Discourse and Discussion - Cap/Com

[Arrian]

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.

So you're proposing that the government (am I correct in assuming a form of representative democracy, or do you also propose direct democracy - and if so, how do you deal with the time issue?) decides what products should be produced by combining pure "want" with other factors designed to indicate the "real" value to society?

I'm not necessarily against that, really.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by 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

I dunno. You'd only be paying for one unit of pollution, rather than 20,000.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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.

I make up nothing and deal in reality. natural gas is immensely cleaner than oil or coal.

To penalize or prevent the natural gas producer makes no sense. If you are talking a tax, I probably wouldn't mind since the purchasers of the natural gas should be willing to pay more to buy something that would lessen the tax they would have to pay burning coal or oil

[Japher]

Flubber: Why is natural gas so darn expensive then? I'm paying through the nose this winter.

[chequita guevara]

Because the producers decided to stop storing it up during non-peak demand months. Gas flows at a particular rate all year long, so they save gas during the summer to sell it in the winter. Well, they decided a few years ago they could massively incresae their profits by artificially reducing supply.

Happy capitalism.

[Az]

So you're proposing that the government (am I correct in assuming a form of representative democracy, or do you also propose direct democracy - and if so, how do you deal with the time issue?) decides what products should be produced by combining pure "want" with other factors designed to indicate the "real" value to society?

I'm not necessarily against that, really.

Pretty much, with the mechanism of assigning value not being purely government held, but can be direct-democratic, to a certain degree ( there are ways of allowing this, from making it a civil duty similar to jury duty, or country/ society/ state-wide polling that would assign general directions to items, with the polling being made at home, in front of your TV, via your 3G cellphone, on your PDA, your laptop, etc.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Cuba is now one of the leading inovators in cancer fighting drugs. And they are providing them to the rest of the world cheap. Unfortunately for us in the U.S., the embargo makes it difficult for us to get them. U.S. companies cannot pay for the drugs, so they have to get permission from the U.S. to ship an amount of goods equal to the monetary worth of the drug.

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64245,00.html

I'm not all that surprised. State sponsored or central research is nomrally efficient at fundamental research. Decentralized or market driven research is more designed for rapid advances to meet market needs. Hence the ratioanel for Arrrians comments about the amount of research capable in the two different societies. Capitalism will likely have more research focussed in a a variety of market areas likely for quick implemnation whilst centralized (communistic style) research will shoot for a noarrower set of advancements in more fundamental solutions.

In reality a hybird solution offers the best of both worlds and hence the reason we have an academia funded in large part by governmental grants.

[Japher]

Well, they decided a few years ago they could massively incresae their profits by artificially reducing supply.

That's messed up.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
That's messed up.

That's capitalism. I still have a $1000 gas bill from my last winter in Chicago. Previously my gas bills were $100 a month in the winter. Winter 2000/2001 was brutal, $250 a month. A lot of people boycotted paying.

[Az]

That's messed up.

For you, not for them. Their profits are up.

[Arrian]

Energy is one of the industries where capitalism doesn't really do that well, IMO. That's because there are local monopolies... it's pretty hard to have the type of competition the free market is supposed to offer in the energy market. Therefore, companies can get away with the sort of bull**** Che mentioned, because a competitor can't come along and beat their prices without massive startup costs.

Or at least it seems that way to me (no expert on that am I).

-Arrian

[Az]

Communist.

[Japher]

Well, they decided a few years ago they could massively incresae their profits by artificially reducing supply.

No shiet, by gouging the consumer.

This has nothing to do with productivity vs. pollution. Arseholes. I oughta invent something to use the gas in the summer but the energy in the winter... Oh wait! There already is something like that!

Morons.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Azazel
Communist.

Ned, is that you?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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

Obviously that's too extreme, but polution isn't the only consideration. You have to consider the price and availability of subsitutes also. Why not just make it illegal to burn coal? Because we wouldn't benefit from it. That's why we should tax them equally for the polution they create. That will discourage some of it's use, but not all.