Adam Smith vs. Carl Marx

[johncmcleod]

Pick 'em.

I'd have to say Smith. Communism is great if you're in a war and the public is convinced the other side is evil. They'll work their brains out, for every weapon they make helps in the fight against the evil opponent, and still get paid the same. Also, people in a communism feel better about working because it feels like they're work means something, whereas in capitalism it's just for some boss. But if you're in a normal situation with no enemy, the people will only do the least they can where they still have job security. In capitalism, they people will a lot of the time be striving and working hard to try to get to the higher position with more money. It's one big competition, and in the end in leads to more production.

That's my .02 cents.

[David Floyd]

Well, considering the fact that the US, a fairly capitalist society, had FAR FAR FAR higher production in WW2 than did the Soviet Union (both absolute and per capita), I don't quite see why you claim that in a war, communism is better.

[Velociryx]

Capitalism, every time, all the time.

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

Smith. Easily.

And I thought it was "Karl", though that might be a US thing...

[johncmcleod]

In this situation, I'd count the Cold War as a war too. The people of the USSR were convinced that the US would take them over and they worked very hard to produce more for the nation.

[Urban Ranger]

Who would win if you lock them up in a cage? I'd say Marx, he probably fights dirty.

[David Floyd]

The people of the USSR were convinced that the US would take them over and they worked very hard to produce more for the nation.

That doesn't work either. In the Cold War, the US had a much greater world share of industrial output, both absolute and per capita, than did the Soviet Union.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That doesn't work either. In the Cold War, the US had a much greater world share of industrial output, both absolute and per capita, than did the Soviet Union.

You realise that's an unfair comparison, right?

Nevermind that, though.

[David Floyd]

He's the one who said that communism was better in wartime, I was simply refuting him.

But I'll humor you. Why is it unfair? Is it because the greedy capitalists were out to get the poor, innocent, Soviet Union?

[DuncanK]

You guys who voted for Adam Smith have no idea how a war time economy works. That's because Adam Smith had no idea how a modern economy should organize itself in war time. If you want a good fight at least pit Marx against Keynes.

Marx hands down.

With Smith you must keep a ballanced budget, and you can't even use price contols. Hell, you can't even use monetary policy.

[JohnT]

"Also, people in a communism feel better about working because it feels like they're work means something, whereas in capitalism it's just for some boss."



There are two types of positions in any economy, regardless how structured:

1. Careers. People have "careers" when they discover a field or activity they like, are currently engaged in the pursuit of that activity for profit/wages, and is actively seeking a greater role in the decision making authority in the development of that field/activity.

2. Jobs. People have "jobs" when they are prevented, or are preventing themselves, from focusing on a career. For example, most people in school have "jobs" because the schooling is the actual career - why complicate your lives by juggling two acts at the age of 18? Jobs are largely aimless, not fitting in with the individuals career path, and therefore tend to cause much greater levels of dissatisfaction than careers.

People who have careers feel like their work means something. They have purposely devoted a portion of their lives (in many cases the largest portion) to building a better car, being a better actress, or running their restaraunts more efficiently and I seriously doubt they would appreciate you saying their efforts don't mean anything just because they have a "boss".

[David Floyd]

With Smith you must keep a ballanced budget, and you can't even use price contols. Hell, you can't even use monetary policy.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DuncanK
With Smith you must keep a ballanced budget, and you can't even use price contols. Hell, you can't even use monetary policy.

Did Smith ever write anything about price controls and balanced budgets?

[DuncanK]

I think he mentioned price controls. He was against them, but never mentioned anything about wartime. He was very specific about governmnet involvement in the economy, and he did not mention budget deficits.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But I'll humor you. Why is it unfair? Is it because the greedy capitalists were out to get the poor, innocent, Soviet Union?

We have been through the same thing zillions of times. I am sure you know why it is unfair. But, just in case you don't, here is the reason: too many variables and too much noise.

If you want to compare two factors, you have to make sure that every other factor are the same, otherwise you will not be able to attribute the effects you are observing to the factors you want to observe.

That should be elementary.