[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 388 KB, 638x653, 1612271876517.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12789755 No.12789755 [Reply] [Original]

Scientifically speaking, how would one approach macroeconomic theory to improve society and better science?
We all know capitalism and socialism have major flaws. What are some better alternatives?
My picks (not in any order):
Feudalism
Mercantilism
Social credit
Distributism
Palace economy
IMO distributism would be best for science.

>> No.12789790

Unironically national socialism

>> No.12789790,1 [INTERNAL] 

Economic nationalism. Protect your industry and borders while having a market economy with social redistribution.

>> No.12789951

>>12789755
I think a good exercise would be to frame marcoeconomic theory, the study of how we could manage scarcity from the outside in, on it being an open end 5000 year old problem and than case study the positive and negatives of the times they were employed. And than bring it back around to the pragmatic study of the present to craft policy position.

Scientifically speaking macroeconomics suffers a similar fate on irreconcilability of our macro and microcosms. As the information age progresses, and data of price and quantity at time t becomes more salient, and a microeconomic basis for the macro becomes more weildly an object.

Also graph theory, economics loves optimisation problems and an ability to map them into special algorithms simply and clearly would be valuable

>> No.12789965

The best economic system is bartering. All of our problems came when we invented money.

>> No.12789982

>>12789965
The economy is fine, it not my fault most people are useless and would have nothing to barter in a barter economy

>> No.12790008

>>12789982
I don't see any changes required on the front end really, but on the backend I reflect on bartering. Palace economies function without a reliable price information. I look at money hardness as the potential of ones gradient descent into resource allocation efficiency. No hard money, the market will not reflect any price discovery, leading to bubbles, over/under production etc. Barter, with its double coincidence of wants, gives more price information per state transformation. Collecting the prices and quantities at time t for demanders, and asking an efficient algorithm to find the most efficient chain of barters could have better price finding without money at all

>> No.12790027

i like freud too but man. that was brutal.

>> No.12790084

>>12789755
but socialism has no flaws except that it is not communism

>> No.12791157

distributism is so fucking based

>> No.12791169 [DELETED] 
File: 331 KB, 524x368, TIMESAND___rott.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12791169

On Certain Aspects of American Economics Relevant to 2021
http://762com.com/d0cs/papers/On_Certain_Aspects_of_American_Economics_Relevant_to_2021__v1-20210301.pdf

>> No.12792074

>>12790084
based and excessively-semanticpilled

>> No.12792166

>>12789790
unironically

>> No.12792179
File: 3 KB, 126x126, 1251151061858.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12792179

>>12789755
>a png of jpg artifacts made from a gif with a poorly cropped twatter watermark
why don't I taste any irony?

>> No.12792212

>>12789755
Socialism with American characteristics?

>> No.12792235

>>12789755
That's not how economists operate, they look at problems, build simplified models to get an insight and draw the conclusions to improve the situation, regardless of whether some knohead might call it capitalism or socialism or whatever

>> No.12792365

>>12789790
FPBP.

>> No.12792436

>>12790008
Most people still have nothing to offer to the world, under any economic system. Barter? They have nothing to barter. Palace? They have nothing to bring to the palace.
Under some sort of UBI or command economy the useless can still consume but the point is under current market economy the poor suffer because they have little to give to the economy. Selling labor is not a good business.

>> No.12792439

>>12791169
You are like a machine, i salute you.

>> No.12792454

>>12792235
Economists should try to fix less and to observe more. Instead of being scholars they try to be politicians, presstitutes do it too.

>> No.12792458
File: 105 KB, 1200x800, World_population_living_in_extreme_poverty_-_Our_World_in_Data_-_2015.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12792458

>>12789755
Capitalism is the best economic system and nothing will be able to top it. The emergence of capitalism in 1750 is the best thing that happened in the history of mankind in terms of material living conditions.

Seethe harder commie.

>> No.12792572

>>12792454
I don't even know what you're trying to say schizo

>> No.12792702

>>12792572
Fix less
Observe more
Chillout and that

>> No.12792713

>>12792572
>and draw the conclusions to improve the situation
>to improve the situation
Economists think they are politicians.

>> No.12792828

>>12792713
Somebody has to offer guidance for economic policy

>> No.12792838

>>12789790
This but with the nationalization lots of people seem to forget is part of it.

>> No.12792849

>>12792702
>>12792713
>NOOO YOU CAN'T POINT OUT FREE MARKETS SHORTCOMINGS CAPITALISM IS PERFECT

>> No.12792860

>>12789965
>The best system is the same system we have right now except incommensurably more inefficient and inconvenient

>> No.12793265

>>12792860
A feature of barter is low risk, you do the exchange and theres nothing else to worry about. But you know what existed before barter? Informal exchanges of favors, that was the first money and it was risky because you could do other people lots of favors and never get paid back in favors. Thats credit, and you get more deals if you are willing to take some risks and just deal with some losses.

>> No.12793478

>>12792458
>semantic
Notice how drastic it is after 1940. Literally all of those people are in China and ex-USSR (socialist countries)

>> No.12793603

>>12793478
>China is socialist
lol
Another leftard that has never heard of Deng Xiaoping

China has been a capitalist economy since the late 1980s, retard, which is what explains its rise from being a North Korea-tier shithole under Mao.

>> No.12793617

>>12792849
it is perfect in materialist sense of the idea
it must be combined with spiritual backbone tho, because just like communism or any other materialist idea - it cant solve the spiritual and social problems
so free-trade and private ownership + monarchy is the best combo there is, and the jew fear the truth
just like you, rabbi

>> No.12793626

>>12793265
you are mistaken the idea of bartering with the idea of fiat currencies
gold/sivler backed monetary system gives the best of both worlds - it cant create a bubble, just like bartering, and involves quick and easy system like fiats do

>> No.12793825

>>12793603
>china is capitalist
>china state is playing a huge role
Surely there is no contradiction there.
Also, you do know everything in China is heavily state 'control' right?
Lastly, the distinguish feature between China form of socialism and capitalism is the influence of private sector in politic. The private sectors in China do not influence the politic. To address soviet down fall, china created strong public sectors in every market. The way they organize their market and politics are more of that of a socialist than capitalist. Ofc, there is a reason why they are doing all of this reform but the ignorant to boil everything down to them being a capitalist is quite astonishing.

>> No.12793837

>>12793617
>it is perfect
>What are market failures?

>> No.12793850 [DELETED] 

>>12793825
they are , they are capitalists, capital flows ,capital dominates, over for china comunists, they betrayed the real comunists , over , never began

>> No.12793873

>>12793626
Why do absolute brainlets always love to share their crackpottery about gold and currencies

>> No.12793875

>>12789790
>>12789755
Communism

>> No.12793890

>>12793850
Bro, you trolling?
Socialism and communism don't restrict the use of money.

>> No.12793979

>>12793825
>Surely there is no contradiction there.
No there isn't, most property in China is private.
It's a market economy.

>Also, you do know everything in China is heavily state 'control' right?
What? No it isn't.
There has been a lot of deregulation.

>Lastly, the distinguish feature between China form of socialism and capitalism is the influence of private sector in politic. The private sectors in China do not influence the politic. To address soviet down fall, china created strong public sectors in every market. The way they organize their market and politics are more of that of a socialist than capitalist. Ofc, there is a reason why they are doing all of this reform but the ignorant to boil everything down to them being a capitalist is quite astonishing.
It's literally capitalism, that is, an economy where most of the capital is in private hands. The state playing a role or not is irrelevant, it's no longer the top-down Soviet-style command economy it was in Mao's time.

If China is "socialist", then it's very weird form of socialism with no free healthcare and no legal unions. It's closer to fascism than socialism.

>> No.12794085

>>12793979
>There has been a lot of deregulation
My guy, what do you mean? There has only been more regulation since they open the market up to foreign enterprise.

>your 3rd section
You do know there is more than one way to structure socialism and communism right? It isn't a free of a market like you imagine. Everything is still within the party control. Ofc, it is not perfect, they have to compromise or else they would collapse from the pressure of western influence like soviet.

>no free Healthcare and union
I think china subsidized Healthcare, so the cost isn't as high as you imagine. They 'reduce' payment by 50% for low income.
As for union, you do know the party and people are on one side, they don't need the union. The party is the union. Union only existed in the west because capitalist scammed everyone labor. Union was the reactionary when the imbalance is too big.

>> No.12794099

>>12793890
>Socialism and communism don't restrict the use of money.
They do really. communism has no money at all. Socialism is supposed to work towards that, but basically in socialism 'money' tends to be things that can only be exchanged for goods, and not used to buy means of production or labor. In effect money in socialism is sort of a rations system/credits, whereas the socialist view of money is something that can be used to exchange for anything at all/property (and of course, property to socialist just means 'means of production', other things are possessions)

>> No.12794115

Social Democracy (capitalism + welfare state) is objectively the best. Just look at best countries in GDP PPP per capita.

>> No.12794129

>>12793626
I said absolutely nothing about currency, i talked about credit and about barter, and how they are different. You are projecting.

>> No.12794141

>>12794115
capitalism is inherent self defeating as it consumes rate of profit to keep itself afloat.

>> No.12794142

China is state capitalist (fascist) since the Dengist reforms. Fascism is the best system.

>> No.12794145

>>12794099
No, baka, communism is just a classless society. So, in theory, we don't need to take it to the most extreme and abolish money. We can just you know, democratize the enterprise, but that is another conversation.

>> No.12794148

>>12794141

Commie bullshit. Capitalism worked well for 200 years and shows no signs of going away any time soon.

>> No.12794166

>>12794142
>fscist cucks strike again
t. italian

>> No.12794169

>>12794148
>work for 200 year without any near collapse and doesn't need government to bail out at all
Yeah, you are right. Capitalism is very good, it is very sustainable.

>> No.12794171

>>12794148
>200 years
feudalism worked for a good ~1500 years anon
the span of historical materialisms applicability starts at around 3500 bc.

You see liberals think on such short scales, as reflected in their economic ups and downs and struggle to make the next few months look profitable at the expense of the future.

In the history of capitalism it has already changed radically from being based primarily on useful developments in industry towards ever more abstract financial manipulations.

>> No.12794189

>>12794169
The whole society is capitalism, including the workers and the government. A system cannot bailout itself. These bailouts were just thefts of money by the banking sector, from the rest of society, not a "bailout of capitalism"

>> No.12794209

>>12794141
>consumes rate of profit
This is not well defined so i dont know what you mean, however i still know you are wrong because of the following identity
GDP=Profits+Taxes+Wages
Low profits mean what? Higher wages? So you are saying that capitalism will eventually lead to no profits and all the money will be taken by taxes and wages? This is is not a problem but an allowed state of capitalism, which has never been reached anyway.

>> No.12794211

>>12794169

Capitalism has economic crises from time to time. Socialism is one continuous economic crisis.

>> No.12794216

So, fellow Americans, when are we going to have socialism with American characteristic? (You know, democratize enterprise or something since about everyone is so liberal)

>> No.12794217
File: 165 KB, 720x480, socialism-vs-capitalism-nk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12794217

>> No.12794228

>>12794211
>china haven't one since it economy took off. (Unlike America where there is one every 10 years)
You are right anon. I'm wrong. You won.

>> No.12794238

>>12794217
Isn't that a good thing? When it is time to go to sleep, the light should be out.

>> No.12794250

>>12794211
It doesnt have crisis. The thing is people thing capitalism is some sort of engineered machine that guarantees people a wealthy life. Capitalism is just like a lush amazonian jungle, packed with life but also more life=more death, useless companies and their workforce cannot expect prosperity.

>> No.12794318
File: 64 KB, 512x320, unnamed (6).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12794318

>>12794085
>My guy, what do you mean? There has only been more regulation since they open the market up to foreign enterprise.
Patently false.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/uct/uconnp/2020-01.html

In fact they had to deregulate further to fullfill WTO rules and membership.

>You do know there is more than one way to structure socialism and communism right?
No, socialist economy means command economy. The fact that there are market liberal parties in the West still calling themselves socialist despite no longer advocating a socialist command economy does not change the meaning of the term pertaining economics.

China is a market economy.
There is a market system of goods and services where supply and demand determines prices. Most of the economy is in private hands. Most of the capital is in private hands. The public sector represents less than 15% of the Chinese economy. (Pic) These are the hallmarks of capitalism.

You may argue whether China practices free market capitalism or a more mixed, dirigiste economy, (IMHO it's the latter) but it's capitalism regardless and only someone completely clueless of economics would argue otherwise.

>I think china subsidized Healthcare, so the cost isn't as high as you imagine. They 'reduce' payment by 50% for low income.
So the fact is that there is no free healthcare in China which is a basic socialist tenet.

>As for union, you do know the party and people are on one side, they don't need the union. The party is the union. Union only existed in the west because capitalist scammed everyone labor.
Wow this is some Orwellian shit.
You are the kind of idiot that would embrace fascism if someone sold it to you with a socialist labeling.

No, free associations and the right to form unions are basic Human rights and serve a social function by protecting the rights of labor from abuses.

>> No.12794338

>>12793890
They do, for instance, by preventing the market to determine prices, by preventing private ownership and investment, or by preventing people from acquiring foreign assets or foreign currency, you are in effect telling people what they can and can't use their money for.

This was typical in the Soviet Union and today in places like North Korea or Venezuela where people can't take their savings out of the country or convert them to a foreign currency to protect them against very high inflation.

>> No.12794353

>macro
>asks for scientific explanation

go back to biz or pick up micro

>> No.12794360

>>12794209
in simple terms rate of profit is just what you get/what you spend to get it. This sounds like an obvious and simple thing but the nuance of 'what you get' has different levels that arent important when understanding what rate of profit is, and only when you try to understand what causes it to go up or down.

Competition causes it to go down as more and more of the potential output is spent to keep making profits. Thus you can think of it as the fuel that capitalism burns for its engine of advancement. That fuel is finite and when an industry can no longer break even it collapses creating what is called a 'capitalist crisis'.
In the case of a single industry it can restart when the lack of production increases demand and the colapse, having ruined many of the players in that industry, provides for lower competition at first as survivors restart or new players enter it to meet the new demand.
However capitalism as a whole has a rate of profit as well which has been steadily declining over the last 100 years (with spikes here and there due to new innovations or wars, but the overall trend is down and has been forever, and according to analysis of capitalism must trend downward). When it reaches 0 or even near zero according to some theorists there will be a big collapse.

>> No.12794418

>>12794360
Stop talking like that. I mean, use word that have a meaning. Stop with the flowery poetry. So you say companies will become unprofitable due to competition, ok. You know what that means? See the formula again
GDP=Profits+Wages+Taxes
Its entirely possible for a capitalist system to have high GDP and low profits, or low wages, or high wages and low taxes, or any combination. What it means is that all the money a sector does not earn, goes to the others. This is not a crisis, its an allowable state of the system, but this is all academic anyway and has never happened. Its somehow approached in countries with high taxes in europe where both salaries and profits are lower for a similar GDP level but thats all it is.
Its entirely possible for the returns on capital to shrink over 100 years if another sector (taxes or wages) grows. I dont know what else you imply from that.
Currently it is around 15%, the rate of return. You think it was 20% a 100 years ago? And in 100% years it will be 10%? Ok, so how is that a crisis?

>> No.12794436

>>12794360
I want to elaborate on my last post a bit. I dont like your fuzzy phrase "rate of profit". There are better defined concepts
Return on capital=Currently around 15%
Share of national income=For capital currently around 35%.

>> No.12794437

>>12794418
no, money spent on, say, advertising, just vanishes. It doesnt gain anything because if its for say, a lawn mower, people were going to buy a lawn mower. Competition to have them buy YOUR lawn mower is useful if its through improving lawn mower or lawn mower production capability, that cost sticks around forever, but if its to psychologically convince people to buy your identical lawn mower over someone elses that money simply vanishes.

>> No.12794448

>>12794436
>I dont like your fuzzy phrase "rate of profit
it has a formula. its surplus value/capital investment
but you dont know what these terms refer to either in the marxian sense since you were not taught them in your liberal economics classes and if you were they were most assuredly misrepresented.

So you see you either need to go back to step 1 and build up an entire alternate vocabulary and world outlook to understand things, or you must settle on fuzzy generalizations

>> No.12794449

>>12794437
I dont understand your word salad. Say something meaningful.

>> No.12794457

>>12794448
What is surplus value? Its vexing keeping track of your arbitrary terminology

>> No.12794463

>>12794448
Heres an idea: Write in english or go talk to your marxist echo chamber.

>> No.12794464

>>12794418
>GDP=Profits+Wages+Taxes
This formula is wrong.

You mean
GDP = Compensation of employees + Rent + Interest + Proprietor’s Income + Corporate Profits + Indirect business taxes + Depreciation + Net foreign factor income

And no, any combination resulting in a high GDP is not possible, it's hard to imagine an economy prospering with high corporate taxes and no profits. The GDP would be low and shrinking.

You are thinking backwards.
Just because the formula can be used to calculate a given GDP does not mean that its factors are interchangeable or meaningless.

Holy shit do you guys have econ degrees at all or are you all freshmen?

Between the moron arguing China is still communist and your wrong usage of formulas I'm starting to think /his/ knows its shit better than /sci/.

>> No.12794474

>>12794464
Its the same formula. You can break it down into 5000 components, it doesnt change the meaning. Im getting pissed off at your antics, i would punch you if i saw you

>> No.12794475

>>12794449
If you spend resources to develop a better lawn mower, it is retained in having better lawn mowers from there on out
If you spend resources to make it more efficient to produce lawn mowers, it is retained in having easier to produce lawn mowers from there on out.
If you spend resources to convince someone to pick between identical lawn mowers, that resource is simply wasted.

This demonstrates inefficiencies inherent to markets. As advertising becomes the prominent form of competition in later stages of industry it is a large factor in rate of profit decline. Because remember we are looking at the industry overall, not individual players within it. The lawn mower industry is spending vast resources competing with itself to produce better/cheaper lawnmowers, when that competition is directed elsewhere it consumes more and more of the rate of profit.

>> No.12794487

>>12794463
the last hundred years of western economics has been primarily to discredit and obfuscate marx, not to actually produce useful economic theories. Your entire way of thinking is simply backwards and the definition you use for words is designed to be the most dissonant with their actual definitions.

>> No.12794494

>>12794475
Can you actually say things with meaning? "resources are retained" doesnt have a meaning in english. I figure you are trying to say something complex but cant be arsed to write a coherent description so you just use figures of speech? Look dude, im not inside your head, i cant follow half the crap you write. I feel like you have some ideas but your communication sucks.

>> No.12794508

>>12794494
I am writing entire examples so that in reading them you can come to understand what words and phrase mean through context.

>> No.12794510

>>12794474
It's not the same formula, and it's hard to imagine a "high GDP" with no corporate profits involved whatsoever, so stop talking out of your ass if you don't want to get corrected.

>>12794475
Marketing is a service which adds value to the economy. Just because you don't see value in it does not mean others don't. If the market values the activity of publicists and marketing execs high enough to pay them, then clearly their activity has some use.

I also doubt your thesis that marketing is a leading factor in the declining rate of profits. It could simply be that the market is more efficient because of more perfect information available to consumers (ie. User reviews of a product on the internet, easier to compare prices, etc.)

>> No.12794525

>>12794487
Nobody in business or on any serious university or college related to economics and business gives a shit about Marx. Marxism is not economics. So nobody even cares enough to attack his outdated ideas.

Only retarded liberal arts majors and sociologists give a shit about Marx.

>> No.12794540

>>12794525
>outdated ideas.
he says with out even knowing what the ideas are.
and then i hear some great new idea that was actually something marxists were talking about 80 years and nobody knows because nobody actually reads marx (not even marxists)

>> No.12794553

>>12794510
Its hard to imagine an economy with no profits because it has never happened and likely will never do, but capitalism can exist in forms with high profits or low profits. The GDP is split among all participants in the economy, for simplicity i divide the economy in 3 sectors: labor, capital and government. I could also divide it into 300 sectors through the art of subdivision, thats irrelevant. So all the GDP goes to these three sectors, like slices of a cake. Some countries have capital with a bigger share than others. Like Brazil or victorian England.
In parallel to that, theres the concept of the return on capital, how fast does capital reproduce. I think there is indeed a tendency for this rate to shrink asymptotically as it gets harder to grow the economy and it takes more capital to achieve more output. Seems normal, when you are dirt poor and have nothing even a little bit of capital can have tremendous implications, when you go from earning $1 a day to $2 a day thats 100% of economic growth. Its much harder to grow a $50.000 GDP per capita to $100.000 GDP per capita. Currently this rate is at around 15%, it takes 100 of investment to get $15 in profits, maybe in 100 years it will be 10%, and in 200 years, 5%.

>> No.12794561

>>12794540
Von Mises already destroyed Marxism with his thesis on the Problem of Economic Calculus in a Command Economy a century ago.

For more simple proof, the fact that the price of an oil drum went into the negatives this year proves that the surplus theory of value is wrong and anyone with two braincells can figure this out.

Since Marxist "economics" are based on this core tenet, this proves the entirety of Marxism wrong and not something economists, or intelligent people of any persuation, give a shit about.

>> No.12794563

>>12794540
Just talk about the ideas in plain english. Stop being so repulsive. Stop using terminology from a private dictionary you wrote yourself, you cant talk with others without a common language. Its like instead of debating concepts you expect to debate about what a word means. Also you can do this without ever dropping the name Marx;

>> No.12794599

>>12793825
No no, you simpleton you fail to understand. If something works it's Capitalism, if something doesn't work it's Socialism.

>> No.12794601

>>12789755
>ITT: We've never read/comprehend marginalism

>> No.12794610

>>12794099
based Real-Communism-has-never-been-tried poster

>> No.12794631

>>12794561
Be careful, fellow. In his paper, von Mises said the economic calculation problem can never destroy Marxism as a moral ideology, as Marxists can defend a less-than-optimal economic system if it means it's fair. The economic calculation problem proves only that guided economy is less-than-optimal in large scales. In small scales, it works just fine; no family house crumbles because there was no household price system to divide tendies between brother and sister.

>> No.12794690

>>12794631
>von Mises said the economic calculation problem can never destroy Marxism as a moral ideology
Sure, because ideologies don't need to be based on facts. We still have Flat Earthers and people that don't believe in Evolution as well.

>as Marxists can defend a less-than-optimal economic system if it means it's fair.
It's not fair either, but that's a topic for another thread.

>The economic calculation problem proves only that guided economy is less-than-optimal in large scales.
>less-than-optimal
More like horribly inefficient and broken, thus relegating it outside of the realm of Economics.

>In small scales, it works just fine; no family house crumbles because there was no household price system to divide tendies between brother and sister.
How families manage their private households is outside of the realm of Economics. Democracy too would be an awful system for parents to run their households by giving each kid a vote on whether they want to dine pizza or vegetables, but it works well on a large scale society.

>> No.12794811

>>12794690
Dude you're dumber than a marxist and that's saying something, i know your lolbertarian cringe kind has been expelled by the nazibots on /pol/ but you need to go back

>> No.12794820

>>12794811
>being against Marxism means you are a libertarian
Try again, faggot, and with an actual point next time.

>> No.12794865

>>12794690
I agree with the first three topics, just pointing it out.

>How families manage their private households is outside of the realm of Economics.
It may be outside of political econ, but not outside of economics. What I mean is that there is no price system in a household because the economic calculation problem is an informational problem; in small scales, information flows fast and there is no need to have a price system.

>Democracy
>Working well in large scale societies
Haha

>> No.12795212

The problem with communism as practiced in the Soviet Union and China was that it got biology dead wrong. Were it not for Lysenkoism those systems would still be holding over today. Capitalism only works because it is able to capture science through its public risk and private profit system. A market can be made for fairy dust, and if the economy depends on fairy dust it will fall apart. Scientists are needed to base products in the real world, and materially benefit people.

The ideal system for science to provide the most benefit would be to have total freedom of information, open source patents, copyleft, repair rights, and so on. Human discretion should also be limited as much as reasonably possible in favor of publicly verifiable randomness to ensure fairness.

>> No.12796825

>>12794211
Go back to school.

>> No.12796970

>>12792458
by their definitions someone without enough money for food could be living in “not extreme poverty” while a self reliant village without currency that feeds and shelters everyone would be living in extreme poverty regardless

>> No.12797382

>>12796970
Not really, check the source.
It's PPP values.

>> No.12797390

>>12796970
>by their definition some extreme and exceptional cases would not be properly represented by this quick and immediate measure of poverty
>gotcha economists

>> No.12797417

>>12794631
Soviet communism had an adjustable pricing system somehow related to market pricing. They would manufacture a long list of products at some prices and then adjust prices and production quotas for the next cycle according to demand. Essentially they would produce more of whatever sold better. This was all decided by a bureaucracy called Gosplan. It isnt any better than direct market economics.

>> No.12797439

>>12796970
Dude go to any shantytown, the ultra poor people still have clothes and food. Everybody has food and clothes because thats sort of the minimum needed to exist. Peoples that starve dont just starve forever, they eventually die. Any shithole where humans beings reproduce and live has food and clothing.

>> No.12797440

>>12797417
As an anti-communist, I'll admit I am intrigued nevertheless by the idea of a supercomputer AI managing a centrally planned economy. Perhaps the future is a post-scarcity, fully automated, robotic economy with an AI of Matrioshka Brain proportions, managing production of most basic goods while Humans are left free to pursue arts, hobbies, or work as volunteers for things they enjoy (ie. Like open source software works nowadays).
For the foreseeable future, centrally planned economies are best left to the realm of science fiction.

And even then, thinking 200 years into the future, I'm still not sure it would be more efficient than a market system.

>> No.12797449

>>12797417
I never said it would be better; in fact, it's terribly worse. Why does it sound everybody reading >>12794631 thinks I support guided economy? My commentary was a cautionary one, as Mises himself said that economic arguments could not refute marxism as a moral ideology. Bohm-Bawerk critique, in the other hand...

>> No.12797471
File: 10 KB, 239x211, download (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12797471

>>12797449
It was bad for multiple reasons, indolence and ignorance of the planners and their workers among them. I mean just imagine crops left to rot because the central planner got the dates wrong and its all just an excel table to him.

>> No.12797482
File: 15 KB, 220x274, 220px-Publicity_photograph_of_Ronald_Reagan_sitting_in_General_Electric_Theater_director%27s_chair.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12797482

>>12797471
Ah, I remember Reagan's jokes.

>> No.12797512

>>12797482
It is said that eventually the soviets got their shit together through, i figure, natural selection. They managed to refine their production formulas and have a good match between demand and production. Only took them 50 years including a super horrible first 20 years.

>> No.12797541
File: 13 KB, 500x246, unnamed (1).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12797541

>>12797512
Yeah... not quite though, Tsarist Russia was the #1 wheat exporter in the world, but the USSR was a net wheat importer for its entire existence, only with the collapse of communism was Russia (and Ukraine) able to emerge as major wheat exporters again taking advantage of some of the most fertile farmland in the world which the Soviet system could not take proper advantage of.

In terms of industry the Soviet results were better, mostly during the early phase since building few low tech industries with small supply chains (ie. pig iron smelters, electricity, tanks, AKs and so on) is eadier than managing thousands of consumer goods factories with long supply chains.

By the 1970s the innefficiency, corruption and inherent complexity of the economy was too much for the central managers to cope with and the rot of economic stagnation set in. Another problem was the technological gap with the West which was becoming too big, particularly in electronics and computers.

>> No.12797542

>>12797512
I don't think so, because otherwise there would be no need for Gorbachev's Perestroika. In any case, planned economy fails to provide innovation and cannot adapt to immediate changes in demand and supply (like natural disasters). And I'm not even accounting for ethical monstrosities like Gulags or Holomodor.

>> No.12797564

>>12792458
You're confusing the industrial revolution and the scientific method with capitalism.

>> No.12797570

>>12793850
You're a retard. Capital exists in every society and economic system. The state manages the capital in China. Most of Chinas big companies are controlled by the state. Like Huawei. The state just let's someone run it, but the company is actually owned by the state.

>> No.12797577

>>12789755
> Scientifically speaking, how would one approach macroeconomic theory to improve society and better science?
Ban fixed pricings and make everything biddable in Dutch style (meaning the price lowers instead of getting higher)

>> No.12797600

>>12797564
Not really.
The latter is a result of the former.
The enlightenment was a result of the burgeois / liberal revolutions taking power away from the nobility and the Church.

The industrial revolution, aka "Capitalism", led to the scientific method becoming widespread and to the greatest period of technological innovation that the world has ever seen

>> No.12798151

>>12797541
Wheat exports are an arbitrary benchmark. Id like to see wheat production instead.

>> No.12798162

>>12797600
The scientific method comes from Galileo. At the root it is just experimental science, before it was just speculative schizo ramblings

>> No.12798173

We badly need a /hum/ board for humanities. This is just /his/ mixed with /pol/. Where's the science & math?

>> No.12798959
File: 21 KB, 609x621, Paul_Feyerabend_Berkeley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12798959

>>12798151
>Scientific method comes from Galileo
>fails to provide replicability, as he owns the sole telescope in the world
Nothing personal, kid

>> No.12799332

>>12798173
How about 5 more video game boards?

>> No.12799836

>>12798959
based epistemological anarchist