4 ms·

Asking what should replace Capitalism is a very reasonable question. The problem is that lots of people don't actually explore this question in a spirit of inte

Asking what should replace Capitalism is a very reasonable question. The problem is that lots of people don't actually explore this question in a spirit of intellectual honesty. >What do the central planners like the author of the book have in mind to "replace" capitalism? Right off the bat, you insist that any alternative to capitalism is necessarily the whim of a "central planner", and go on to suggest that: >Socialism _always_ fails because a central authority cannot, objectively, plan an economy better than the collective decisions by acting men in the free market. But of course, Socialism does not prescribe a central authority (although many theories suggest one), and an exchange market is not the only way to collectively make decisions. If you're interested in alternatives, I'd suggest you read some leftist theory, because this is pretty basic knowledge. >he believes that certain things should be worth more and others should be worth less, and damn the market for telling me why they cost the way they do. The market doesn't tell us why things cost what they do. Proponents of a free market argue that anything the market values is inherently valuable, even if that seems unintuitive. However, I think when many many people are unhappy with the priorities of the market, we should perhaps consider this claim with more scrutiny.

Qasaur 9y ago
>Asking what should replace Capitalism is a very reasonable question. The problem is that lots of people don't actually explore this question in a spirit of intellectual honesty. It is not a reasonable question because inquiries into this matter start from the assumption that capitalism is a conscious creation by man (and thus replaceable) and not something that, through the laws of human action, evolves spontaneously between free individuals. >Right off the bat, you insist that any alternative to capitalism is necessarily the whim of a "central planner", and go on to suggest that: Yes, because an alternative to capitalism (the interactions between free individuals in a market) necessitates the use of coercion to enforce, coercion that will inevitably be directed by someone. >But of course, Socialism does not prescribe a central authority (although many theories suggest one), and an exchange market is not the only way to collectively make decisions. Let us assume that a collective has made a decision to produce pineapples and not bananas, what happens to the guy who likes bananas and funds the production of bananas and refuses to participate in the production of pineapples? >The market doesn't tell us why things cost what they do. Proponents of a free market argue that anything the market values is inherently valuable, even if that seems unintuitive. However, I think when many many people are unhappy with the priorities of the market, we should perhaps consider this claim with more scrutiny. No, and we will never ever know why things cost the way they do, but we can draw some reasonable conclusions based on things like supply and demand. Ultimately however prices are the result of the choices of billions of people in an enormous decentralised system (the market), and it is literally impossible to objectively know the chain of choices that led to one specific good being priced one dollar or ten dollars. Doing so would require knowing every single choice that every man, woman, and child makes every single moment as well as taking into account the choices they didn't choose, the ordinal scale of which is quite literally infinite for every individual. >Proponents of a free market argue that anything the market values is inherently valuable, even if that seems unintuitive. No, the subjective theory of value does not say that, in fact it says the opposite: it is impossible to determine the objective value of goods since they come from the subjective choices of free individuals. Prices come pretty damn close though. Ironically, it is Marx that said that value can be determined objectively through the lens of the labour theory of value where the amount of labor put into a good is what determines its value. That, most certainly, is unintuitive.
- aninhumer 9y ago
  >not something that, through the laws of human action, evolves spontaneously between free individuals. Because it isn't. There is nothing "spontaneous" about private property. There have been a wide variety of conceptions of property throughout history, many involving notions of collective ownership. The system as it currently exists is enforced by state violence and was created historically by privatising collectively owned property. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure >an alternative to capitalism ... necessitates the use of coercion to enforce So does capitalism. The only way you can "own" capital is by using violence to prevent other people trying to use it. >Let us assume that a collective has made a decision to produce pineapples and not bananas, what happens to the guy who likes bananas and funds the production of bananas and refuses to participate in the production of pineapples? There are a lot of assumptions here. Why is this a mutually exclusive choice? Can we not grow both pineapples and bananas? Does the man believe the amount of bananas produced will not be enough to satisfy him? How many bananas does he expect to be able to eat? In any case, the answer depends on the system. In some systems, the guy would be punished (as he would if he were employed by a pineapple farmer under capitalism) in others, the decision of what to grow would be his, and the collective just coordinates to inform him how many bananas are already being grown nearby, so he can make an informed decision about whether bananas are the right thing to grow. >No, the subjective theory of value does not say that, in fact it says the opposite: it is impossible to determine the value of goods since they come from the subjective choices of free individuals. Prices come pretty damn close though. The last part is what I'm criticising. An exchange system weights the demand input to market price determination based on the wealth of the individual. This means the market optimises for the subjective values of the rich over those of the poor. And since the rich already have plenty, what they tend to demand is more capital. This leads to a system which is very effective at creating capital, but very bad at distributing its bounties. This is perhaps good when we have a scarcity of capital, but the argument made by the author here is that we have enough now, so we should redirect the economy to distribute wealth more effectively.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    >An exchange system weights the demand input to market price determination based on the wealth of the individual. What does this mean? Do you mean that rich people can buy more and so have more impact on overall demand? Or that they can afford to pay more and so cost stabilizes at a higher point than it would otherwise?

Qasaur 9y ago

>Asking what should replace Capitalism is a very reasonable question. The problem is that lots of people don't actually explore this question in a spirit of intellectual honesty. It is not a reasonable question because inquiries into this matter start from the assumption that capitalism is a conscious creation by man (and thus replaceable) and not something that, through the laws of human action, evolves spontaneously between free individuals. >Right off the bat, you insist that any alternative to capitalism is necessarily the whim of a "central planner", and go on to suggest that: Yes, because an alternative to capitalism (the interactions between free individuals in a market) necessitates the use of coercion to enforce, coercion that will inevitably be directed by someone. >But of course, Socialism does not prescribe a central authority (although many theories suggest one), and an exchange market is not the only way to collectively make decisions. Let us assume that a collective has made a decision to produce pineapples and not bananas, what happens to the guy who likes bananas and funds the production of bananas and refuses to participate in the production of pineapples? >The market doesn't tell us why things cost what they do. Proponents of a free market argue that anything the market values is inherently valuable, even if that seems unintuitive. However, I think when many many people are unhappy with the priorities of the market, we should perhaps consider this claim with more scrutiny. No, and we will never ever know why things cost the way they do, but we can draw some reasonable conclusions based on things like supply and demand. Ultimately however prices are the result of the choices of billions of people in an enormous decentralised system (the market), and it is literally impossible to objectively know the chain of choices that led to one specific good being priced one dollar or ten dollars. Doing so would require knowing every single choice that every man, woman, and child makes every single moment as well as taking into account the choices they didn't choose, the ordinal scale of which is quite literally infinite for every individual. >Proponents of a free market argue that anything the market values is inherently valuable, even if that seems unintuitive. No, the subjective theory of value does not say that, in fact it says the opposite: it is impossible to determine the objective value of goods since they come from the subjective choices of free individuals. Prices come pretty damn close though. Ironically, it is Marx that said that value can be determined objectively through the lens of the labour theory of value where the amount of labor put into a good is what determines its value. That, most certainly, is unintuitive.

aninhumer 9y ago
>not something that, through the laws of human action, evolves spontaneously between free individuals. Because it isn't. There is nothing "spontaneous" about private property. There have been a wide variety of conceptions of property throughout history, many involving notions of collective ownership. The system as it currently exists is enforced by state violence and was created historically by privatising collectively owned property. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure >an alternative to capitalism ... necessitates the use of coercion to enforce So does capitalism. The only way you can "own" capital is by using violence to prevent other people trying to use it. >Let us assume that a collective has made a decision to produce pineapples and not bananas, what happens to the guy who likes bananas and funds the production of bananas and refuses to participate in the production of pineapples? There are a lot of assumptions here. Why is this a mutually exclusive choice? Can we not grow both pineapples and bananas? Does the man believe the amount of bananas produced will not be enough to satisfy him? How many bananas does he expect to be able to eat? In any case, the answer depends on the system. In some systems, the guy would be punished (as he would if he were employed by a pineapple farmer under capitalism) in others, the decision of what to grow would be his, and the collective just coordinates to inform him how many bananas are already being grown nearby, so he can make an informed decision about whether bananas are the right thing to grow. >No, the subjective theory of value does not say that, in fact it says the opposite: it is impossible to determine the value of goods since they come from the subjective choices of free individuals. Prices come pretty damn close though. The last part is what I'm criticising. An exchange system weights the demand input to market price determination based on the wealth of the individual. This means the market optimises for the subjective values of the rich over those of the poor. And since the rich already have plenty, what they tend to demand is more capital. This leads to a system which is very effective at creating capital, but very bad at distributing its bounties. This is perhaps good when we have a scarcity of capital, but the argument made by the author here is that we have enough now, so we should redirect the economy to distribute wealth more effectively.
- ameister14 9y ago
  >An exchange system weights the demand input to market price determination based on the wealth of the individual. What does this mean? Do you mean that rich people can buy more and so have more impact on overall demand? Or that they can afford to pay more and so cost stabilizes at a higher point than it would otherwise?