Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[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.

[Kidlicious]

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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?

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.

[Kidlicious]

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.

[Kidlicious]

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.

[Kidlicious]

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

[Kidlicious]

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.

[Kidlicious]

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.