WHY DON'T YOU LOVE ME PGwhy do you just love Sarah
P.S. Canada sucks, just come to Bozeman. If you can prove you're broke you can get healthcare for $5 and the wait is like one day
WHY DON'T YOU LOVE ME PG
P.S. Canada sucks, just come to Bozeman. If you can prove you're broke you can get healthcare for $5 and the wait is like one day
tl;dr like most peegee thrads but
>implying decentralised libertarian socialism doesn't have economic calculation built into it
ACTUALLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SUGGESTING AARONOriginally Posted by The Man
If we're going to continue the semi-serious portion of PG's quarterly 'troll' thread, perhaps you can enlighten me. Because I'm not convinced.
I'll even help you out:
#1 calculation-in-kind:
an apple tree costs more in water and takes up more space but
an orange tree costs more in fertilizer and man hours to harvest
which costs less?
#2 do everything the same every day:
Are you serious?
#3 when do we upgrade?
solar power is renewable energy but the cost of production is unknown
should we switch from coal and oil power or nuclear power? why or why not
--
etc.
Without free market price mechanisms you don't have a unit of measurement to discern / approximate profits and losses. Take weight loss: how do you figure out how to gain weight or lose weight? do you just eat more food? and then just determine from experience what a unit of food does to you? You know eating less food usually / might help lose weight but just ask anybody who knows about this (Julian, Jojo, Vivi) and they will tell you the body adapts. now what? just eat even less food??
You need calories to figure this out. You need to know your BMI as a heuristic.
MONEY IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
But libertarian socialism doesn't necessarily imply getting rid of money or price mechanisms or even necessarily restructuring society all that heavily? The main thing that would be required to change is that corporations would be handed over to their workers - and really, they would probably run themselves in a pretty similar fashion, except not as centred on short-term profits, because what's good for a firm of workers collectively over the long term is naturally, on the whole, good for its workers individually over the long term as well. There's no reason workers couldn't run their own businesses with an eye to what's needed in the market, apart from not being educated in business, and really, that's something that can be overcome by just educating them.
>Peegee vs. The Man vs. MILF
What perplexes me is your continual insistence that we have enough resources/money - a position I broadly agree with - but that your solution to the massively unequal distribution of it is to continue and even enhance the very systems which brought about the inequalities in the first place.
No that's not my position at all. If it were affordable I wouldn't post except to say if it weren't it can't be done.
If Aaron thinks the solution is anarcho syndicalism then he wouldn't be using the word socialism nor concerned it is impossible. I don't get it.
Syndicalism can be profitable.
Syndicalism is a form of socialism, as are participatory economics, mutualism, etc. (although mutualism is sort of what you get when you mix socialism with capitalism). I'm not actually particularly picky about which of these gets implemented as long as it's one of them, because any of them would be an improvement on the current system
Well if we don't have enough resources then shouldn't we institute a rigorous development plan which has the authority and means to collect everyone necessary to develop technologies and industries until we do, and carefully and fairly ration our limited resources until they succeed?
You mean capitalism?
Our current system of crony corporatism is just a big subsidy for malinvestment.
Top down central planned distribution of scarce resource is just another variation of corporatism. The removal of bailouts and other moral hazards should pave out the bad investments and free up scarce resources toward your end.
Or we can continue to waste resources.
As an aside I think anarcho capitalists are religious fanatics. Philosophical quietism is the only sane perspective of economics.
Last edited by Peegee; 02-02-2013 at 08:57 PM.
By the way this thread was accidentally titled like a Harry Potter book. I wish we had magic. It would solve all scarcity problems except space and death and the societal consequences of a post scarcity world that forgot to deal with space issues.
Curse you scarcity!
But RON PAUL
I love this thread, keep going.
The economics of EoFF, by PG, the musical. Starring PG, MILF. Produced by Pike. With commentary by The Man and Raistlin.
YAAAAAY. PGies is back. <3
No sarcasm.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
