3 ms·

> the instant defense of something that wasn't even attacked I just said how collective ownership fails and how capitalism is a better solution. Is there somet

> the instant defense of something that wasn't even attacked I just said how collective ownership fails and how capitalism is a better solution. Is there something I said that I shouldn't have? > There's no point in discussing the details with you, because you aren't interested in learning anything. I am. Go critique my points. Maybe show me some empirical examples to rebuke me. Send me research articles. Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed. > When called on your drama, you pretend to be purely rational. What drama? I was just a little bored and decided to poke a low hanging fruit (collective ownership). > If you can't even admit your reaction or look at your own post honestly, why would I ever engage with the details of what you claim your point to be? I'm pretty sure I wasn't angry or anything. Uncharitably, I was thinking "haha, commies are stupid", but I don't think I let that affect my comment. To me, it seems like you're the more angry one. Perhaps it is just an effect of you being text on a screen as opposed to a person I can see and talk to.

wpietri 10y ago
> Maybe show me some empirical examples to rebuke me. Like the three historical examples you ignored in the post you responded to? C'mon. Why would I waste more time? > haha, commies are stupid Yes, this is how you got to the "not even wrong" level of discourse and somehow thought it constituted reasoning. A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for. Communists weren't stupid. Communism didn't work, but people trying it had a reasonable intuition that it would work because they had a lot of experience with communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales. And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Because they also had a lot of experience with unregulated capitalism fucking them over. Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. People here get endlessly mad when it happens to handwave away startups or new tech. But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up. > Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed. It is not my job to force-feed you an education just because you saw fit to make a poorly considered reply to something I wrote. If you want to be taken seriously, it is your job to go get one. This is an entire field of literature.
- witty_username 10y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido : "Ejidatarios do not actually own the land, but are allowed to use their allotted parcels indefinitely as long as they do not fail to use the land for more than two years. They can pass their rights on to their children." Taking land from landlords doesn't work because then no one will buy land in the future out of that risk, unless it is very clearly done as a one-time thing. See: one-time tax. I'm not saying collective ownership does not exist but you haven't shown it works empirically or theoretically. > A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for. What is wrong with pure-theory and Econ-101 points? Mainstream economic theory is a refinement of Econ-101 with more complex modelling (imperfect competition, sticky wages). Econ-101 can be used to rebuke many bad economic policies like what Venezuela is doing (capital control, etc). > And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Do famines and poverty reflect their values? Does food rationing reflect their values? Does only the Politburo having access to the ZIL-111 reflect egalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIL-111 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIL-111)? Does Chaikas only being available for purchase by the Soviet government reflect egalitarianism? > Communists weren't stupid. Most communism (such as LTV) is bad economics (that's why the Marxist school of economics is very much outside the mainstream). Communism forgets the Laffer curve at 100%. Complete equality does not work. > communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales It works at smaller scales of family, neighbors, etc because then the people are roughly homogeneous. Even then it is not optimal. Have you heard of horrible stories involving housing societies? > Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. It's not a knee-jerk defense because I gave some thinking. > But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up. I have been downvoted at times for my "fundamentalist capitalist" views. The earliest post in this thread that I wrote is at 0 points (maybe you downvoted it).

wpietri 10y ago

> Maybe show me some empirical examples to rebuke me. Like the three historical examples you ignored in the post you responded to? C'mon. Why would I waste more time? > haha, commies are stupid Yes, this is how you got to the "not even wrong" level of discourse and somehow thought it constituted reasoning. A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for. Communists weren't stupid. Communism didn't work, but people trying it had a reasonable intuition that it would work because they had a lot of experience with communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales. And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Because they also had a lot of experience with unregulated capitalism fucking them over. Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. People here get endlessly mad when it happens to handwave away startups or new tech. But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up. > Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed. It is not my job to force-feed you an education just because you saw fit to make a poorly considered reply to something I wrote. If you want to be taken seriously, it is your job to go get one. This is an entire field of literature.

witty_username 10y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido : "Ejidatarios do not actually own the land, but are allowed to use their allotted parcels indefinitely as long as they do not fail to use the land for more than two years. They can pass their rights on to their children." Taking land from landlords doesn't work because then no one will buy land in the future out of that risk, unless it is very clearly done as a one-time thing. See: one-time tax. I'm not saying collective ownership does not exist but you haven't shown it works empirically or theoretically. > A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for. What is wrong with pure-theory and Econ-101 points? Mainstream economic theory is a refinement of Econ-101 with more complex modelling (imperfect competition, sticky wages). Econ-101 can be used to rebuke many bad economic policies like what Venezuela is doing (capital control, etc). > And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Do famines and poverty reflect their values? Does food rationing reflect their values? Does only the Politburo having access to the ZIL-111 reflect egalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIL-111 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIL-111)? Does Chaikas only being available for purchase by the Soviet government reflect egalitarianism? > Communists weren't stupid. Most communism (such as LTV) is bad economics (that's why the Marxist school of economics is very much outside the mainstream). Communism forgets the Laffer curve at 100%. Complete equality does not work. > communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales It works at smaller scales of family, neighbors, etc because then the people are roughly homogeneous. Even then it is not optimal. Have you heard of horrible stories involving housing societies? > Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. It's not a knee-jerk defense because I gave some thinking. > But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up. I have been downvoted at times for my "fundamentalist capitalist" views. The earliest post in this thread that I wrote is at 0 points (maybe you downvoted it).