Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Japher]

How che? What reward will encourage someone to do something beneficial to society but at the same time not create a social or economic strata?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Maybe you don't know the economic theory behind this. There is a optimal production of the product. That is where the social cost of the polution is equal to the social benefit of the product. Companies don't care about that. They only care about maximising profits. That's why you can't just leave the decision to them.

Actually your theory will fall down a bit here since there is a net continent wide pollution decrease as natural gas is used instead of either oil or coal. Natural gas is "cleaner" by wide wide margins.

So we have the happier situation that the more our company produces and the MORE PROFIT, the less pollution there is on a North American continent. Now each well means my particular company pollutes a little more but I think you would accept that. Also my company is selling its oil projects to focus on natural gas.

After all a communist government would accept 10 units of pollution as an acceptable cost for producing something that can reduce pollution by 2000 units.


So

MORE PROFITS

and LESS POLLUTION

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
How che? What reward will encourage someone to do something beneficial to society but at the same time not create a social or economic strata?

There's social recognition: you could get a medal, have a day named in your honor, a park, a street, you could be bumped on the list for better housing as it becomes available, etc. The praise of your peers is a great motivator. There's also the pride in creating something new, etc. It's not like people never invented anything until there was a monetary benefit, you know. We never would have gotten to capitalism if that were the case. We'd be running around eating anything which didn't get away fast enough, since we'd never have inveted the technique of throwing a rock.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Actually your theory will fall down a bit here since there is a net continent wide pollution decrease as natural gas is used instead of either oil or coal. Natural gas is "cleaner" by wide wide margins.

But you are producing natural gas to maximize your profit, not because it produces less polution. Now you should be able to produce the same amount of polution cost free as a coal burning corporation, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to produce as much as you want.

[Japher]

That's true Flubber, but the idea is to optimize a process to reduce polution and increase output... not replace the process altogether like you did. Though, it is a solution that should not automatically be ruled out.

[Az]

Well, you see, Arrian, that's not really the point. My point is first, and foremost, abolishing of the principle of the supermacy of the free market as an axiom. Thus, IMO, under suitable technological conditions, a fascist ( in the theoretical meaning ) society would outperform economically a free-market society. With this axiom abolished, one can proceed to determine the best way to distribute the wealth created by a system.

What I argue for is a centralized technocratic system that is a democracy. Wages vary, outside controls on government industry by classical government regulations remain, yet, supply and demand is centralized, and value is assigned not by pure wants, but by needs that have the wants calculated into them. So, for example, the demand for a product will not be seen as pure desire of it, but seen as the true need for the product, with the desire of it included in the calculation. (We're, of course, talking about demand that needs to be supplied. ) However, this will not be static, and will be decided democratically. This is possible for many ages, and the only aspect of it that is technology-aided, is the centralization, and the application of it for larger societies.

As time and technology will advance, it will be possible, at some point, to transfer our economy into a pure energy economy.

Generally, a very important thing that I think we're lacking in our society, is a true equality of opportunity, brought on by various conditions during upbringing. This can be only solved by a 100% death tax, and plentiful facilities in education and upbringing.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


But we live in a capitalist society. Of course people are going to act that way when it's advantageous to do so. If we loped off the arm of anyone who invetned something, you'd find inventions drop off pretty quickly. Socialism/communism won't do away with rewarding people for work/innovation/etc. It will just do so in a way that doesn't end up leading to a stratified society.

Thats the rub . . How? Every society I have ever heard tell of has ended up with some people that rule and some that are ruled. Start people out in ANY scenario and someone will end up with wealth or some symbol of status. I'm betting the best warrior/hunter would always end up with a better horse etc. in the amerindian groups.

I've gone round on this with kid and I don't see how you PREVENT wealth accumulation. You can end or limit wage disparities etc but pretty soon you get a guy selling crafts he makes, or shovelling driveways, or lawn services. He uses that to get a better car or a nicer house or get the best tutor for his daughter. Some of the folks in his neighborhood drink and smoke and accumulate next to nothing .

Won't one person get richer? How do you prevent this? Do you even want to prevent this? Can they pass on that wealth to their offspring or would this be something undesirable

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Can they pass on that wealth to their offspring or would this be something undesirable

No, there's be an inheritence tax on capital. Personal items, of course, should be passed on.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I'm betting the best warrior/hunter would always end up with a better horse etc. in the amerindian groups.

I don't want to step on Che, but the best hunter should get the best horse, because that's the most productive way. I don't see how you go from there to justifying that there should be such huge disparities in wealth.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


But you are producing natural gas to maximize your profit, not because it produces less polution. Now you should be able to produce the same amount of polution cost free as a coal burning corporation, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to produce as much as you want.

Again a contradiction since EVERY bit of natural gas produced replaces a dirtier power source, lessening pollution. Limiting natural gas producers to some level of aggregate pollution would be STUPID.

It would be more sensible to look at the net effects and say something like " another million cubic feet of gas has a pollution effect of 10 and will replace coal fired burners, the burning and mining of which has a pollution effect of 200. Therefore we should allow more natural gas"


Also you limit by corporation is silly. Our organization has 140 corporations .

Kid you have no idea about environmental regulation and probably have no idea about the idea of looking at cumulative effects and the net effect of an activity.

On your logic you would deny the bus company a new bus if it was going over some limit, forgetting that now 300 fewer cars need make the commute into downtown

[Az]

I don't want to step on Che, but the best hunter should get the best horse, because that's the most productive way. I don't see how you go from there to justifying that there should be such huge disparities in wealth.

If you're hunting with scoped rifles, it don't matter.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, there's be an inheritence tax on capital. Personal items, of course, should be passed on.

Well since there would be little benefit to HAVING capital since there are no available investments, wuldn't all the wealth be personal items like a nice car, an upgraded house, diamonds, antiques etc etc.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



Again a contradiction since EVERY bit of natural gas produced replaces a dirtier power source, lessening pollution. Limiting natural gas producers to some level of aggregate pollution would be STUPID.

It would be more sensible to look at the net effects and say something like " another million cubic feet of gas has a pollution effect of 10 and will replace coal fired burners, the burning and mining of which has a pollution effect of 200. Therefore we should allow more natural gas"


Also you limit by corporation is silly. Our organization has 140 corporations .

Kid you have no idea about environmental regulation and probably have no idea about the idea of looking at cumulative effects and the net effect of an activity.

On your logic you would deny the bus company a new bus if it was going over some limit, forgetting that now 300 fewer cars need make the commute into downtown

There is no theoretical backing for what you are saying. Charging people for how much polution they create gives a "proper" incentive for companies to produce an effecient amount. Just charging specific companies based on how the produce the polution doesn't make any sense at all. You are the one who is just making this stuff up. You need to learn some of the theories, or you have no justification for what you are claiming.

[Flubber]

So I shouldn't produce a device if producing it creates 1 unit of pollution even if the device prevents 20,000 units?

That silly

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Well since there would be little benefit to HAVING capital since there are no available investments, wuldn't all the wealth be personal items like a nice car, an upgraded house, diamonds, antiques etc etc.

You're asking me to design a society. I've lived for sixteen years now without a car, so I don't see them the same way others do. I look at them as a luxery, not a necessity. I don't see why the house should be inherited by children, but definately be a widow/er, should they want to remain, or the community could make an offer so the house might go to someone who could use it better.

On the other hand, keeping a home in a family helps peole feel like they have a home, roots, place, which is important to most people psychologically. I would say it depends on the needs of the community and how they want to handle the issue, ultimately