Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Wolfhunter107]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-29544145

[Sergarr]

Yeah, that sounds to me like just splitting off a government's economic duties from its others, and making it a planned economy. Depending on the size of the logistics groups, you might wind up with a more or less centralized global economy, but I don't actually see it changing that much. Best case, it's functionally the same as "American Lower Middle Class", where you're still basically a wage slave living paycheck to paycheck until retirement, when you can hopefully relax. If you want to relate hypothetical post-scarcity economics to American politics, we should probably start from how Americans tend to see the economy:

-Regulation is inherently bad. It's only to be used where there's a clear good outweighing that bad.
-Government is assumed to be inefficient. Wherever possible, privatize.
-Greed is a useful motivator. Tangible or financial rewards are the best incentives.
-It should be possible for anybody to start a successful business. It need not be easy, likely, or low-risk.
-The world is unpredictable. Foresight should not be required for the system to work.

That said, even this explicit attempt to drag the conversation on-topic is only yanking it into a tangent. This is still too abstract, and moreover almost completely divorced from politics. We'd need a tangent off of this tangent to discuss how government ought to interact with such a thing, and we don't really have a blank check to discuss all this other stuff just because it's a foundation for a conversation that might happen and might be on-topic.

The three bolded parts practically guarantee that the monopolies will occur, and will inflict maximum damage possible.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

The three bolded parts practically guarantee that the monopolies will occur, and will inflict maximum damage possible.

Reread the first one.  There's an exception of where regulation is acceptable when the good outweighs the bad.  Monopolies would be a case where that turns up true.

[Sergarr]

The three bolded parts practically guarantee that the monopolies will occur, and will inflict maximum damage possible.

Reread the first one.  There's an exception of where regulation is acceptable when the good outweighs the bad.  Monopolies would be a case where that turns up true.

The government gimped by the third one will not be able to actually stop a well hidden monopoly from happening.

You don't actually need a single company to form a monopoly, if you can simply form a coalition agreement. And there's zero way to prove that it's not coincidental that all the companies have raised their prices.

[Frumple]

So you don't give a damn if it is coincidental or not and problem solved.

[mainiac]

...liveable minimum wage."

No such thing.  Raising minimum wage causes the wages of more experienced to raise.  With both of those rising, prices will rise in the name of profit, whether for corporate greed or by necessity of survival for small buisnesses.  "Livable" minimum wage becomes no longer "Livable".  Eventually (if they don't immediately do it), companies would move as much as possible away so that they could make maximum profit, reducing jobs and increasing unemployment.

The persistance of this myth is amazing.  But it's understandable because it's people who are well educated in economics who perpetuate it.  Nobel prize winners even.

Wage stickiness and changing share of the producer surplus exist.  Do you go into work everyday and renegotiate how much you are paid?  Wouldn't it be ridiculous if you did?

It's sort of a situation like where a physicist starts by assuming that air resistance is negligible.  Normally it's a fine assumption to make!  But sometimes you care about air resistance a lot.  So you ask the physicist "How much is air resistance in this special case?" and they reply "It's zero!  Weren't you paying attention?"  So then a plane carrying a nuclear bomb crashes because the engineers were told that air resistance is negligible.

You don't actually need a single company to form a monopoly, if you can simply form a coalition agreement. And there's zero way to prove that it's not coincidental that all the companies have raised their prices.

A decent economist could probably prove it all the same but you need to have the political willpower to believe them and act on it as well as have an economist tasked to the job in the first place.

[Sergarr]

Unfortunate decent economists are pretty rare in these days, where it is more profitable to promote the currently existing economical order that to try to seek ways to change it for better.

I mean, why else would the companies push for lower wages? They surely must know that the money put into wages is not "lost forever" and will eventually return to them, if their products aren't complete shit?

[FearfulJesuit]

Well, speaking of alternatives to capitalism

Let's not? We've quipped a bit, and maybe thrown out a little metadiscussion, but as the OP states we should be trying to largely avoid the latter. This really isn't the place for it, especially considering the chances of the US strongly changing economic gears any time soon is horrifyingly slim.

A new thread would be fine, just... don't use this one.

In all honesty, I try to remain pretty hands-off (dare I say laissez-faire?) with regards to this thread. It's been a slow summer in Washington, and I'd rather it remain near the front page than forgotten about on page five or six, so...meh.

[Bauglir]

The perspective I was discussing above, which I believe (but cannot prove) is characteristic of Americans in general, holds that regulation is bad, but grudgingly admits that it is not the worst. So, yeah, antitrust laws and suchlike are acceptable, but they'll often be toothless until it can be demonstrated that the reality of the situation has all the same problems even if it isn't technically a member of the same abstract category. Which, hey, Comcast.

We're aiming for the stars here, so it's obviously not fair of me to go "Well that's clearly how it is, so you're wrong". This is hypothetical, and apparently blessed by OP, but all this does mean that "making the system work" isn't actually reason enough to have it. In order for it to be palatable to the American public, you have to demonstrate:

-The government has a legitimate reason to regulate this thing
-The regulation will actually work
-The specific regulation is the least amount of regulation required to accomplish the goal
-The regulation's side-effects are acceptable to whatever "freedom" happens to mean this week

And you have to remember that precedent is largely irrelevant. Every regulation, no matter how reasonably implied by others, goes through this same procedure - it's why the IRS can exist but goddamn we can't let the government keep track of our guns electronically.

Note: I am not a fan.

[Sergarr]

From what I can see, the only real way to  post-capitalism is to develop and give away to every single person (or at least to every single family) on the planet an advanced 3D-printer, a machine capable of producing the materials for the 3D printer out of virtually everything, and a couple full-spectrum solar panels to power it all up.

I know this sounds idealistic, but I don' see any other way at the moment. Any regulation or agreement will be circumvented, every single entity which have the potential to go monopoly will do it until actively prevented. Ultimately, to deal with capitalism you need to remove the foundation of capitalism - the capital means of production - and make them the commodity.

This has already happened with computers. I believe it can happen at a larger scale.

[smjjames]

From what I can see, the only real way to  post-capitalism is to develop and give away to every single person (or at least to every single family) on the planet an advanced 3D-printer, a machine capable of producing the materials for the 3D printer out of virtually everything, and a couple full-spectrum solar panels to power it all up.

I know this sounds idealistic, but I don' see any other way at the moment. Any regulation or agreement will be circumvented, every single entity which have the potential to go monopoly will do it until actively prevented. Ultimately, to deal with capitalism you need to remove the foundation of capitalism - the capital means of production - and make them the commodity.

This has already happened with computers. I believe it can happen at a larger scale.

Not sure what you mean 'has already happened with computers'? Or rather, could you elaborate or something?

[Sergarr]

From what I can see, the only real way to  post-capitalism is to develop and give away to every single person (or at least to every single family) on the planet an advanced 3D-printer, a machine capable of producing the materials for the 3D printer out of virtually everything, and a couple full-spectrum solar panels to power it all up.

I know this sounds idealistic, but I don' see any other way at the moment. Any regulation or agreement will be circumvented, every single entity which have the potential to go monopoly will do it until actively prevented. Ultimately, to deal with capitalism you need to remove the foundation of capitalism - the capital means of production - and make them the commodity.

This has already happened with computers. I believe it can happen at a larger scale.

Not sure what you mean 'has already happened with computers'? Or rather, could you elaborate or something?

Sure.

You can use the computer as a mean of production for informational goods, like software or computer games. The computers are very common and cheap nowadays, so almost every person can get one. That means that potentially everyone with a talent can go and start creating. You can even gain profit in the process! And the best part here - you are using your own, independent, means of production to do so!

Now imagine the same happening for everything that isn't food, water or energy.

[mainiac]

That doesn't really get rid of capitalism, just means people aren't so dependent on each other for simple survival.  It could be more cheaply accomplished with a universal income.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

It could be more cheaply accomplished with a universal income.

My only complaint with this is that there needs to be some restriction that people need to be doing something, so that they don't just sit around all day being a leech to society.  Can be anything from continuing education to running a buisness, forging armor to creating artwork, working a nine to five job to creating youtube let's plays.  I don't care, just so long as they are doing something and can prove it.

[nenjin]

I hate to break up this elevated discussion with some tawdry drama about a political has-been. But I'm gonna.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/09/politics/palin-family-brawl/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The bit at the end where she goes to Twitter on message is priceless.