Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by GePap


Do you have some sort of crystal ball to back this assertion of yours? or maybe a mind reader? Or maybe you see alternate universes now?

We have the Soviet Union and China to base this on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you have some sort of crystal ball to back this assertion of yours? or maybe a mind reader? Or maybe you see alternate universes now?

Common sense and obviousness. After all even with the great successes of the USSR, how many consumer goods did they focus on and invent? Not many, if any, at all.

While you may complain it isn't real communism, well neither is the US real capitalism, though that stops no one. And besides, communism, which focuses on society rather than the individual, would not focus on little consumer good inventions, and if they did create them, they'd stop there. What need is there to improve them, when there are other things to fix in society? After all, some of our best inventions are improvements on other inventions.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
How can waiters and lawers jobs be automated??

Not every job needs to be automated for automation to have a profound effect on consumer purchasing power. Lawyers are using new technology to become more productive. Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity. As far as waiters go, I wouldn't be suprized to see greater productivity gains in fast food due to automation, but there will still be waiters. However, there will be less jobs there too and we can't all be waiters.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity.

The productivity increases will actually lead to more jobs, because while you are paying your staff the same amount of money, they are getting more done, therefore making more money for you. With that extra cash, maybe you could hire someone else, who'll make you more money that a hiree ten years would have made you. Or instead of hiring someone else give the people who are already working for you some raises.

Few businessness are going to fire people for being more productive.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Not every job needs to be automated for automation to have a profound effect on consumer purchasing power. Lawyers are using new technology to become more productive. Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity. As far as waiters go, I wouldn't be suprized to see greater productivity gains in fast food due to automation, but there will still be waiters. However, there will be less jobs there too and we can't all be waiters.

If people are using computers, there has to be people to repair the computers, make the computers, program the computers, and tech support for the computers. That is why IT and other computer fields have grown over the years. Automation does not equall job loss.
Also how does this have anything to do with communism?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Productivity works against the standard of living by supressing wages.

Because the more productive countries have lower wages than the less productive countries... and as countries have gotten more productive, the SoL has fallen?!

Higher wages stimulate productivity improvements. You remember that from college don't you?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Common sense and obviousness. After all even with the great successes of the USSR, how many consumer goods did they focus on and invent? Not many, if any, at all.

ou miss the point Imran. My point of innovation is that it is inherently human, and not tied directly to any srt of economic system. You countered by giving the example of edison, who stated the only reason he did anything was to make money. My pointwas that had edison not done it, given the nature of the "breakthroughs" he porduces, not long after some other individua, perhaps doing it for no greater reason than most inventors, which is to invent and make somehting new they can call their own, would have created machines that did similar things, and then started the whole porcess. So my crystal ball comment addresses this. Are you telling me that in the US in 1894 (hardly the capitalist model you or anyone lese here is pushing) had there been to Thomas Alva Edison no other human ebing would have thought up of a new moving picture machine? or sound recording machine?

JohnT: I meant the rest of the comment, as in the sentence right after the one you quoted, which explans the first.

And If you can point to me where in the Communist manifesto Marx says anything about a single party controlling politics after the proleteriat revolution, you get a cookie.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity.

The productivity increases will actually lead to more jobs, because while you are paying your staff the same amount of money, they are getting more done, therefore making more money for you. With that extra cash, maybe you could hire someone else, who'll make you more money that a hiree ten years would have made you. Or instead of hiring someone else give the people who are already working for you some raises.

Few businessness are going to fire people for being more productive.

I want you to look up the Law of Diminishing Returns and write it down on a post it. Then post it on your monitor. Joking

[JohnT]

Oh, OK. The second half of what you typed that is not the second half.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
If people are using computers, there has to be people to repair the computers, make the computers, program the computers, and tech support for the computers. That is why IT and other computer fields have grown over the years. Automation does not equall job loss.
Also how does this have anything to do with communism?

The repair costs of the equipment is going down too. They are building things so that they don't break as much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So my crystal ball comment addresses this. Are you telling me that in the US in 1894 (hardly the capitalist model you or anyone lese here is pushing) had there been to Thomas Alva Edison no other human ebing would have thought up of a new moving picture machine? or sound recording machine?

Ah, I thought the 'crystal ball' comment refered to the second part...

As for the question, I think it might have been a while for someone to invent the moving picture or sound recording machine if the incentive of gobs of money was not there. And even then... after all they were pretty big leaps in invention.

The incentive for the money is required for the constant leaps in technology. You merely have to look at technological progress throughout history and see how it has grown exponentially in the capitalist world. Technology and capitalism drive each other.

Higher wages stimulate productivity improvements.

Not necessarily. Higher wages come from productivity improvments. I don't think that giving someone a higher wage is magically going to make them more productive, but more capital investments might. Productivity improvements also increase profit and revenue.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not necessarily. Higher wages come from productivity improvments. I don't think that giving someone a higher wage is magically going to make them more productive, but more capital investments might. Productivity improvements also increase profit and revenue.

Ayayay! Higher wages encourage firms to increase expenditures on machines to lower overall costs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Higher wages encourage firms to increase expenditures on machines to lower overall costs.

Because they wouldn't do this even with lower wages?

[Velociryx]

GePap: You are absolutely correct. It makes no sense to discuss communism WITHOUT also discussing the centralized, authoritarian government that comes with it for a couple of reasons:

1) EVERY SINGLE TIME that "communism" (put in quotes to soothe your soul) has been implemented, what came with that was????? Anyone? If you said: "Centralized, Authoritarian Government," YOU get a cookie!

Why?

2) The principle tenent of communism is centralized planning of the economy to ensure that everybody gets their "fair share."

And guess who is best positioned to handle that centralized economy?

Again, if you said "A centralized, authoritarian government" you get a second cookie! (but no more than that, cos after all, if you have a surpluss of cookies, you might start thinking boorish capitalist thoughts and try to exploit the rest of us poor schmucks!

Innovation:
Driven by three things, chiefly:
1) Man's inherent curiosity (communism doesn't like that, cos a curious mind, while it may invent something cool and useful for "the whole group" might also start thinking subversive thoughts, and that's a no-no.

2) The desire for profits: Make something groovy and sell it to other people who think it's groovy (communism doesn't like that either, cos it's capitalism....rather than profit from your somethinggroovy, you should give it to society like a good little lamb)

3) Proper environment: if an environment discourages curiosity and free thinking, the predictable result will be less overall innovation. If it's a crime to think freely, not many will take the chance (why risk your neck to make a "somethinggroovy" if the only reward you can expect is to have your invention coopted by the state, and possibly be made to disappear for inventing it in the first place.

Thus, is it no surprise that the greater bulk of innovation has occured in places that fostered such innovation?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

A correction to the above before you get nit-picky:

The central tenent to communism AS IT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY IMPLEMENTED (which, here in the real world is what matters) has been centralized planning of the economy (by a centralized, authoritarian government).

The theory doesn't matter, any more than it matters for capitalism.

What counts are the results in the real world where we have to live day to day, and IN that world....in THIS world, communism has always come with centralized, authoritarian governments (to administer their planned economy).

Why is that important to the debate? Because arguing from the POV of "pure communism" (since nobody can point to an example of it) is immaterial to the world that we live in (just as if we on the other side, were arguing from a "purely capitalist" POV).

Historical prescedent is of vital importance, since there are no purestrains of either system in existence. So the question becomes "how have they been implemented in the past" and "which has worked better for the largest number of people"

The folks here currently aruging the communist position would have us believe that they have learned from the past and now know a "kinder, gentler" way of implementing their social agenda on us.

When asked about specifics (how will they handle dissent, how they will prevent the formation of an authoritarian government)....well, that's when we just have to trust them and the benelovent state they will form to look out for us. Obviously the state knows what we need better than we do (individually...and there's that word again), so when the revolution comes, we should just trust big brother to do right by us and it'll all be okay.

No thanks.

-=Vel=-

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Not every job needs to be automated for automation to have a profound effect on consumer purchasing power. Lawyers are using new technology to become more productive. Will computers one day replace lawyers? No, but there will be less jobs available in the field due to increases in productivity. As far as waiters go, I wouldn't be suprized to see greater productivity gains in fast food due to automation, but there will still be waiters. However, there will be less jobs there too and we can't all be waiters.

what is your retort to consumerism? why are productivity gains in a service industry not replaced by a higher consumer demand for more stuff? if a computer becomes 50$ do I then th row away the other 550$ that I would have used on it 6 years ago? or do I go out and use someone else's service to simply get more crap.

consumerism.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by yavoon


what is your retort to consumerism? why are productivity gains in a service industry not replaced by a higher consumer demand for more stuff? if a computer becomes 50$ do I then th row away the other 550$ that I would have used on it 6 years ago? or do I go out and use someone else's service to simply get more crap.

consumerism.

Whether or not you have that $600 depends on whether you were the one who lost their job or not. People who lose their jobs obviously don't have income anymore, at least from employment. If you do benefit from the productivity gains you will probably spend some of your surplus on other products and you will probably save some. The savings to consumers has to be a greater benefit to the economy than the cost of the lost jobs for the economy to improve. Historically there have always been other factors that have created jobs to keep the economy on track. For example, in the 80s there was a big boost in military build up. In the 90s consumer debt increased substantially and firms spent an unusually high amount on business equipment.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Higher wages encourage firms to increase expenditures on machines to lower overall costs.

Because they wouldn't do this even with lower wages?

Capital expenditure is much higher in countries with higher wages.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
A correction to the above before you get nit-picky:

The central tenent to communism AS IT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY IMPLEMENTED (which, here in the real world is what matters) has been centralized planning of the economy (by a centralized, authoritarian government).

The theory doesn't matter, any more than it matters for capitalism.

I disagree. The theory matters very much. Capitalism was never implemented until the late 17th century. I'm sure a bunch of feudalists and mercantilists said capitalism was a pointless theory.

But fine, we could just call it centrally planned socialism (as opposed to market socialism).

What counts are the results in the real world where we have to live day to day, and IN that world....in THIS world, communism has always come with centralized, authoritarian governments (to administer their planned economy).

What counts is tomorrow. We can't alter the past.

Historical prescedent is of vital importance, since there are no purestrains of either system in existence. So the question becomes "how have they been implemented in the past" and "which has worked better for the largest number of people"

But imagine this debate taking place in the 17th century. We would say no economic system other than feudalism and mercatilism has ever existed. Does that mean the 17th Century should never have experimented with capitalism? After all, it did not yet exist.

The folks here currently aruging the communist position would have us believe that they have learned from the past and now know a "kinder, gentler" way of implementing their social agenda on us.

Uh, yeah. We have learned from the past. Just as today's capitalism is a kinder, gentler version from the unregulated variety as seen in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" or any Dickens novel. Are you saying communists are incapable of learning from the past?

I mean, look, I disagree with Newton because history has proved him wrong, but that doesn't mean I disagree with physics. We've just learned more since then.

When asked about specifics (how will they handle dissent, how they will prevent the formation of an authoritarian government)....well, that's when we just have to trust them and the benelovent state they will form to look out for us. Obviously the state knows what we need better than we do (individually...and there's that word again), so when the revolution comes, we should just trust big brother to do right by us and it'll all be okay.

Well, how does capitalism handle dissent against globalism, private property, etc.? In strong rule of law nations like the US and EU states, dissent is handled very well. It exists and is by and large peaceful.

Quit conflating economics and property rules with authoritarianism. The two are separable. Authoritarianism = bad
Engineered Economy = good

I could equally ask why capitalism is so authoritarian in maintaining a private property system even if the majority don't want it? Really, millions of file traders have demonstrated via their behavior that they don't care for many intellectual property rights? Just look at takings law in the US. Why is capitalism so authoritarian in ignoring the popular will? Give me a break.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
This is where Templar's logic breaks down for me:

1) There are no functioning examples of communism out there, innovating rapidly, and improving the lives of the people under their thumb.

2) There are some (a good many, actually) functioning examples of capitalism out there, innovating rapidly and improving the lives of the people living in that system.

Therefore....

Communism MUST be better!



-=Vel=-

You draw your conclusion too quickly. As I have said - capitalism works when you have rule of law. That's what separates the US from say Argentina or the new Russia.

But, this means rule of law is a necessary condition for prosperity. Now if you have rule of law and freedom of expression/thought, what then? I submit that an engineered economy - one lead by experts instead of whim and fortune will provide greater prosperity as long as the above necessary condition is met. This is why the greater degree of socialism in Europe has I think worked so well.

Again, the greatest innovations in science have tended to be government sponsored or done in academia (and academia has only recently gone so corporate). Companies will not outlay the capital unless they are guaranteed a profit. Thus NASA, the internet, the geonome, etc. all started out as public sector projects. But I guess you have ceded this point to me.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Whether or not you have that $600 depends on whether you were the one who lost their job or not. People who lose their jobs obviously don't have income anymore, at least from employment. If you do benefit from the productivity gains you will probably spend some of your surplus on other products and you will probably save some. The savings to consumers has to be a greater benefit to the economy than the cost of the lost jobs for the economy to improve. Historically there have always been other factors that have created jobs to keep the economy on track. For example, in the 80s there was a big boost in military build up. In the 90s consumer debt increased substantially and firms spent an unusually high amount on business equipment.

u missed the point. my point is that w/ consumerism say the doctor is going to spend 600$. if he can buy 1 computer w/ it, he will buy 1 computer. if he could buy 1 computer a golf lesson and a massage he will buy that. if he coudl buy a car 2 computers 3 massages and 18 holes of golf he will buy that. the productivity is irrelevant because no matter what the level of productivity he will expend the money needed to drive the economy and employ the ppl.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by yavoon
u missed the point. my point is that w/ consumerism say the doctor is going to spend 600$. if he can buy 1 computer w/ it, he will buy 1 computer. if he could buy 1 computer a golf lesson and a massage he will buy that. if he coudl buy a car 2 computers 3 massages and 18 holes of golf he will buy that. the productivity is irrelevant because no matter what the level of productivity he will expend the money needed to drive the economy and employ the ppl.

I get your point. First of all some of the money goes to increased profit. Second, A person with an income like a doctor is more likely to save his extra money than spend it. Third, you are neglecting the effect of job losses.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I get your point. First of all some of the money goes to increased profit. Second, A person with an income like a doctor is more likely to save his extra money than spend it. Third, you are neglecting the effect of job losses.

u r trying to attack my analogy and not my concept. there is no job losses. if there is a massive increase in the productivity of say cars. ppl will get hired elsewhere in order to feed the demand of consumerism.

if u want it more clearly imagine any level of productivity you want for a society and you will find that there will be a consumerist drive that will fit that society and allow it to employ its ppl who in turn make products that its own ppl will buy.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by yavoon
if u want it more clearly imagine any level of productivity you want for a society and you will find that there will be a consumerist drive that will fit that society and allow it to employ its ppl who in turn make products that its own ppl will buy.

No. Your not considering the Law of Diminishing Utility, and you're not considering that people save money.

I'm not sure how you want me to attack consumerism. But I'll say that when people are in debt or saving for their retirement consumerism is not a significant factor.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious



No. Your not considering the Law of Diminishing Utility, and you're not considering that people save money.

I'm not sure how you want me to attack consumerism. But I'll say that when people are in debt or saving for their retirement consumerism is not a significant factor.

how would saving money doom everyone to unemployment? saving money is good for the economy in its right proportion. u seem to think I advocate some mass expenditure or that everyone be in large amts of debt. I am simply pointing out that in our consumerist culture that the fact that stuff gets cheaper only means we buy more. and if we keep pumping roughly equivalent levels of money into our demand for product that the mere fact that it changes from 1 shirt to 3 cars becomes irrelevant.

its happened a lot and can even be observed happening RIGHT NOW. like that van halen song.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by yavoon
I am simply pointing out that in our consumerist culture that the fact that stuff gets cheaper only means we buy more.

We will only buy more if the price drops more and more for each additional purchase. That's the Law of Diminishing Utility. We choose to save money at a greater rate as our income increases.

Originally posted by yavoon
its happened a lot and can even be observed happening RIGHT NOW. like that van halen song.

I like that song, but I don't think that's happening right now.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious

We will only buy more if the price drops more and more for each additional purchase. That's the Law of Diminishing Utility. We choose to save money at a greater rate as our income increases.


I like that song, but I don't think that's happening right now.

our income is not increasing, our buying power is. and if our buying power is increasing and the savings banks are bloated what will consumers do? take loans, spend. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by yavoon
our income is not increasing

Your REAL income does increase when the prices of the goods and services you purchase falls.

[yavoon]

but ur ability to save money effectively or takeout loans or buy stocks does not increase w/ this increased buying power or if u wnt "real income." so what u end up w/ a discrepency that didnt exist before. u can buy more stuff. but ur ability to save effectively hasn't changed. so while u might want to save more there is a disinsentive to it.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by yavoon
but ur ability to save money effectively or takeout loans or buy stocks does not increase w/ this increased buying power or if u wnt "real income." so what u end up w/ a discrepency that didnt exist before. u can buy more stuff. but ur ability to save effectively hasn't changed. so while u might want to save more there is a disinsentive to it.

You sure can save money. In fact it's the most natural thing to do. You have to think if you want to spend it. The money is otherwise automatically saved.