4 ms·

Do you think something like the iPhone could have been produced under a collectivist economic regime?

by panic 11y ago

asgard1024 11y ago
Generally, yes! But it really depends on what you mean by "collectivist". Could iPhone be produced by IBM, a huge corporation with top-down command and control? It's about as likely, I would say. I work at medium American corporation and it's not really that different from what was called "socialist" enterprise here in Czech Republic. It is certainly more efficient, but sometimes pathologically - good ideas get killed all the time. And there is not really that much less stupidity to go around. And socialism here (I take it from your question that's what you imagine as "collectivist") certainly wasn't ideal system for liberal left, who would probably prefer some form of worker cooperatives or something like that. Perhaps I should emphasize what I mean by "collectivist" in my previous comment. I actually refer to empathy (or less selfishness) rather than form of ownership. What I mean is understanding that other side can have a different opinion and willingness to compromise (e.g. your personal freedom) with the needs/feelings of others. It doesn't mean you have to entirely ditch the free market, for instance.
- bobcostas55 11y ago
  I think the parent meant it in a more general sense. Apple doesn't single-handedly produce the iPhone, it takes the coordination of millions of people, most of whom have no contact with Apple whatsoever: those who design oil drilling equipment, those who build it, those who use oil drilling equipment, those who then extract the oil, transport it, refine it, transport it, turn it into plastic bits for the iphone, transport them, put everything together, transport it. And there's a chain like that for every thing in the phone (for some items, such as CPUs the chain is far more complex). There is no top-down command and control, and I doubt it's possible. The only reason coordination on such a massive scale works is because of the price mechanism.
  - nn3 11y ago
    The Soviet Union built some fairly complex machines too, for example buran the Russian space shuttle, nuclear power plants, large airplanes, submarines etc. I don't think these are significantly less complex than an iPhone. Likely more. Now you could argue they did it less frequently or less efficient and not really benefitting the average consumer in many cases. And that would be true. But there is no denying that a top down economy did those things.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      Soviet Union routinely failed to sell its nuclear plants, airliners and less complex stuff. Soviet Union was able to produce something that worked, but it was all below price-quality curve. I.e. you could buy same quality product from Western corporations for less money; or you could buy better quality product for same money. Western corporations also had better selection. So only buyers were in communist bloc, and what USSR end up exporting is oil and gas. And that'll happen nine times out of ten, since socialist economies are not optimal.
      - danharaj 11y ago
        I don't know why we're calling the USSR socialist; is it because they said they were socialist? There are plenty of dictatorial regimes that call themselves democratic republics, too. The USSR was structured like one massive corporation: Everything was owned by the government and the government bureaucracy functioned much like a corporate bureaucracy. Libertarian socialists sometimes call states like the USSR state capitalist, because economic activity is still dictated by a top-down hierarchy allocating capital and exploiting workers. Optimal is not the word you want to use, by the way. Not even free markets are optimal, that's why economists talk about 'market failures'.
        guard-of-terra 11y ago
        The USSR was not structured like one massive corporation. Corporation tends to seek profit; while USSR sought survival. Was bad at it, too: built millions of tanks and other military hardware that rusted without any battle, lost the cold war and tanked.
jameshart 11y ago
My iPhone was made in China. Where was yours made?
- Malician 11y ago
  It was not designed in China, as a unified part. In fact, even the important components were not designed or manufactured in China. Even the CPU was manufactured in Taiwan or Korea depending on the phone version. http://www.smics.com/eng/index.php http://www.smics.com/eng/index.php The state semiconductor corp is still on 40nm, which the Taiwanese TSMC hit seven years ago.

Do you think something like the iPhone could have been produced under a collectivist economic regime?

by panic 11y ago

Do you think something like the iPhone could have been produced under a collectivist economic regime?

Generally, yes! But it really depends on what you mean by "collectivist". Could iPhone be produced by IBM, a huge corporation with top-down command and control? It's about as likely, I would say. I work at medium American corporation and it's not really that different from what was called "socialist" enterprise here in Czech Republic. It is certainly more efficient, but sometimes pathologically - good ideas get killed all the time. And there is not really that much less stupidity to go around. And socialism here (I take it from your question that's what you imagine as "collectivist") certainly wasn't ideal system for liberal left, who would probably prefer some form of worker cooperatives or something like that. Perhaps I should emphasize what I mean by "collectivist" in my previous comment. I actually refer to empathy (or less selfishness) rather than form of ownership. What I mean is understanding that other side can have a different opinion and willingness to compromise (e.g. your personal freedom) with the needs/feelings of others. It doesn't mean you have to entirely ditch the free market, for instance.

bobcostas55 11y ago
I think the parent meant it in a more general sense. Apple doesn't single-handedly produce the iPhone, it takes the coordination of millions of people, most of whom have no contact with Apple whatsoever: those who design oil drilling equipment, those who build it, those who use oil drilling equipment, those who then extract the oil, transport it, refine it, transport it, turn it into plastic bits for the iphone, transport them, put everything together, transport it. And there's a chain like that for every thing in the phone (for some items, such as CPUs the chain is far more complex). There is no top-down command and control, and I doubt it's possible. The only reason coordination on such a massive scale works is because of the price mechanism.
- nn3 11y ago
  The Soviet Union built some fairly complex machines too, for example buran the Russian space shuttle, nuclear power plants, large airplanes, submarines etc. I don't think these are significantly less complex than an iPhone. Likely more. Now you could argue they did it less frequently or less efficient and not really benefitting the average consumer in many cases. And that would be true. But there is no denying that a top down economy did those things.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Soviet Union routinely failed to sell its nuclear plants, airliners and less complex stuff. Soviet Union was able to produce something that worked, but it was all below price-quality curve. I.e. you could buy same quality product from Western corporations for less money; or you could buy better quality product for same money. Western corporations also had better selection. So only buyers were in communist bloc, and what USSR end up exporting is oil and gas. And that'll happen nine times out of ten, since socialist economies are not optimal.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      I don't know why we're calling the USSR socialist; is it because they said they were socialist? There are plenty of dictatorial regimes that call themselves democratic republics, too. The USSR was structured like one massive corporation: Everything was owned by the government and the government bureaucracy functioned much like a corporate bureaucracy. Libertarian socialists sometimes call states like the USSR state capitalist, because economic activity is still dictated by a top-down hierarchy allocating capital and exploiting workers. Optimal is not the word you want to use, by the way. Not even free markets are optimal, that's why economists talk about 'market failures'.
      - guard-of-terra 11y ago
        The USSR was not structured like one massive corporation. Corporation tends to seek profit; while USSR sought survival. Was bad at it, too: built millions of tanks and other military hardware that rusted without any battle, lost the cold war and tanked.

jameshart 11y ago

My iPhone was made in China. Where was yours made?

Malician 11y ago
It was not designed in China, as a unified part. In fact, even the important components were not designed or manufactured in China. Even the CPU was manufactured in Taiwan or Korea depending on the phone version. http://www.smics.com/eng/index.php http://www.smics.com/eng/index.php The state semiconductor corp is still on 40nm, which the Taiwanese TSMC hit seven years ago.