Do you support public ownership of the means of production?

File: 36 KB, 259x262, 123.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:17:52 2011 No.3480587 [Reply] [Original]

Do you support public ownership of the means of production?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:18:52 2011 No.3480588 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO- well, it did work out great in Soviet Russia.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:18:52 2011 No.3480589 Define more clearly what you mean.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:19:52 2011 No.3480593 First go into detail. What do you mean, and for what purposes? Also, define: Ownership - and - Public.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:21:52 2011 No.3480598

>>3480588
Yes, it had the fastest industrialization rate in the recorded history, and had the fastest growing economy ever during industrialization, during Stalin years.

When Stalin went away, Marxism was betrayed and revisionism came, and the economic growth started declining even though it was still positive, and then eventually stagnated. The growth was never negative until the market reforms came along during Perestroika.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:23:52 2011 No.3480603 >>3480588 >implying soviet government was held accountable by the public >implying countries with dictatorships can ever have public ownership of an industry

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:24:52 2011 No.3480609 >>3480598 No, Russia's obsession with arms, as well as economic isolationism prevented it's infrastructure growth. They certainly had (and still have) the resources to grow more

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:25:52 2011 No.3480611 >>3480603 Patently false, and obviously so. Plus the largest death count of any regime in recorded history.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:25:52 2011 No.3480614 yes, I favor sale of corporate stock to the public.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:25:52 2011 No.3480618 It would've worked for the Soviets if the US didn't try so hard to bleed both of the countries dry, hence the shit we're currently in now

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:26:52 2011 No.3480621 >>3480609 That too, but revisionism is a big factor as well. The economic embargo which has been imposed during the Cold War certainly slowed down it's growth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:28:52 2011 No.3480626 No. Fuck no. Aristocracy and/or technocracy is the only sensible way to run society. At least half of the populace is unfit to have a say in how things are done.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:34:52 2011 No.3480640 I favour worker's control of the means of production. Public ownership can all too easily retain the autocratic and exploitative character of capitalism.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 01:34:52 2011 No.3480641 I support the ownership of production by anything that best protects the future of humanity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:36:52 2011 No.3480647 ITT people don't realize that socialism would benefit everyone who doesn't own the means of production (the vast majority)

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 01:37:52 2011 No.3480652 >>3480647 I think the question is whether full socialism is achievable given the realities of human nature.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:38:52 2011 No.3480653 >>3480618 China is the closest thing to a technocracy nowadays

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:39:52 2011 No.3480654

I think that the means of production and the right to force should never be monopolized by anyone. The state should redistribute both until we're all roughly equal, and don't have to rely on anyone else, nor do we have to fear someone bringing to bear a level of force we can't defend against.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 01:39:52 2011 No.3480656 >>3480618 How did the US bleed Russia and China dry?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 01:40:52 2011 No.3480661 No.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:41:52 2011 No.3480662 >>3480652 Please elaborate on this. I have yet to see anyone explain why human nature prevents socialism. Which aspects of human nature?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:42:52 2011 No.3480664 >>3480652 Do you know what socialism means? I think you're talking about communism here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:43:52 2011 No.3480670 >>3480654 In order for the state to redistribute anything, it'll have to monopolize it for a while.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:44:52 2011 No.3480673 File: 168 KB, 590x600, conley_champagne_distribution[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Sarcasm of the day: Capitalism works for most of the people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:45:52 2011 No.3480681 Why would anyone start a company if it's going to be taken away?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:46:52 2011 No.3480682 The best definition of socialism out there implies means of production being owned by the public, and each person getting paid according to his or her CONTRIBUTION. For this reason, socialism doesn't violate the human nature unlike communism.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 01:46:52 2011 No.3480684 I PRODUCED A SANDWICH, DOES THAT MAKE IT EVERYONE'S SANDWICH?????????????????????????????

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:46:52 2011 No.3480685 >>3480662 The part that takes things for granted and is immured to the actual costs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:46:52 2011 No.3480686 >>3480681 The state will start companies, and the one which are private will be nationalized.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:46:52 2011 No.3480687 >>3480673 I wouldn't call that a champagne glass. More a margarita glass.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:47:52 2011 No.3480691

>>3480647
>implying that benefiting the highest number of people is the purpose of society
Resources, by their very nature, work best when concentrated. By spreading resources equally across the entire population, the possibility of achieving anything worthwhile is lost.

Think about it: everything we value about our legacy as a species, all the art and architecture and science and culture that we have today, is owed to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few at various points throughout history.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:48:52 2011 No.3480693 >>3480685 I don't follow. Why would this be a problem for socialism. I'll accept either an answer pertaining to state-socialism as in OP's question or decentralized libertarian socialism.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 01:48:52 2011 No.3480695

>>3480686

How does the state decide which companies to start and which ones not to start?

Also, does that imply if I start a company, it gets taken from me? How does that work? Lets say I bake bread, what happens to my bread production when the government finds out Ive been making bread?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:49:52 2011 No.3480697 >>3480686 right...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:49:52 2011 No.3480698 >>3480687 Back in the early 20th century, champagne was served in broad glasses shaped like that rather than the narrow flute-like glasses popular these days.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:49:52 2011 No.3480700

>>3480656

The USSR couldn't trade the ruble. In effect they were their own little mini-economy.

Apparently socialism was such a terrible economic system, that it made some of the poorest, most unindustrialized countries in the world able to compete with the entire rest of the planet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:49:52 2011 No.3480701 File: 8 KB, 363x360, 1307668309295.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] We don't need any of this shit; we need eugenism. And a government of enlighted scientists. Search your heart.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:50:52 2011 No.3480703

>>3480691

We have governments to concentrate wealth for those purposes.

Private individuals cannot be trusted to do this.

Who do you think it is that is the primary builder of infrastructure, funds sciences, arts, healthcare and education?

Hint: it aint Newscorp.

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 01:50:52 2011 No.3480705

>>3480662
Humans are selfish. Some may be willing to work harder than they have to help society as a whole, but many more would work harder if they had a bigger TV to show for it.

Plus, it is best if the people making the laws aren't the ones with all the power. It's a kind of checks and balances. If the means of production AND the power to make laws is in the hand of one organization then a deviation from the the goals of the greater good by a leader can lead to millions of deaths.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:51:52 2011 No.3480710 >>3480700 They did slow down in the 60's remember. The industrialization was fast, but they didn't know what to do after.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:53:52 2011 No.3480717 >>3480695 If you don't hire workers and exploit them to bake bread, then you would be able to bake bread on your own, as the fact that you bake bread doesn't lead to exploitation.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:53:52 2011 No.3480719

>>3480701
I agree that what you're describing would be an epic form of governance, but how would the rule of these enlightened scientists be enforced?

In case you haven't noticed, most intellectuals tend to be pacifists, or at least so physically frail that they would be ill suited to using force against the majority of people. If you have a separate class of soldiers/police charged with upholding the laws of the intellectuals, what keeps them from rising to power as a sort of military junta?

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 01:53:52 2011 No.3480720 >>3480687 Nah, more like the Cloud-City Class Distribution. Right at the top is that sly son of a bitch Lando Calrission.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:53:52 2011 No.3480721 >>3480670 Would you really? Force can be democratized simply by handing everyone guns and armor. The means of production can be democratized by mass producing auto-lathes and farming equipment and installing them in everyone's backyards.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 01:55:52 2011 No.3480723 >>3480700 Wat?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:55:52 2011 No.3480726 File: 115 KB, 419x397, arb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3480719 >what keeps them from rising to power as a sort of military junta Mind-controlling nanomachines.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:56:52 2011 No.3480728

The USSR is far from being a socialist society. To begin with, it's economic planning was inefficient for providing economic growth by increasing output after industrialization, and was wasteful, due to the fact that the planning wasn't based on starting with the output and then calculating the inputs needed for production.

Market socialism is the best out there. Market socialism implies worker-owned means of production which are operated for profit, and the profit being paid back to the workers as well as used for social programs like healthcare and free education, etc.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 01:56:52 2011 No.3480730

>>3480717

>If you don't hire workers and exploit them to bake bread, then you would be able to bake bread on your own, as the fact that you bake bread doesn't lead to exploitation.

How do you define "exploit"?

So thats the policy, you can own a company as long as you dont exploit anyone? Because I feel like private ownership with rules, is different than public ownership.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:56:52 2011 No.3480731

>>3480705

I'm not here to defend Stalin and co. I'm just interested in this little 'human nature' dealie.

Socialism promises the average guy (whether or not they can deliver is irrelevant) a greater share in the productive forces of society. This seems to be a pretty big inducement to work.

In addition, there is nothing stopping socialists from giving hard workers incentives.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:57:52 2011 No.3480735 >>3480705 Socialism implies distribution according to contribution. You're confusing socialism with communism here.

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 01:59:52 2011 No.3480739

>>3480728
Well, isn't that an inherent weakness with socialism? There is no competition to out compete the more wasteful methodologies. In a capitalism the better system naturally wins out. The only problem is that the most efficient system need not meet all the goals humanity sets for itself.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 01:59:52 2011 No.3480741

>>3480730

Different guy here:

From a marxist perspective the only way you can employ others and not be exploitative is to do it in a collective or co-operative that gives them partnership and shares in the profits.

Self-employment would also fall under non-exploitative private enterprise.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 02:00:52 2011 No.3480745 >>3480735 I've never heard of a coherent difference. Want to make it explicit for me?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:00:52 2011 No.3480748 >>3480730 Exploitation implies an extraction of surplus value for the benefit of the exploiter. Surplus value is the excess of value produced by the labor of workers over the wages they are paid, which is then taken away by the owner of the business.

>>	Sun Jul 31 02:01:52 2011 No.3480750 >>3480735 How do you calculate "contribution".

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:02:52 2011 No.3480754

>>3480745
Communism implies "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.". This might be problematic due to all the selfish people on this planet.

Socialism implies "From each according to his ability, to each according to his CONTRIBUTION.". So the more you work, the more you get paid. If you're an asshole who gets money unproportional to the work done (business owner), you won't benefit from it. The rest (most of the people) would benefit from it greatly.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:03:52 2011 No.3480756

>>3480703
There has been a massive reduction in the amount of resources dedicated to those pursuits in the modern era. We were much better at prioritizing the use of wealth when there was no distinction between the government and rich individuals (e.g. Renaissance through Victorian eras). Modern bureaucratic/democratic governments tend to be luddite in nature, preferring base practicalities to the truly great wonders a civilization can produce. We spend a thousand times more on the welfare of the poor and on weaponry for the military than we do on "culture."

I mean, how many Rembrandts do you see being painted these days? How many Versailles were built? We have incalculably greater capacity to create now than we did when that sort of thing was still made, yet we seem incapable of producing anything for future generations of humanity to treasure.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:03:52 2011 No.3480757

>>3480745

'socialism' is defined by marxists to be a pragmatic but worker controlled society with much of the normal economic stuff intact.

'communism' is meant to be a utopian, moneyless, near-completely egalitarian society to be achieved at a later stage once industry and production has advanced far into the future and can provide for everyone.

Sun Jul 31 02:03:52 2011 No.3480758

>>3480748

So the people(s) who put up the capital required to start the venture and bare the bulk of the risk should the venture be unsuccessful, should not be able to do anything beyond break even.

Now how in the fuck do you suppose people are going to be motivated to start a business if they can't make a profit so long as they hire people.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:03:52 2011 No.3480759 >>3480750 The profit made from selling your products of labor.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:04:52 2011 No.3480764

>>3480741

If you have a company owned equally by all the employees, I think that would legally mean, at least currently, that you could go after any and all of the employees the resolve problems like debts or legal troubles.

That seems like it has the potential to be unideal to me.

Also if the employees all receive the profits, that might suggest the company doesnt have any capacity to grow, because its breaking even or failing every year.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:04:52 2011 No.3480765 >>3480756 You see enormous concentrations of wealth in private hands today. Why don't they fund the Rembrandts? Simple truth is you look back on the past culture through rose-tinted glasses.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:06:52 2011 No.3480770

>>3480758
There wouldn't be business which exploits workers (most of the people) for this reason in a socialist society. If you buy the means of production but work yourself there and get the full profit from your business then it's fine, as no one is exploited here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:07:52 2011 No.3480772 Market socialism all the way.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:07:52 2011 No.3480773 >>3480748 You mean, like, if a guy makes a violin, from $40 worth of materials, and sells it for $50 the $10 extra is the "surplus value"? Someone taking that $10 is the exploiter (and perhaps paying him $8)?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:07:52 2011 No.3480774 >>3480764 Well you could have company reserves to cover shortfalls or for new investment. The important thing to marxism is that all the workers are also part owners, and all the owners actually do work.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:08:52 2011 No.3480777 >>3480773 He's charging money for his labour. That's not exploitation.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:09:52 2011 No.3480779

>>3480774

Okay thats different. If you are giving a percentage to the company itself, then you have essentially a corporation giving massive bonuses to its employees consistently.

How do you determine what percentage of the profit goes to employees, and what percentage goes to savings, and what percentage goes to re-investment?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:09:52 2011 No.3480780 >>3480773 No, as he/she gets the full product of his/her labor here. Those $10 is the labor that worker has put in the production.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:09:52 2011 No.3480781

>>3480587

Yes but limited to the sectors of Security,infrastructure, Education and Health. Private company's would be allowed to compete with the public company's as much as they want.

All the successful countries today are mixed economy's, limiting your self to one ideology is idiotic.

Sun Jul 31 02:10:52 2011 No.3480783

>>3480759

So a factory that makes widgets, has 1000 employees and operates using line flow. Now individually each worker only does one or two steps out of the many required to create the widget and there are many workers that also do the same one or two steps. Now not all steps require the same amount of skill to be performed successfully. How do you calculate what to pay each worker without a market system where a person is paid based off of the "going rate" for someone of their skill set.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:10:52 2011 No.3480786

>>3480777

Im just running with the definitions handed to me.

I personally think if you agree to a wage, it doesnt imply you are being exploited. It can be an immoral wage in my opinion, but thats different from the wage itself being immoral. Thats my opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:11:52 2011 No.3480787 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism Best system out there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:11:52 2011 No.3480788 Sure worked in Brave New World

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:11:52 2011 No.3480791 >>3480780 Im sorry I dont understand. You mean some manager taking ownership of the violin to sell?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:13:52 2011 No.3480800 >>3480791 No, I mean the worker putting those 10$ in the value of the product by his or her labor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:14:52 2011 No.3480804 ITT: People don't understand that market socialism would benefit everyone from petite bourgeoisie to the lower class. Even the petite bourgeoisie would benefit as they could sell more stuff due to the capital being less accumulated.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:16:52 2011 No.3480809 >>3480800 Thats what exploitation is? The labor equating to monetary value?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:17:52 2011 No.3480813 >>3480587 I support or not support policies. I want ends or do not want ends. Your idea sounds like neither. Care to talk about policies or the desired ends?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:18:52 2011 No.3480815 >>3480809 No, it isn't...

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:19:52 2011 No.3480819 >>3480815 Wait.. but... thats what I originally asked... Nevermind.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:19:52 2011 No.3480820

>>3480765
>Why don't they fund the Rembrandts?
A worthy question. I for one blame the modern middle class social-mobility oriented mindset that plagues modern society. Most of the billionaires of the modern era were not raised to occupy the social station which they have found themselves in and ultimately neither understand their moral obligation to employ their fortunes towards creative ends, nor how to do so if they wished to. But then again, I could be wrong. Who really knows why things are the way they are?

Regardless, you have to recognize that something is fundamentally wrong with the modern world. If you go walk the streets of the old quarters of European capitals, you'll see lowly apartment blocks more richly ornamented than the White House. What happened to us that we don't bother to beautify our creations anymore? It seems as though the driving force of our era is solely efficiency; expending the bare minimum amount necessary to achieve a given task, even at the cost of leaving us with a featureless and dull world in a time when we could so easily exceed any of history's triumphs.

Sun Jul 31 02:19:52 2011 No.3480823

So since everyone who works for a factory or what not owns part of the factory, where does the money to start the factory come from, additionally what if I am willing to work and have skills that are desirable but have no interest in owning part of the factory and would simply like to be compensated directly for the work I performed. Or alternatively what if I have capital and would like to start a factory but do not have the desire or required skill to work in the factory.

The problem I am having with this is that someone(s) must put up the capital to start the factory and no one would do it if it meant they couldn't take a profit from it.

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 02:20:52 2011 No.3480825

>>3480804
I believe the government should institute policies that create incentive for private businesses to serve the greater good. For example, the government should tax businesses for pollution according to the short term and long term effects of that pollution on the population and environment.

Am I a market socialist?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:21:52 2011 No.3480835 >>3480804 Please define what market socialism means, specifically the policies that would accomplish this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:22:52 2011 No.3480842 >>3480825 No, that's neoliberalism. Market socialism is in theory non exploitative.

>>	Sun Jul 31 02:24:52 2011 No.3480848 >>3480825 Ideally the government would be able to tax negative exteralities and thus remove an area of inefficiency in the market, but to place a value on the externalities is nearly impossible.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:24:52 2011 No.3480849
File: 87 KB, 600x700, capitalism illustrated.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

For all those people trying to understand marxist exploitation, here's a useful picture.

Basically the owner is selling the worker's produce at a mark up and pocketing the difference, rather than giving the worker the whole $100 worth of goods.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:26:41 2011 No.3480857 Market socialism doesn't rely on government ownership of the means of production, but instead of the worker one.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:28:52 2011 No.3480864 >>3480849 Ive seen that comic since forever. It implies a company constitutes a man sitting around at a machine. And thats not really true.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:28:52 2011 No.3480866

>>3480823

If you're a craftsman, you might like the opportunity to become a worker-owner instead of just a worker.

You could pool savings with others, petition the government or take a loan.

But no capitalist in his right mind would fund the venture, no.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:29:52 2011 No.3480869 Market socialism doesn't have to rely on the government ownership of the means of production at all. Workers can control and own each means of production.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:29:52 2011 No.3480870

>>3480823
Well, since money is a form of IOU, we could do what Lincoln did during the Civil War and he couldn't get the bankers to lend the US gobmint no cash: he invented his own - called Greenbacks, backed by the "gold" in Ft Knox - and manufacturers and whatnot lined up at the Treasury and took out loans in cash, which they used to pay their suppliers, employees, and - gasp - taxes, and also to repay those same loans. Worked out OK until the Fed was invented.

Full faith and credit, doncha know.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:29:52 2011 No.3480871 >>3480849 nop, the owner is buying his labor at a specified price he is free to sell his labor to the highest bidder.

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 02:30:52 2011 No.3480874 Hey guys what's going on in here? Is it time for a good old Communism vs. Capitalism thread? Is that all you guys do around here?

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 02:30:52 2011 No.3480875

>>3480848
>impossible
No it isn't. By knowing what amount of mercury is entering the water and knowing the effects of the mercury one should be able to get a rough estimate of the medical costs of citizens coming in contact with or ingesting the mercury, the loss of work due to the medical and psychological effects on loved ones, the loss of fishing stock, diminished tourism, and the loss of biodiversity as a proportion of some arbitrary value assigned to the whole of biodiversity on Earth.

It wouldn't be a perfect estimation of the cost of pollution, but such is life.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:33:52 2011 No.3480885

>>3480849
My response to this sort or argument is to ask a socialist why he is a worker. If he has the skills to produce a given article of goods, why doesn't he just go into business for himself and pocket all the proceeds?

The fact is, a business owner has invested capital in all the machinery and resources required to produce an item, thus taking on a huge risk of personal loss in the event of failure that a worker doesn't face. Also, the owner provides the business expertise to get the item from the factory floor to the shelves of stores, and into the hands of consumers that a worker alone does not have to do. By electing to be an employee, an individual agrees that a portion of his productive output goes into the pocket of the owner in exchange for having a much simpler and more secure job than if he was self-employed.

Usually, when I ask a socialist why he doesn't own a business, he responds that it's too hard. I usually trollface at that point and ask him if he really believes the owner doesn't deserve to make more than a worker.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:33:52 2011 No.3480886 >>3480874 I wish these econ discussions would progress beyond that. It really is ridiculous isnt it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:34:52 2011 No.3480896 >>3480886 This thread isn't about communism at all. It's about market socialism now. Something which benefits the majority of the people and actually works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:35:52 2011 No.3480903 >>3480885 Because owning a business implies exploiting other people unless the workers get the full products of their labor, like the craftsmen (usually) do.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:36:52 2011 No.3480909

>>3480864

Its a simplification meant to make a point. Its clearly some sort of workshop, probably proprietary.

So why don't we assume its a small widget shop that sells wholesale and is owned entirely by the guy who also manages it.

The capitalist/manager controls the large-scale movements of the company, its investments, hiring etc. For this he gets approximately 75% of the revenue, while his workers collectively get 25%.

Lets say the overhead reduces the owner's actual earnings to 50% in good times. That's still twice what all his workers make, combined, and for a safer and possibly more intellectually satisfying task.

What a socialist would propose is to share the 75% of income (minus 25% for overhead) between them all, making each employee a 'worker-owner.' Depending on their tendencies, they could hire the manager at a standard share or abolish the position entirely and discuss the company's future direction in an assembly. (as this is a small workshop this would probably be feasible).

Does that answer your questions?

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 02:38:52 2011 No.3480918
File: 46 KB, 800x533, 800px-Flag_of_Venezuela_(state).svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3480896
So Venezuela thread?
"Venezuela has a mixed economy dominated by the petroleum sector, which accounts for roughly a third of GDP, around 80% of exports and more than half of government revenues. It suffers high levels of corruption.[48] Per capita GDP for 2009 was US$13,000, ranking it 85th in the world.[49] About 30% of the population of the country live on less than US $2 per day.[50] Venezuela has the least expensive petrol in the world because the consumer price of petrol is so heavily subsidised."

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 02:38:52 2011 No.3480919

>>3480885
I don't know, something seems broken with a system if one man is buying gold lined, indoor, olympic sized swimming pools while ten thousand people who work for him struggle to feed their family. The rules that lead to that situation may seem fair but the end result doesn't seem fair.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:39:52 2011 No.3480928 This video (and it's second part which is in the "Related" videos) explains the capitalist exploitation pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSP-crYjeoE

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:39:52 2011 No.3480929 File: 76 KB, 510x510, economics troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3480896 Fuckyeah. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-take/ Market socialism in action in Argentina. Watch if interested.

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 02:40:52 2011 No.3480934 >>3480903 Worker aren't exploited unless they have no choice but to work for the employer. Like during Marx's time, when everyone was a "wage slave." Workers today are a lot better off than they were during the industrial revolution.

>>	Sun Jul 31 02:40:52 2011 No.3480937 >>3480875 I guess I should have put an accurate value instead of just value. But the point is calculating externalites for something like pollution especially in the long run, with any degree of accuracy is going to be nearly impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:41:52 2011 No.3480941 >>3480886 You're just jelly because public ownership would put you out of your job.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:41:52 2011 No.3480946 >>3480918 No. Look up what market socialism means.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:42:52 2011 No.3480950 >>3480934 No. Exploitation is the same whether forced or voluntary. And it is still difficult for a worker to find a non exploitatitve enterprise within range that will hire him.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:43:52 2011 No.3480955

>>3480896

Oh excuse me I can see that this is a completely different discussion that will likely flow a new and interesting way.

>>3480909

>For this he gets approximately 75% of the revenue, while his workers collectively get 25%

If 100% of the revenue went towards wages, the company would go under immediately. Revenue covers costs, one cost, being wages.

>and discuss the company's future direction in an assembly

I dont think this is feasible. I used to work in a warehouse full of aircraft parts. Trying to imagine being pulled out of my job every now and then to come up with some future plan is weird.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:44:52 2011 No.3480959 >>3480941 >implying I have a job >implying public ownership means we dont need economists

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:45:52 2011 No.3480962 >>3480918 No, Venezuela is a mixed economy, not a market economy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:45:52 2011 No.3480964 >>3480946 "Market socialism generally refers to three related but distinct economic systems." Which one are you talking about? I can't be expected to read every communist manifesto can I?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:45:52 2011 No.3480965

>>3480919
As far as I'm concerned, the fairness of the rules of a system are the sole determining factor as to whether the system itself is fair.

If, while abiding by a uniformly applied system of rules, one person becomes wealthier than another, that is means that person is better in some way than the other and deserves everything he gets.

For every powerful corporations out there today, there was once some lowly guy, no better off than the millions of others out there, with an idea who risked his future and everything he had on that idea. If somewhere down the road, he succeeds rather than fails (as do the majority of start-up companies), then I say he's earned everything he's gotten from it.

As long as the law allows his employees to quit an go into business for themselves in the same way he one did himself, it's a fair system. If these people choose to continue being employees for whatever reason, then they have made their choice and have no right to complain that they aren't as rich as someone who did.

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 02:46:52 2011 No.3480972

>>3480934
They are well off in African countries where natural resources are shipped off by corporations that bring in workers from the subterranean?

If you are going to just talk about Western countries then say that is what you are talking about. When a billion people struggle for food every day no one can say the world is a better place than what it used to be. Any system that allows that is not acceptable, period.

Just a little raging on my part. Please ignore.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:48:52 2011 No.3480983 File: 50 KB, 400x300, Alcohol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3480965 >my liver when I read my own post Holy fuck my spelling and grammar is atrocious. I seriously need to lay off the liquor.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:49:52 2011 No.3480992

>>3480955

I mentioned the owner actually getting like 50% after overhead.

The feasibility of democracy in the workplace depends on the size. I'm obviously not talking about low level decisions that are the responsibility of engineers etc but of high level things concerning new hiring, expansion, downsizing, mergers etc.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 02:50:52 2011 No.3480996

>>3480972
But your right.
I just can't think of any way to help third world countries other than to respectfully trade with them.
You know not invading them.
I mean if we try directly giving them money or supplies then they would just become dependent on us know?

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 02:50:52 2011 No.3480997 >>3480972 >subterreanean LOL! Wow, I'm calling it a night. Time to go to bed watching the Dr Who episode Gridlock on Netflix.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:52:52 2011 No.3481002 >>3480972 >bring in workers from the subterranean Holy Christ on a bike, Batman! The evil corporations are using mole-people slaves!

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 02:52:52 2011 No.3481004 >>3480992 I guess this is becomes more of a statement about democracy. Do you believe democratically chosen choices are usually better choices? I dont.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:55:52 2011 No.3481013

>>3481004
Democratic governments are like living individuals. - Rousseau

In a democracy, even a representative one, the governments choices are supposed to represent the will of most people.

So I would say the choices that get made are about as good as those an average citizen would make.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:55:52 2011 No.3481015

>>3481004

Well neither autocracies nor democracies can rely on good decisions.

But the fact remains that cooperatives do perform. Like capitalist enteprises, some fail. Others have succeeded. And if they find they can't manage doing business democratically and have to hire a manager, they can do so without necessitating exploitation.

See >>3480929 for a documentary on a whole bunch of them.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:56:52 2011 No.3481019

>>3481004

Democracy can be both beneficial and damaging in different cases. It's beneficial in this case due to the human nature, because the workers are human and would want to make decisions concerning their factory which would benefit them the most financially.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 02:58:52 2011 No.3481033

>>3480972
>When a billion people struggle for food every day no one can say the world is a better place than what it used to be.
Sure they can. The world was infinitely worse even a century ago. Maybe a billion people in the third world fear starvation now, but well into the 19th century, every human being short of the top few percent of the rich, even the people of developed European countries, were only one bad harvest away from death.

We live in an age when I see hobos every day with cell phones and iPods. A few decades ago, the richest man on Earth couldn't have even imagined owning something like that.

Don't try to tell me we are living in some kind of dark age.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:00:52 2011 No.3481044 No. Economic calculation is impossible without a market. How are you suppose to know how much to make of what products without prices signals telling you what is under or over supplied relative to demand.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:00:52 2011 No.3481045

>>3481013
>>3481015
>>3481019

Well what does it mean to represent? There is always the example of a democracy between two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. I dont think just because a majority prefers it means its the best decision for the whole.

With that said, good decisions have more to do with knowing what the hell you are talking about then just, appealing to interests. Which is why we have doctors. Doctors dont appeal to what we want, they appeal to what they believe is better for us, because they are the doctor and they know far more about what could be wrong with us than we do. The same is true in democracy. Well, as a cashier working for target (like I once worked at), I have preferences about how the company should be, but my preferences dont amount to anything because I dont know anything about what it means to make a company better.

Thats what I think.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:03:52 2011 No.3481059

>>3481044

Markets allocate, they dont necessarily allocate optimally. I just want to point that out because sometimes people act like markets implicitly bring us to a super special magic point that is supremely best. Its not true. Markets fail, or reach in-optimal points more times than not.

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 03:03:52 2011 No.3481060

>>3481033
Never use the word "infinitely" on /sci/ unless you mean it.

>We live in an age when I see hobos every day with cell phones and iPods
There you go talking about just Western nations. ONE BILLION PEOPLE STARVING! We have the means to feed them but we don't. There is something very very wrong with any system that allows that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:03:52 2011 No.3481062 >>3481019 Wrong wrong wrong. You're basically saying workers will make good choices because they want to make money.

>>	arizona state university !VQKJgiezS6 Sun Jul 31 03:04:52 2011 No.3481068 >>3481059 nope.bitmap

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 03:06:52 2011 No.3481078 File: 231 KB, 460x348, Tang3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3481045 Yea about that analogy, two wolves and a sheep. What was the sheep thinking, entering into a social contract with two wolves. Dumb sheep, his fault.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:06:52 2011 No.3481079 >>3481068 Hey thats where I go to school. Why nope?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:10:52 2011 No.3481095

>>3481060
>hobos with cell phones and ipods
Interestingly, cell phones and ipods are actually incredibly good investments for the homeless.

Cell phones allow them a continuous access to external services and incoming information such as a job or food availability, while less useful, the iPod can easily store audiobooks, personal notes, and considering most new media players, videos and texts which can be reviewed such as maps, train/bus schedules, phone books, etc.

If there was more widespread wireless internet, a homeless person would actually have an incredible advantage with a long-battery life wireless device vs a homeless person with no such technology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:10:52 2011 No.3481096 There's a movement which has been created to make the 2nd and 3rd world rise up and take over the 1st world for the cause of world socialism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS43ur1RI7M

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:12:52 2011 No.3481102 >>3480673 >implying the entire world is a pure capitalist system

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:15:52 2011 No.3481111

>>3481060
But why would we make an effort to feed them? If they are unable to even feed themselves, what benefit would possibly be yielded to the rest of the world by expending resources to feed them?

Protip: You cannot be both a rationalist and believe that human beings have some special moral obligation to altruistically help other humans who they have no relation with besides having similar DNA.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:17:52 2011 No.3481122 >>3481111 Its called empathy bro. Its why some people are left-wing.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 03:18:52 2011 No.3481124 >>3481111 They ARE us. They are humans.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:19:52 2011 No.3481127 >>3481060 see >>3480996

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:19:52 2011 No.3481128

>>3481111

>You cannot be both a rationalist and believe that human beings have some special moral obligation to altruistically help other humans who they have no relation with besides having similar DNA.

Why not?

In economics, we often say rely on the idea that people are rational (which, may be a misleading thing to suggest, but we rely on it nonetheless).

It seems to be, that being rational, just means you are capable of actualizing your preferences. For instance, buying a banana when you prefer bananes is rational. Rationality has nothing to do with the values the rationality actualizes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:19:52 2011 No.3481129 >>3481111 "You cannot be both a rationalist and believe that human beings have some special moral obligation to altruistically help other humans who they have no relation with besides having similar DNA." - stupidest statement of the day yet.

>>	Kantian Ethics Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 03:20:52 2011 No.3481137 >>3481111 I'll make it short and easy for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:20:52 2011 No.3481138 File: 31 KB, 500x461, 1302250421075.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3481129 >>3481124 >>3481122 Seeing these statements fills my heart with feelings.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:20:52 2011 No.3481139

>>3481111
>>3481122
>>3481124
Are these all samefags, or are people just too dumb to consider that one can think of society more than oneself?

I'm all for useless being people humans and empathized with. I'm all for murdering them in the most reasonable (efficient but humane) method possible.

I'm more for scientifically altering them until they're useful, but if that is forbidden, they deserve nothing more than death.

I can empathize with murdered people, I just don't have to consider it as reason to stop being reasonable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:22:52 2011 No.3481148 >>3481128 Fucking this. The fuzzy emotive parts in your brain decide what you want, then the cold logical bit goes about achieving it.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 03:23:52 2011 No.3481155 >>3481111 Poverty and starvation doesn't just effect the region it is present in. There are underlying practical goals being met through "moral" actions. Most atypical morals can be interpreted as practical goals.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:24:52 2011 No.3481162 >>3481139 Fuck off you sociopath. People who will co-operate and look out for one another are worth far more than selfish pricks. The first person you should euthanize for a better world is yourself.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:25:52 2011 No.3481165

The aims of ameliorating human life and human civilization are in no small part incompatible.

Why not dismantle the LHC and all the museums and galleries of the world to feed the poor?

As I see it, civilization - while not totally so - is more important. Thus the moral impetus to extend life which will contribute quite literally nothing to civilization is not particularly strong.

Empathy, while compelling, is not the only motivation which can be seen as working for the global good.

And as for

>>3481129

that presupposes that the propagation of DNA is a rational aim. Why not then dissolve all human bodies and use the resources to maintain large vats of almost pure DNA?

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 03:27:52 2011 No.3481176 >>3481155 atypical = typical Ugh, why do I still keep posting when I can't even type the right words?!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:27:52 2011 No.3481177 Even people with Asperger's (a syndrome which is characterized by intense interests in a few topics, a lack of empathy and social difficulties) are very commonly left wing.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:27:52 2011 No.3481185
File: 10 KB, 203x203, 1273377138095.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3481165

>Why not then dissolve all human bodies and use the resources to maintain large vats of almost pure DNA?

Hey thats a good idea... Im going to tell my friends at the DNA propagation club about this next meeting!!!

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:28:52 2011 No.3481187

>>3481165

No need to rip them down. They contribute to human happiness and so should be kept. We can have both.

What we should tear down are the neoliberal policies that have kept the people of the third world in shit tier conditions despite their leaders raking in the dough.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:28:52 2011 No.3481189

>>3481060
>We have the means to feed them but we don't. There is something very very wrong with any system that allows that.
What do you mean, we don't? We spend enormous amounts of money trying to make deserts farmable and ship grains across the world to a war-torn country, only to have the grains seized because they were marked for a tribe that was on the wrong side of a river. I'm not sure how you think that if you change France's economy into a socialist wonderland, we'll be able to instantly quell all the ethnic blood feuds in Africa.

Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sun Jul 31 03:28:52 2011 No.3481192

>>3481139
>Are these all samefags, or are people just too dumb to consider that one can think of society more than oneself?
Not quite. In reality, those who place society before themselves do so because it makes them feel good. It's still basically selfish.

It's pretty much semantics, but I think this is something a lot of people don't like to admit even if they already understand it.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:29:52 2011 No.3481193

>>3481059
What do they do that is sub-optimal, and how? When there is a gap between quantity demanded at a certain price and the quantity supplied, there is a potential for profit. Markets perfectly align supply and demand, every time. "Market failures" are always a result of governments interfering with the price system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:30:52 2011 No.3481204 I can't believe the science board of 4chan still has a few right-wing nutjobs.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:30:52 2011 No.3481207

>>3481177

As luck would have it I am a left-wing aspie. (No, not a self-diagnosed emo)

I wouldn't say I lack empathy, though. It's just that instead of picking up social cues immediately, you have to learn them. This can make us seem tactless and hard to be around.

If I'm a representative of aspies as a whole, I can say that yes, we are empathetic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:31:52 2011 No.3481212 >>3481192 No matter how you describe it, everything is selfish, it as useful as an argument as dualism. I'm talking on the strictness of how can we can empathize and feel while still being reasonable. How is this hard for people to grasp?

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 03:33:52 2011 No.3481220

>>3481139
There are practical benefits for humanity by acting "moral". I'm all for moral nihilism, but not caring about other humans is short sighted or ignorant. Morality is the glue that holds society together.

The basest instinct of all things is to survive. If society is hindering ones ability to survive that that individual will do what they can to destroy society. Humanity needs cooperation to survive and can't have a billion people trying to destroy it. We need to use the general rule of helping those in need else those who are down on their luck or born into poor circumstances will rebel against the rest of humanity, who have forsaken them.

You have to deal with the realities of humanity. You can't make-believe that we live in a world of perfectly logical machines. Humans are programmed to be selfish, which is why we can't afford to be selfish.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:34:52 2011 No.3481227

>>3481193

This is pure bollocks and you have no data to back up your situation.

In theory what you say is true, because you are operating entirely on a mathematical model that is at best imperfectly connected to the real world.

It takes time for people to take advantage of such opportunities. In a stable economy this isn't that great a problem, but in upsets market economies still face shortages due to the physical impossibility of setting up a business instantaneously.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 03:34:52 2011 No.3481229 >>3481212 >strictness What? I can't understand your sentence. Could you reword it.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:35:52 2011 No.3481234

>>3481139
>or are people just too dumb to consider that one can think of society more than oneself?
The precise reason I oppose humanitarian efforts in the third world is because I think of society as more than just myself.

From a personal standpoint, it wouldn't make much difference to me whether the government spent its tax dollars on feeding starving Africans. I neither benefit nor are harmed by this action. However, I realize that spending money to help allevieate the suffering of otherwise worthless people is not a good policy for society as a whole. On a long enough timeline, we will be better off if those third world people starve to death (or alternately manage to solve their problems for themselves) and our government invest in scientific research and public works projects.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 03:36:52 2011 No.3481238

Selfish
Self-Interested
Altruistic
Selfless
You guys need to learn the difference... Its hard to tell what you guys are arguing for unless you use your definitions more carefully.
For example, I can't tell whether the Right-wing arguer(s) is saying that everyone is born selfish, or if everyone is just self-interested.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:36:52 2011 No.3481239

>>3481192

I always say, if you believe all human actions are selfish, because someone wanted to do them, then the word "selfish" doesnt mean anything anymore, since nothing can be truly selfless.

>>3481193

Well, for starters they teach you in into econ that the demand and supply meet at the equilibrium point. But in reality there can actually be multiple "equilbriums" so the new question becomes "Which equilibrium is better?"

When people talk about how great market are, they imply free markets. And free markets dont really exist. There cant be a market with sufficiently low barriers to entry, sufficiently high competition, sufficiently efficient distribution of information, sufficiently rational decision making... etc... for the market to truly reach that perfect state they describe in text books. What that means is, if you could somehow quantify and model everyones preferences, and distribute everything such that maximizes utility for everyone, you would discover what is optimal. If reality was infinitely efficient markets would bring us there, but its far from efficient enough.

We just have to accept that reality isnt perfect, and guide markets to a better reality when we find ways how.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:39:52 2011 No.3481253

>>3481229
You may have me confused with the other guy, I only made a few late posts.

By strictness I mean the ability to see people suffering, and do nothing about it because doing something else benefits society more.

One of this guys posts:
>Protip: You cannot be both a rationalist and believe that human beings have some special moral obligation to altruistically help other humans who they have no relation with besides having similar DNA.
Being rational doesn't mean believing that people can't be unreasonable. Being rationalist doesn't mean you don't believe helping other people who aren't related to you can help you, whether or not you actually believe it.

I can lack confidence that what I'm doing will help someone, in fact, I can be completely sure it will hurt everyone. Except I can do it anyway. You don't have to be reasonable to do reasonable things.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:40:52 2011 No.3481260 >>3481239 >since nothing can be truly selfless Yes, yes it can. Most people might call it mental illness, but it's still possible to do things for others without belief that you can get anything in return, even some sort of emotional sustenance.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:42:52 2011 No.3481265 >>3481260 Name a thing that could be truly selfess if you are defining selfishness as fufilling your own self interest/preferences.

>>	Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 03:43:52 2011 No.3481274 >>3481265 A marine jumping on an enemy grenade in the middle of a battle, getting himself killed to save the lives of his squad. My first philosophy teacher taught me this one.

>>	Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sun Jul 31 03:44:52 2011 No.3481275 >>3481260 It's certainly possible, and I certainly would describe it as insane. Then again, I consider a lot of actions average people take to be insane. Stuff like actually voting Republican, for example.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:45:52 2011 No.3481277

>>3481265
Dystonias. The person doesn't move because they want to, and in fact, it's quite disruptive to normal life.

Compulsions would be the root core of most unselfish acts. While some compulsions are delusiory driven, many are done with intention or desire to commit them. They serve no purpose but the person does them. Compulsions are a form of every act, and a reasonable person would consider all human acts compulsory, as scientifically we have no free will.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:46:52 2011 No.3481282 >>3481275 I know that feel. Although I'm Australian, and we have our share of whacko politicians. Our government is set to go under because they aren't the party of climate change denial.

Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sun Jul 31 03:46:52 2011 No.3481283

>>3481274
Not even close. At that range, he'd also die from the grenade. He has three options:

1) Die along with everyone else.
2) Die, but save everyone else.
3) Kill someone else and live.

3 would force him to live with the guilt and 1 would be the worst possible outcome, so 2 is the best choice from a purely selfish perspective.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:47:52 2011 No.3481287

>>3481274

Isnt he just filliing his own personal desire for his buds to be alive? Thus is was a completely selfish act since he was only doing it because it satisfied his selfish desires.

Note: This isnt how I feel. I just want to point out if you simply all human action to just rational self interest nothing really means anything anymore, and you just have to fall back on exactly what "selfish" and "selfless" originally meant.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 03:48:52 2011 No.3481293

>>3481277

>Dystonias. The person doesn't move because they want to, and in fact, it's quite disruptive to normal life

Its still just something they want to do. It distrupts normalcy they obviously werent interested in to begin with.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 03:49:52 2011 No.3481295

>>3481283
No in the instant that you see a grenade, you don't have enough knowledge of the situation to know that you have no chance of escaping.
A self-interested person (A coward for example) would try to escape no matter what, even if the door was locked from the outside.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:49:52 2011 No.3481296 Does anyone want to continue discussing market socialism? Anyone else check out that documentary The Take? >>3480929

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:49:52 2011 No.3481297

I don't know if everyone understands how bloody difficult it is to run a profitable company. It was touched on earlier, but it involves coordination, long-term planning, market research, product research, cost-benefit analysis, etc. You can't seriously expect [The Common Man] to be able to analyze all that and come to a reasonable decision on how best to run the company. Inevitably the workers will hand that power/responsibility off to an elite group, and while a few may take on the extra work out the kindness of their hearts, eventually all the capital is going to be concentrated into their hands, and we've changed nothing except spread the risk among all the employees.

But maybe I'm too late the party, seems the threads gone off about something else entirely.

fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 03:49:52 2011 No.3481298

>>3481274
I disagree.

1) He would have died anyway so he did one last action that fulfilled one of the last set of goals he had before dying.

2) Even if he knew he would survive if he didn't jump on the grenade, if he makes the decision to jump on the grenade then he has decided he doesn't wan to live in a world where he let his squad die.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 03:53:52 2011 No.3481315 >>3481295 The brain doesn't need to consciously lay out every step of a logical framework to make a decision to fulfill goals.

Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sun Jul 31 03:54:52 2011 No.3481318

>>3481287
I think the original meaning of "selfish" and "selfless" is pretty useless. Ethics and morality aren't black and white, and there aren't any shades of gray. Comparing two different sets of values is essentially a pointless exercise--the only important things are that a set is internally consistent and realistically sustainable/practicable.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:55:52 2011 No.3481326

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, another left-wing block is bound to appear. I hope this left-wing block will not be abusive, revisionist and pseudo-leftist like the Soviet Union and would have a government which would make it's actions fully public in all of the sectors of the society.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 03:58:52 2011 No.3481336

>>3481227
>>3481239
>It takes time for people to take advantage of such opportunities
>there can't be a market with sufficiently low barriers to entry, sufficiently high competition, sufficiently efficient distribution of information, sufficiently rational decision making

The market provides profits incentives for anyone who can figure out solutions to all these problems. I think the problem is that when you defend capitalism, you are defending an imperfect world that is moving in the right direction, while the anti-capitalists keep demanding to know if capitalism is so great, why hasn't it fixed every problem in the world. The solutions are difficult and take a lot of time and resources to solve, but capitalist markets, in my opinion, solve them faster than any other system.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:00:52 2011 No.3481344 Half of the Russian population is unhappy with it's government.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Sun Jul 31 04:06:52 2011 No.3481369

>>3481336

>The market provides profits incentives for anyone who can figure out solutions to all these problems.

Okay but this is a seperate issue. This is what you say when you are aruging "The market is the best option we have" and not when you are arguing "There is no conceivable better option then the market"

When I say optimal, I mean there is no possible reality where people are happier. The market cant take us to an optimal reality.

So I guess ultimately we agree.

What I extrapolate, is that its not a good idea to just believe in the free market all the time, like a lot of conservatives seem to do. We need to really analyze what makes a circumstance best, and sometimes that isnt a free market.

Lastdemon !HFOJnI8n9U Sun Jul 31 04:06:52 2011 No.3481370
File: 28 KB, 345x370, Raoul_Wallenberg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Raoul Wallenberg, a swedish businessman who could have stayed safely at home, spent the closing months of World War II in Budapest, Hungary. Wallenberg had volunteered to go there as part of Sweden's diplomatic mission after hearing reports of Hitler's "final solution to the Jewish problem." Once there, he helped persuade the Hungarian government to stop deporting Jews to the death camps.
When the Hungarian government was replaced by a Nazi puppet regime, and the deportations resumed, Wallenberg issued "Swedish Protective Passes" to thousands of Jews, insisting that they all had connections with Sweden and were under the protection of his government. He helped many people find places to hide. When they were discovered, Wallenberg would stand between them and the Nazis, telling the Germans that they would have to shoot him first. At the end of the war, when there was chaos and other diplomats were fleeing, Wallenberg stayed behind. He is credited with saving 15,000 lives. Wallenberg disappeared after the war, evidence indicates he was killed by the Soviets after the war had ended.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:13:52 2011 No.3481406 >>3481336 No it doesn't. There is no profit to be had solving poverty. Quite the opposite.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:14:52 2011 No.3481410 >>3480587 yes, what could go wrong? Other than human error which can be rectified with a strong dictatorship?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:14:52 2011 No.3481413
File: 226 KB, 1000x600, Untitled-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3481122
>>3481139
>>3481162
>>3481220
What I just don't get is what makes you think that anyone who doesn't feel the need to help a bunch of starving savages must thus be some kind of nihilistic amoral sociopath who cares only about himself. Does it not occur to you that an individual can hold a different set of moral values than those you hold, which can lead them to prioritize much differently than you do while still remaining true to their moral code?

I happen to consider myself a normal morally-guided individual, but I feel no obligation towards helping the less fortunate; they simply aren't units of ethical significance to me. I believe that the primary moral imperative for society is not to provide the most for the most, but rather to produce "articles of culture," if you will. In light of the fact that we are fundamentally mortal beings, and that whether we as individuals lived happily or miserably, long or short, becomes wholly irrelevant after our deaths, resources spent by the government on helping those who can't help themselves are essentially wasted. As I see it, the only morally acceptable use of funds collected by the state in excess of the amount required to maintain a functioning society is to support the arts, which live on indefinitely as contributions to the collective greatness of human culture.

Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:18:52 2011 No.3481431 >>3481413 Add a sprinkling of technological advancement and scientific discovery and I am in agreement.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:20:52 2011 No.3481442 >>3481413 I disagree with everything you said.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:20:52 2011 No.3481445 >>3481413 That statue is of David, He is mentioned in the Bible, the Bible speaks of altruism and is therefore about "Slave Morality." If you want to be cool like Nietzsche you have to look for better idols, like Hitler or George W. Bush.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:21:52 2011 No.3481449 >>3481431 Certainly. I'm inclined to lump investment in science in with the necessary expenditures of any government that wants to maintain a functioning society.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:23:52 2011 No.3481456 >>3481413 You do realise that the shit on the left of your picture was only realisable due to concentration of wealth from the people who had produced it into the hands of an aristocracy?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:24:52 2011 No.3481462

>>3481449
But I see science as something more than that. If society as a collective can glimpse the absolute inner workings of reality - or as close to that as possible - then its existence is worthwhile. It's the reach for knowledge beyond that which can be used that defines, in my view, civilization. Art can be so included as aesthetic knowledge (iffy, but otherwise I can just add it explicitly as a separate category.)

The mere propagation or continuation of life not of itself worthwhile, and should not be done if doing so excludes progress of the above-stated kind.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:25:52 2011 No.3481467

>>3481445
I didn't picture the statue of David because I idolize the man it was modeled after; I pictured the statue for what it is, plain and simple. You could remove all reference to who the statue depicts, and it would be just as significant.

>>3481442
Well, I suppose that's your right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:27:52 2011 No.3481476 >No Ayn Rand /sci/ sure have changed a lot

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:27:52 2011 No.3481480 >>3481462 As an addendum, the vague way in which I look on this whole issue is that I favour maximizing the global maximum of a loosely-defined 'humanity' function, as opposed to its time integral.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:29:52 2011 No.3481488 >>3481476 Yeah, it's no fun without a little rand

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:30:52 2011 No.3481490 Absolutely not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:31:52 2011 No.3481493 >>3481111 http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:31:52 2011 No.3481494

>>3481462
I hadn't really looked at it like that, but I can totally see where you're coming from.

I'm inclined to think that there's nothing really preventing science and art from being reconciled with each other in a way that respects the significance of both without placing one above the other.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:31:52 2011 No.3481495 >>3481476 Eh the population of /sci/ isn't that big. Probably the more strident rightwing tripfags (Liberty, the free market Will, etc) are offline right now.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:33:52 2011 No.3481501 >>3481493 I hate that trope so much. Superior logical powers coupled with a moral mindset can lead to the best possible outcome, morally speaking.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:33:52 2011 No.3481503 >>3481493 >tvtropes WHY??!!!!!

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:34:52 2011 No.3481506

>>3481369
Markets can't create a utopia where scarcity doesn't exist, but nothing short of divine intervention can do that. If you want to start talking about what is "best" then that is a whole different topic than what system can most provide people with what they want. I tend to distrust talks about promoting what is "best" over what people actually want.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:34:52 2011 No.3481509 >>3481318 >Comparing two different sets of values is essentially a pointless exercise--the only important things are that a set is internally consistent and realistically sustainable/practicable. Can I kill you and take your stuff then?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:35:46 2011 No.3481511 File: 96 KB, 397x600, corpse1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3481493 >tvtropes Oh hey, I haven't been there for a while, I guess I can spare a few minutes to look around a couple articles. >mfw centuries pass

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Sun Jul 31 04:36:52 2011 No.3481515 >>3481413 >starving savages Haha, oh wow. Rich white boy who who sees an emaciated dark skinned person on the news and thinks "savage"? I suppose I expected too much out of you.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:37:52 2011 No.3481520

>>3481506
Someone needs to read Wealth Of Nations, or a basic econ class.

Market economies are useful because of specialization of labor. Scarce resources need not apply. It works equally well without scarce (material) resources, but with scarce labor.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:38:52 2011 No.3481525

>>3481413
>What I just don't get is what makes you think that anyone who doesn't feel the need to help a bunch of starving savages must thus be some kind of nihilistic amoral sociopath who cares only about himself. Does it not occur to you that an individual can hold a different set of moral values than those you hold, which can lead them to prioritize much differently than you do while still remaining true to their moral code?

First, no moral code is not the same thing as having a moral code.

Second, sociopath.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:43:52 2011 No.3481544 >>3481326 If you mean politically, it is most likely to be South America, lead by Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina and Bolivia. Cuba might be a bad influence, but Venezula looks good.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:45:52 2011 No.3481550

>>3481520
I actually wrote my thesis comparing the wealth of nations and the theory of moral sentiments, funny enough. I said scarcity, not scarcity of resources, by which I assume you mean, since no one ever defines their words, the raw materials we labor upon to produce a consumer product. When I say a utopia without scarcity, I am thinking of a world where when you want a coke, it is instantly trickling down your throat. No one would have to work in such a world. Also, market economies are useful for many other reasons besides the specialization of labor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:45:52 2011 No.3481556 >>3481550 >No one would have to work in such a world. Well, barring police and such, but yes.

>>	Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sun Jul 31 04:48:52 2011 No.3481563 >>3481509 If you think you can pull it off and get away with it, go ahead. I won't have any objections.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 04:49:52 2011 No.3481571 >>3481563 >is lying Whatever. Continue going on about value judgments being pointless and unimportant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:10:52 2011 No.3481660 ITT right wing retards don't understand the labor theory of value

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 05:13:52 2011 No.3481669 >>3481660 >the labor theory of value >implying there is only one Dumb hipster detected.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:17:52 2011 No.3481681 >>3481413 >>3481431 Or, fuck that, not just a sprinkling, funnel the entire surplus of civilization into science and technology and maybe a little bit on implementing this technology to improve the economy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:20:52 2011 No.3481688 >>3481660 >implying labor theory of value isn't an outdated relic from Adam Smith

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 05:20:52 2011 No.3481691 >>3481688 err what?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:22:52 2011 No.3481695 ...with heavy, and by that I mean substantial and effective, regulation. Since that will never happen, nope.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:24:52 2011 No.3481703 >>3481691 What? Adam Smith invented the labor theory of value, which now days only Marxists and a few socialists still believe in.

JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 05:27:52 2011 No.3481712

>>3481703
Oh no. There are different variations of the LTV. Ricardo's theory is normally accepted by economists (I mean the learned ones, not the liberal arts/humanities people).

LTV essentially nothing but the verbal representation of a mathematical formula that connects the perceived value of a commodity to the Price (really!!!). It is a fundamental aspect of any economic theory.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:27:52 2011 No.3481713 >>3481703 >What? Adam Smith invented the labor theory of value, which now days only Marxists and a few socialists still believe in. Lolno. Locke described it quite thoroughly well before Smith. I doubt Locke was the first either.

>>	Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk Sun Jul 31 05:31:52 2011 No.3481723 I support communal ownership of the means of production. I also support eugenics to ensure the commune is capable of handling such responsibility.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:32:52 2011 No.3481727 >>3481712 umm, no. LTV connects the price to the amount of labor used in making the product. Connecting the price to the perceived value is the subjective theory.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:34:52 2011 No.3481729

>LOL COMMUNISM
219 posts and 13 image replies omitted.

Seriously?

Central planning prevents institutions lower down the administrative ladder from getting shit done, they have to keep asking permission from some politician who is less qualified than them in their complex field.

Is this difficult to understand?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:34:52 2011 No.3481731 >>3481713 Well, I would slightly agree on the historical point, but no one every said the phrase "labor theory of value" until Adam Smith.

JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 05:38:52 2011 No.3481744

>>3481727
Ah no. The perceived value as per some perceived PRINCIPLE (e.g amount of labor which is almost impossible to asses in most situations) is the correct way of stating it. The value of an object thus depends on how you choose to assign value to it. Ricardo chooses to assign it according to the actual labor that goes into the product (i.e. the wage) including the cost of the resources consumed (machinery, land, time). Thus his calculations yield an exact number. Subjective theory has this perceived value as the wants and needs of the society at that instant.

I am not sure, but I think we are saying the same thing.

>>	FAGGATRON_3000 !U0FKfqmRjs Sun Jul 31 05:47:52 2011 No.3481776 Whatever works. It's not like the economy is too small for both.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:53:52 2011 No.3481802

>>3481744
Yeah, I don't think we disagree, I just think you are not using these terms in the way they are commonly used. What you are calling perceived value is usually called intrinsic value. LTV is a way of assigning intrinsic value to a thing by identifying it with the amount of labor put into making the product. There are also other theories of assigning intrinsic value, the most commonly accepted one being the one you described, that is by adding up the costs of production to assign its intrinsic value. The subjective theory of value denies that there is any such thing as intrinsic value. The phrased "perceived value" makes me think of subject value, rather than intrinsic. Maybe something you read uses that phrase the way you do, but I don't think it is common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_Theory_of_Value

That wikipedia article actually does a really good job of explaining and contrasting these terms.

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 05:56:52 2011 No.3481822 >>3481802 That could be because I am a physicist who reads economics as a hobby and paraphrase everything. Sorry for that. Glad to talk about this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 05:59:52 2011 No.3481830 >>3481822 Yeah, economics is basically a hobby for me, too. I do legal work for the oil and gas industry.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:06:52 2011 No.3481851 >>3481729 That's why market socialism is better. Public ownership doesn't equate communism, dumbass.

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 06:09:52 2011 No.3481861 >>3481851 Its as bad as communism for the same reasons communism is bad: Its oppresses the individual. In china, you can't so shit, unless you have a permit to do it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:43:52 2011 No.3481965 >>3481861 Are you fucking retarded? It doesn't. China isn't market socialist, it's an authoritarian mixed economy with private and public sectors, not like market socialism at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:43:52 2011 No.3481966 ITT: My faith in humanity lost. /sci/ is worse even than /x/

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:44:52 2011 No.3481973 >>3481966 Yeah, and you wonder why people blow up buildings and slaughter countless innocent civilians? Because people like those ITT have a vote. If mankind doesn't have liberty, they'll fight back. And you /sci/ fags should no better.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:45:52 2011 No.3481980 >>3481973 no = know

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:48:52 2011 No.3481992 All the right-wing bullshit in this thread is disgusting at it's best.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:49:52 2011 No.3481995 >>3481992 In that they don't want to control other people?

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 06:51:52 2011 No.3482000 >>3481965 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rsu0L9sdus

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:53:52 2011 No.3482014 >>3481995 In that they support shameless exploitation.

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 06:55:52 2011 No.3482019 >>3482014 What exploitation?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:57:52 2011 No.3482033

>>3482000
"China now participates extensively in the world market and private sector companies play a major role in the economy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Overview

Which means that it isn't market socialist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:57:52 2011 No.3482036 >>3482019 Worker exploitation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 06:58:52 2011 No.3482038 File: 41 KB, 345x341, i-came.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying realism is negotiable

JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 06:59:52 2011 No.3482044

>>3482033
So wen saying that they are a market economy is not enough for you?

And since you cite a wikipedia article here, have a proof of your retardedness on a plate:
The Chinese experience with socialism with Chinese characteristics is frequently referred to as a 'socialist market economy' in which the 'commanding heights' remain in state ownership, but a substantial portion of both the state and private sectors of economy are governed by free market practices, including a stock exchange for trading equity. The free-market is the arbitrator for most economic activity, with economic planning being relegated to macro-economic government indicative planning that does not encompass the microeconomic decision-making that is left to the individual organizations and state-owned enterprises. This model includes a significant amount of privately owned firms that operate as a business for profit, but only for consumer goods and services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 07:00:52 2011 No.3482046 >>3482036 What worker exploitation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:01:52 2011 No.3482051 Yes, as soon as we can program selfishness out of the human genome. In other words, soon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:02:52 2011 No.3482058 >>3482044 And this is why what you've just quoted is in the "Other uses of the term" section - uses which are different from the original definition. Dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:03:52 2011 No.3482064 File: 60 KB, 320x325, 6a00d83420245653ef01348022b6e9970c-320w.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3482046 < This worker exploitation.

JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 07:05:52 2011 No.3482074

>>3482058
>everything that agrees with my retarded world view is the only truth.

>>3482064

:D

Exploitation would be if the workers were not being paid enough. But I dislike the CEO paying themselves fuckloads too. I would not call it exploitaiton though of the workers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:09:52 2011 No.3482088 >>3482064 >world population Are you suggesting that people in Somalia and Afghanisation are workers?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:09:52 2011 No.3482092

>>3482074
">everything that agrees with my retarded world view is the only truth."
Completely irrelevant Ad-Hominem attacks.

>Exploitation would be if the workers were not being paid enough.

Idiot? Exploitation is when the workers' labor is stolen from them, when they're not paid anything close to the value of their labor.

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 07:13:52 2011 No.3482106 >>3482092 And how do you determine the value of the labour in question?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:18:52 2011 No.3482124 File: 34 KB, 192x279, 1306973314209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3482106 Don't answer that question. Its a trap!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:19:52 2011 No.3482129 >>3482106 By using the socially necessary labor time. Are you familiar with the labor theory of value at all?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:21:52 2011 No.3482141 >>3482129 >the labor theory of value You should actually learn to read. JamesBond recently explained it in posts above. I think you are some idiot who knows nothing about economics.

>>	JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Sun Jul 31 07:23:52 2011 No.3482150 >>3482129 >the labour theory of value Retard detected.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:26:52 2011 No.3482163 >>3482150 You seem to be the retarded one, loosing every argument presented.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:30:52 2011 No.3482191 >>3482163 what the fuck are you talking about?????

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:32:52 2011 No.3482201

>>3482150
So let me explain, retard.

Private ownership of the means of production which hires workers is the exploitation I'm talking about. When the owner sells the products of their labor, he or she only pays a part of it to the workers who have put their labor in making the product. The rest is appropriated by the owner of the means of production. Even when that owner has put a part of his labor in the production process, the value appropriated is generally far superior to the average value of the work that has been done by the owner.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:33:52 2011 No.3482207 >>3482201 There are more than one labor theory of value. Marx theory is mostly rejected by current economic understanding.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:36:52 2011 No.3482225 >>3482207 >Marx theory is mostly rejected by current economic understanding. Nope, it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:36:52 2011 No.3482226 I live in USA. What is 'production'?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:36:52 2011 No.3482228 >>3482225 It is.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:37:52 2011 No.3482232

US Department of State blocks Haiti pay raise: "Contractors for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s worked in close concert with the US Embassy when they aggressively moved to block a minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest-paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables."

It gets worse: http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day

Capitalism in action.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:38:52 2011 No.3482239 >>3482228 Not at all. Maybe in the US due to the Cold War prejudices. It isn't rejected in Europe at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:40:52 2011 No.3482245 >>3482239 Fine. Get an actual (taught) text book for macro/micro economics. Search for Marx labor theory of value. You will either get no references or no details. Seriously.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:41:52 2011 No.3482250 >>3482245 Taught where? In the US?

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:42:52 2011 No.3482253
File: 368 KB, 835x910, 1311085683125.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3482201
An employee sells future goods (the fruit of his labour) in exchange for present goods (wages), the asymmetry comes from the law of time preference (present goods ceteris paribus are valued more highly than future goods, hence one needs a premium to accept future goods over present goods).

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:42:52 2011 No.3482254

In the primary sector of the economy yes, so that we can supply free food, materials and electricity to those who need it. Wither it be private or public. Obviously there needs to be competition in the secondary and tertiary sections of the economy, these must maintain private, althought need strong rules and regulations.

Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:42:52 2011 No.3482255

It's a myth that evil capitalists exploit 3rd world countries, capitalists just don't have access to politically unstable and corrupt parts of the world and when they do you only end up with asian tigers and emerging markets, not exploitation. I'm not a free market fanatic, I'm just saying, the fashionable trendy hipster political viewpoint is usually unrealistic bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:43:52 2011 No.3482256 File: 25 KB, 384x384, das-kapital-bank[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3482245

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:45:52 2011 No.3482263 >>3482253 Those wages, however, make only a part of the value appropriated by the capitalist when selling the workers' fruits of labor. The surplus value is appropriated by the capitalist, which is stolen from the workers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:45:52 2011 No.3482264 >>3482254 There are many sophisticated industries in the primary sector, fucking them would only wreck the well developed systems in place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 07:48:52 2011 No.3482283 >>3482264 so? do it over about 150 years and it should be relatively smooth. the people of the earth deserve a fair share of its resources, it seems only just that each person should have free food,water and electricity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 31 08:21:52 2011 No.3482428 >>3482051 lol @ eradicating selfishness = an apathetic human species with no drive to work or better themselves. Think before you type shit, moron.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math