the brand name offers no positive incentives and is more expensive then the generic. The effect of this is that there is undo market pressure on the generic brand while the name brand enjoys higher sales, simply because of it's higher sales.

True, but this is nothing compared to the problems that come with a command economy.

From this setup market inefficients will emerge, along with potential supply shortages. In the cases of supply shortages the company which is capable of offering the most of the required resource will be able to procure it regardless of the essentialness of said product. Such competition also tends to increase the price of a given product with out giving anything notable in return (except for said product).

What? The free markets all about supply and demand. There are no supply shortages unless there are major time lags. Its communism where you get excess of supply/demand. They have set prices for each product. The price doesn't change unless the government says it does. Half the products end up being in excess supply, and the other half with excess demand, very rarely fitting the true equilibrium. The whole point of the free market is that the price and quantity fit the supply and demand perfectly.

And what do you mean competition results in higher prices? Companies compete to provide lower prices and better products so that they'll get more business. Thats lower prices, not higher prices. The only time when the price may be set too high is if the government interferes, or if theres a monopoly abusing its powers, which can be sorted out by regulators.

I never said it was a bad system, just not very efficient, or rather to be more correct not the most efficient.

Its more efficient than communism.

As an aside boycotting companies only works if there small, and generic. Larger companies can not be effectively boycotted by consumers due to the lack of cohesion and agreement between them.

Thats what regulators are for.

The only problems with a free market is the externalities, monopolies, incomplete information, and no provision of merit and public goods. Each of these can be fixed by the government, which is why its important to have a mixed economy.

Communist states result in excess of supply/demand and loads of inflation without any growth.

[EndGameOmega]

At 4/28/07 05:01 AM, Cybex wrote:

The resources of the economy in question are allocated to the sectors that most need them. This as apposed to a capitalistic system, where recourse are fought over, and the strongest takes all.

You mean the monetary system? Thats the best system to go buy. It encourages healthy competition and therefore growth. In a communist state, theres no competition, no ones fighting for producing more efficiently, and so it becomes bloody difficult for growth.

I wasn't referring to the monetary system specifically, but rather the whole nature of allocating resources. It's the lack of competition that allows for greater efficiency.

As opposed to a capitalistic system where workers are required to produce a cretin amount or be fired? The general quality of products produced by each is similar, and related to the general happiness of the workers.

Just because you say that it doesn't make it true. Competition is the best way of getting results. If they do well, they get rewarded. If someone can do better than them, they take their place.

So if some one is under producing they wont be fired? And if someone is over producing they'll always and immediately get a raise?

Where do you get the idea that the quality of the products is the same? Thats total bullshit, and 9 times out of 10 workers will be happier in a capitalist market, where they get rewarded for good results. The only workers who would prefer a communist state would be workers who want to get paid for nothing.

Just cause you say it doesn't make it so. I know many people who are very hard workers and generally industrious who would rather not have to deal with peaty things like having enough money to buy food, or have a place to live. The vast majority of humans would be quite happy in a communistic state, hell by our very nature we tend towards communism.

Most of the capitalist I've meet are the ones who seek to get paid for nothing. They seek to shuffle papers around and buy and sell to make money, with out actually creating anything.

in which the answer is no. Just check out some inflation stats for communist russia.

Russia wasn't a true communistic state. As I said, “the question of weather or not a communistic system can be properly implemented is another question entirely”, thus implying that there hasn't been a successful implementation of such a system yet. I question if there has even been an attempt to create a truly Marxist system.

You're talking about monopolies. It's true, monopolies can abuse their powers by producing inefficiently and gain abnormal profits, but thats why its important to have a mixed economy. There are regulators which take care of monopolies. They make sure they don't abuse their powers, and have the power to stop any business mergers. Not all monopolies are bad, so its all taken case by case. Apart from monopolies abusing their powers, competition is the whole bases behind supply and demand, a system which does work. You can't possibly say competition is a bad thing.

No I'm talking about cooperations in general, though the larger a cooperation the more it will behave badly. I agree the system dose work, but it's not necessarily the best or most efficient; Competition is bad in the long run. It prevents an economic system from running at optimum efficiency, and stifles innovation. A company is more likely to stream line it's production system to maximize short term profits over long term (this usually means cutting R&D, sacking workers, and pulling out of developing markets). Since the vast majority of companies do this, it prevents the smaller companies for being able to innovate, grow and adapting. This is a real effect that we can see today. Competition for short term goals doesn't work for innovation, but rather against it.

Thats what tax is for. Of course there are externalities on some products, positive and negative, and the government taxes/subsidises those products to alter the supply/demand of a product so it fits the best price and quantity.

Descant point, but most corporations will try to find ways out of paying taxes or having taxes applied to there products. After all it's in there best interest. Additionally in a truly capitalistic system you wouldn't have additional tax on an item simply because you want to fuck with the market; but your arguing for a mixed economy so while this would work, it's more akin to communism, only less effective at it.

I'm not even going to bother.

Why not? I believe it's a valid point, the poster I was responding to said:
”Consumers are better able to decide how many goods and services are needed to be produced than a government is able to manage”.
The average consumer is an idiot, most of the populous is effectively illiterate in any matters of importance, so how would they know what is more important for the well being of them selfs (at lest in the longterm), much less what's best for every one else. If you throw shit in a box and put pretty wrapping on it someone will buy it, the only one who makes out is the one selling the shit.

Yes, the free market isn't perfect, which is why its important to have a mixed economy. It would've been a better argument for you to say how merit and public good s wouldn't get accounted for, but what you're saying is just stupid.

No thats not what I was saying, though you do bring up a good point, and I should have formulated the being in a different paragraph. I was eluding to the nature of how a capitalistic system is able to solve an economic problem by finding the local minimum to the equation set, and that due to the nature of the solution a global minimum (i.e. The best) solution is unattainable, due to the naturally competitive nature of the system.

Try me.

Note, I use the words minimum and maximum allot when referencing concept of game theory. You where unable to discern what I had written above as coming from it I doubt you would be able to understand what I was saying. Additionally NG, doesn't allow me to enter equations in I would have write them in ASC, yuck. However if you truly want me to explain this further I will post it some time Monday after I turn in my ADV labs (which I should be working on now actually). Note most of the examples I have are complex and a pain in the ass to type.

True, but this is nothing compared to the problems that come with a command economy.

I would like to know what problems your referring too.

[EndGameOmega]

<Continued>

What? The free markets all about supply and demand. There are no supply shortages unless there are major time lags. Its communism where you get excess of supply/demand. They have set prices for each product. The price doesn't change unless the government says it does. Half the products end up being in excess supply, and the other half with excess demand, very rarely fitting the true equilibrium. The whole point of the free market is that the price and quantity fit the supply and demand perfectly.

Irrelevant, supply shortages emerge when there aren't enough recourse to go around, this is quite common. By being in a capitalistic system these problems can be aggravated if there is insufficient competition with in a given resource set or if competition

And what do you mean competition results in higher prices? Companies compete to provide lower prices and better products so that they'll get more business. Thats lower prices, not higher prices. The only time when the price may be set too high is if the government interferes, or if theres a monopoly abusing its powers, which can be sorted out by regulators.

Over the long run a competitive system will produce higher prices then a system where there is no competition. You have multiple companies fighting over resource, this intern drive the prices of said resources higher. You then have potential internal inefficiency borough about by competition with in management. Lastly you have a general hostility to innovation of new ideas and technology, which keeps the overall technology level and therefor the efficiency level low and further more the prices higher (when I refer to higher prices I don't just mean in the monetary realm.).

Its more efficient than communism.

Which you've yet to show.

As an aside boycotting companies only works if there small, and generic. Larger companies can not be effectively boycotted by consumers due to the lack of cohesion and agreement between them.

Thats what regulators are for.

Perhaps, but they don't always do there jobs, and again it would be more efficient if they where unneeded.

The only problems with a free market is the externalities, monopolies, incomplete information, and no provision of merit and public goods. Each of these can be fixed by the government, which is why its important to have a mixed economy.

Incomplete information is actually a point in favor of the capitalistic system. A communistic system preforms best when all information is know, where as a capitalistic system is able to more easily flow with unknown quantities.

Communist states result in excess of supply/demand and loads of inflation without any growth.

I would, again disagree.

As a final aside, I apologize if this babbling is incomprehensible. I've been working on my three ADV labs for the past few days with out any sleep, and am as such exhausted.

[Cybex]

At 4/28/07 08:53 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: I wasn't referring to the monetary system specifically, but rather the whole nature of allocating resources. It's the lack of competition that allows for greater efficiency.

You keep saying that, but bare no logic to back it up. Talk me through the logic behind this statement.

So if some one is under producing they wont be fired? And if someone is over producing they'll always and immediately get a raise?

If someone is under producing and theres someone who can do the job better, of course they'll be fired. That will increase the capacity of the firm. And if someone is doing well, yes they'll get a raise and a bigger bonus at the end of the year. Obviously its impossible to keep it all fair, but the system works and acts as encouragement for workers.

Just cause you say it doesn't make it so. I know many people who are very hard workers and generally industrious who would rather not have to deal with peaty things like having enough money to buy food, or have a place to live. The vast majority of humans would be quite happy in a communistic state, hell by our very nature we tend towards communism.

I'm sure we'd all rather not have to bother about whether or not we make enough money, but communism doesn't offer that. The idea of communism is perfect, but in reality it doesn't work. It's all very well to say, why don't we just make it so everyone has enough money, but without some reasonable explanation to how that is going to happen, it's nothing more than a convenient idea.

Most of the capitalist I've meet are the ones who seek to get paid for nothing. They seek to shuffle papers around and buy and sell to make money, with out actually creating anything.

Well they obviously don't know what a capitalistic state is, because one wouldn't allow for that to happen. You get paid based on how much productive work you do. That seems fair. Mose of the communists I've met are ones who want to get paid for nothing. They want to be able to do a 5 hour shift at McDonalds every day, 5 days a week and end up with the same money as a brain surgeon.

Russia wasn't a true communistic state. As I said, “the question of weather or not a communistic system can be properly implemented is another question entirely”, thus implying that there hasn't been a successful implementation of such a system yet. I question if there has even been an attempt to create a truly Marxist system.

In what way was russia not a true communist state? And can you give any examples of a country that is/was truly communist.

No I'm talking about cooperations in general, though the larger a cooperation the more it will behave badly. I agree the system dose work, but it's not necessarily the best or most efficient; Competition is bad in the long run. It prevents an economic system from running at optimum efficiency, and stifles innovation. A company is more likely to stream line it's production system to maximize short term profits over long term (this usually means cutting R&D, sacking workers, and pulling out of developing markets). Since the vast majority of companies do this, it prevents the smaller companies for being able to innovate, grow and adapting. This is a real effect that we can see today. Competition for short term goals doesn't work for innovation, but rather against it.

I'd be interested to hear where the logic for this argument comes from.

Descant point, but most corporations will try to find ways out of paying taxes or having taxes applied to there products. After all it's in there best interest. Additionally in a truly capitalistic system you wouldn't have additional tax on an item simply because you want to fuck with the market; but your arguing for a mixed economy so while this would work, it's more akin to communism, only less effective at it.

Theres no ways of avoiding the taxes. Companies can try all they like, but the tax will have to be paid. The amount of the tax supplied to the consumer is set by the elasticisty of the supply and demand curves. They can't choose how much they have to pay and how much is paid by the consumer.

Why not? I believe it's a valid point, the poster I was responding to said:
”Consumers are better able to decide how many goods and services are needed to be produced than a government is able to manage”.
The average consumer is an idiot, most of the populous is effectively illiterate in any matters of importance, so how would they know what is more important for the well being of them selfs (at lest in the longterm), much less what's best for every one else. If you throw shit in a box and put pretty wrapping on it someone will buy it, the only one who makes out is the one selling the shit.

The fact that you believe people are idiots is not a valid reason not to use supply and demand. If you use supply and demand to choose prices, there is no excess is supply or demand. Everything thats created gets sold for a reasonable price based on how much people are willing to pay for it. If you leave it to the governemt, there will be excess in demand/ supply. They cant tell the consumers what they're going to buy and how much of it they're going to buy.

No thats not what I was saying, though you do bring up a good point, and I should have formulated the being in a different paragraph. I was eluding to the nature of how a capitalistic system is able to solve an economic problem by finding the local minimum to the equation set, and that due to the nature of the solution a global minimum (i.e. The best) solution is unattainable, due to the naturally competitive nature of the system.

I'm not fully understanding you. Anyway you can show this on a graph/explain how this idea works?

Try me.

Note, I use the words minimum and maximum allot when referencing concept of game theory. You where unable to discern what I had written above as coming from it I doubt you would be able to understand what I was saying. Additionally NG, doesn't allow me to enter equations in I would have write them in ASC, yuck. However if you truly want me to explain this further I will post it some time Monday after I turn in my ADV labs (which I should be working on now actually). Note most of the examples I have are complex and a pain in the ass to type.

Ok.

True, but this is nothing compared to the problems that come with a command economy.

I would like to know what problems your referring too.

- Nothing is privatised and so consumers have little/no choice
-Unable to detect whether there is an excess in supply or demand, or the consumers' preferences.
-No motivation to work harder
-Difficult for economic growth
-unfair income distribution
-Likely to cause a brain drain.

[Cybex]

<continued>

Irrelevant, supply shortages emerge when there aren't enough recourse to go around, this is quite common. By being in a capitalistic system these problems can be aggravated if there is insufficient competition with in a given resource set or if competition

If there are too little resources, price goes up. This induces a decrease in demand, and if not already the producers work at a higher capactiy and so there is no longer supply shortages. It's as simple as that, its nothing to do with competition.

Over the long run a competitive system will produce higher prices then a system where there is no competition. You have multiple companies fighting over resource, this intern drive the prices of said resources higher. You then have potential internal inefficiency borough about by competition with in management. Lastly you have a general hostility to innovation of new ideas and technology, which keeps the overall technology level and therefor the efficiency level low and further more the prices higher (when I refer to higher prices I don't just mean in the monetary realm.).

I think this point is irrelivant and untrue. Prices of resources are generally incredibly cheap, except in cases such as oil. And are you arguing that people trying to progress technology will result in no progression at all? Because theres proof all around us that suggests otherwise.

Its more efficient than communism.
Which you've yet to show.

I've tried to. In a free market, price and quantity is set by how much the consumers want and how much they can afford. This is logical. Money is in most cases a way of showing how useful you are to your economy. People who provide most use to the economy make more money and so should be able to afford more things, so that people with less money wish they had more money and strive to be more useful to the economy. It all fits in.

Communist prices are based on the government telling you how much of something you're going to buy. However, as the government don't actually know what you want, it doesn't work.

Thats what regulators are for.
Perhaps, but they don't always do there jobs, and again it would be more efficient if they where unneeded.

What do you mean perhaps? Thats not a valid argument. Otherwise i could say perhaps communism doesn't work and the argument would be over. And of course it would be more efficient if regulators weren't needed. It would also be more efficient if we all had teleporters that ran on happy thoughts and everyone could always get what they want. But such a thing isn't possible.

Incomplete information is actually a point in favor of the capitalistic system. A communistic system preforms best when all information is know, where as a capitalistic system is able to more easily flow with unknown quantities.

Both fail without complete information. In a capitalist state, the consumers need complete information of a product, in a communist state, the government needs cmplete information in order to know how to set prices. The only difference is its a lot easier to get consumers to know a lot about what they want to buy than to get the government to know everything about what the consumers need.

Communist states result in excess of supply/demand and loads of inflation without any growth.
I would, again disagree.

It's not an opinion, its a fact. The government can't possibly know exactly how much of everything people want to buy. it's impossible. You say the reason this has happened in previous communist states is because it was implemented wrongly, well what do ou propose is a better way of implementing it?

I could draw you some diagrams explaining how the monetary system works well, in both macro and micro economics, but if you already know about them, theres not much point in me showing you. So before i do, I would like to know how much you already know about how supply and demand opperates, how much you know about the prodction posibility fronteir and aggregate supply and demand, so i know how much I need to show you.

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/28/07 05:01 AM, Cybex wrote: The government isn't some super force that can fix anything. They can only do what's humanly possible. Homeless/unemployment rates are amazingly low compared to other countries.

Being ok is what mediocre people do, you don't want to be ok, you want to be the best. And Norway has achieved a large GDP per capita, and a socialist system.