Communist Education?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No I speak clearly to the heart of the matter. You choose to make decisions that are in the 'best' interest of the individual whether the individual wants them or not. Same old failings.

[Agathon]

And another thing. This isn't solely a leftist issue. I have heard more than one Libertarian economist complain about the effect that subsidizing suburbs and roads has had on the efficiency of the economy and on pollution.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

So now your in favor of no government wrt roads and road networks. What kind of commie are you?

I suppose you'ld prefer those privatized ehhh?
Worked so well with the railroads afterall.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No I speak clearly to the heart of the matter. You choose to make decisions that are in the 'best' interest of the individual whether the individual wants them or not. Same old failings.

Just because the individual is able to make decisions for himself does not mean that he recieves the maximum benefit from those decisions. You ignore the benefits of living in a society. Individuals must make decisions as a society to recieve maximum benefit.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Complete bull.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Complete bull.

Oh, you need another lesson. I can't be arsed into giving you one though.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So now your in favor of no government wrt roads and road networks. What kind of commie are you?

I suppose you'ld prefer those privatized ehhh?
Worked so well with the railroads afterall.

The point isn't about this particular case, over which there is venomous dispute on both sides, but on the economic and environmental impact of the automobile and the role of special interests in its rise to dominance.

Suburbs are expensive and historically subsidized. I have no problem with subsidies if they promote efficiency (which is supposed to be their point), but this sort of thing smacks of pork barrel politics.

I don't drive a car. I don't need to, since I live downtown near public transportation - I would pay less for a whole year's subway passes than I would for just the insurance on a car. The subway pollutes a whole lot less than cars too.

Cars should be the sort of thing you hire only when you need them or buy when you live in the country. There's no place for them in cities. And suburbs are an inefficient way of living. After all people complain about cigarette smoke, but auto pollution is pretty bad too.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh, you need another lesson. I can't be arsed into giving you one though.

Funny arse was the exact word that sprang to my mind as well.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Just because the individual is able to make decisions for himself does not mean that he recieves the maximum benefit from those decisions. You ignore the benefits of living in a society. Individuals must make decisions as a society to recieve maximum benefit.

Kid is right Ogie. All respectable economists agree on this. It's a fact that people acting in their own self interest can in many circumstances make everyone worse off. Look up "collective action problems" and "perverse outcomes".

[Agathon]

e.g

http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/phil102/hdcap.htm

http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/logic_of_action.htm

You'll see that this explains a lot of what goes wrong in society.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The collective opinions of individuals is the proper course.

We're not talking a singular individual. We're talking the composite of an entire market. Kinna like Democracy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I'll not argue there are always better things to produce. The choice of production tho' IMHO belongs to the masses in the form of voting with money than in the hands of a much smaller committe.

Why? The "masses" do not have any intelligence as one- now, lets talk about the individual human being:
which label is most important? Citizen, or Consumer? Isit more important that each Consumer have the coice of whatever little object the porducers produce, or is it more important for all citizens to, for example, have access to services that we are rich enough to provide universally and that can make a far greater difference in ones lives than the porducts they might consume otherwise?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The collective opinions of individuals is the proper course.

We're not talking a singular individual. We're talking the composite of an entire market. Kinna like Democracy.

The "market" is, as was stated, simple a process to decide how resources should be allocated given a certain set of priorities. It is not magical, it has no morality. It is not like dmeocracy, which is a structure of governance built upon its own set oif assumptions.

The question is, what are the priorities. The market, to work "wisely", if that is possible, the people choosing must be well informed. badly informed consumers will make bad choices- they could do no better, their informartion is bad. That is the point of advertising, to infrom the consumer, and why the state must stop false advertising, becuase it warps the market. But false advertisement, or better yet, lack of information about what is actually best for people is a key problem of the market today: in many ways, people don't have a way to know how a choice will really affect them or anyone else.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The collective opinions of individuals is the proper course.

We're not talking a singular individual. We're talking the composite of an entire market. Kinna like Democracy.

You don't understand. The very same logic that makes self interest provide socially beneficial outcomes in market competition also prevents other socially beneficial outcomes from coming to pass.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And so you presuppose an threshold of intelligence to determine production.

The logical conclusion is an intellectual elitist class.