Rage against the Machine - Communism Vs. Capitalism (again!)

[Serb]

The agressive imperialistic policy of your country sure making the world a better place for living.

[The Vagabond]

DD's subsequent post confirms what you said, Serb.

DD, if you try and succeed in finding at least something positive in the Soviet Union, this will make you a better person. Guaranteed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Like how do these firms deal with productivity gains. What happens when a firm has to lay people off?

These two don't follow. Firms don't have to lay off people after productivity gains, especially since they are making more money from the increase in productivity.

Imran, do you have any idea about what has been going on in the economy, especially in the last 30 to 40 years? Productivity gains and downsizing go hand in hand.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Odin,
Maybe you could explain the obvious problems with this. Like how do these firms deal with productivity gains. What happens when a firm has to lay people off? What do the unemployed do?

People can take time off to prevent the prices from droping, when a firm has to lay off people they are just laid off and get money from unemployment resorces in the government. they get no profit money, but they are still a voting member of the business unless they find a new job. There are few kinks to get out of it, but I am taking Economics for the next school year, so that should help me iron out the problems. Finnally, only the luxury goods (jewelry, PC games, sports equiptment, DVDs, etc.) are owned by co-ops, the nessisary things (food, constuction, healthcare, insurance, higher education, pure research, applied research, utillities, energy, fuel, etc.) are controled by the state. Let luxuries be dictated by the market, but the nesessities are communal.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
DD, if you try and succeed in finding at least something positive in the Soviet Union, this will make you a better person. Guaranteed.

It's not possible. To do this he need to back in time and spend some time in Soviet Union. To see it from inside, and make some decisions about it without misconceptions based on cold war propaganda. Only this could help him to realize what kind of country it was.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is why companies have to be prohibited from collusion and forming cartels and trusts, because working together is more efficient than working seperately or in competition (depending on your goals).

Not true. Working together is better for the 'companies', but not for the industry. It is better because the companies don't HAVE to become more efficient in order to make money! Competition is more efficient for the industry and the companies. Companies will attempt to gain efficiency if they are pushed. If they are not they get complacent and things stagnate. Witness US automakers in the 1970s.

What if efficient production only allows one firm? If you have more than one firm then production will be inefficient.

What about price fluctuations causing profits to change wildly so that an inefficient number of producers enter of leave the market.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
DD, if you try and succeed in finding at least something positive in the Soviet Union, this will make you a better person. Guaranteed.

Let's make this a game and I'll do it. Serb says something bad (or good about the US. I'm not picky.) and I'll say something good.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
People can take time off to prevent the prices from droping, when a firm has to lay off people they are just laid off and get money from unemployment resorces in the government.

Who is going to pay for them to take time off?

And have fun with the economics. You should get a basic knowledge. Unfortunately the only value to it will be as a foundation to learn further. If you need any help we're here

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In the West, #1 isn't a problem. We already have large working classes and enough economic development to provide an excellent standard of living for all.

As production is moved to China, there remains less and less working class in the classical sense, and more and more white-collar workers. The latter can hardly be considered as a revolutionary element.

#2 requires that we revolutionaries educate the hell out of ourselves, and not simply from revolutionary sources.

To properly work, the system needs to be stable enough with respect to possible deviations from ideality. However, what you say implies a high degree of ideality (you can't seriously expect that people will always educate the hell out of themselves), which makes the system unstable and unreliable.

#3 There's no way around this. We're gonna be messed with, if not by our own military, then by everyone else who has an interest in crushing the revolution and/or kicking the US while it's down.

Just because you are going to be messed with, your economy needs to be more competitive. Otherwise you'll lose. But there is no evidence you can have a more competitive (at least in some essential respects) economy.

#4 This is an interesting factor. People have the capacity to change and educate themselves very rapidly. During periods of social upheaval, the demand to understand the world is very strong, and peple readily devour information. Unfortunately, most sources of information in the US are in the hands of people who stand the most to lose by revolution.

During periods of social upheaval, yes. But the system needs to keep functioning properly in more "normal" times, when people largely lose interest in politics.

This is based on a misunderstand both of Marx and of human nature. Human self-interest doesn't necessarily mean selfishness. Altruism can be self-interested. When an entire community gathers to strengthen the dikes around a flooding river, that's both altruism and self-interest.

As they say, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst (or something like that ). Sure, altruism is innate to human behavior, but so is selfishness. You can't entirely rely on the former and be unprepared for the latter.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let's make this a game and I'll do it. Serb says something bad (or good about the US. I'm not picky.) and I'll say something good.

OK. You start, and I am sure Serb will continue in the right spirit.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
OK. You start, and I am sure Serb will continue in the right spirit.

Age before beauty.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What if efficient production only allows one firm? If you have more than one firm then production will be inefficient.

In today's Russia, this is called a "natural monopoly" then.

[Odin]

Kid, the employees would still make the same amout of money as before because they get the same amount of profit with less work, this is a non-monetary way of encouraging new ideas, inventions and business practices.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Age before beauty.

but nevertheless

[Serb]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let's make this a game and I'll do it. Serb says something bad (or good about the US. I'm not picky.) and I'll say something good.

It will be pretty hard for me, because I'm (at least partitialy, because most part of my life I've spend in USSR) a product of absolutely different, opposite and hostile toward USA culture.
But I'll try.
1) Americans build really cool cars.
1) Americans elected a complete moron as their president. That shows them or their election system in pretty bad light.
I think it's enough for the first time. It's your turn.