3 ms·

That is precisely the position we communists have today: production for profit mediated by markets is highly irrational and wasteful, even if you were to ignore

by lucian1900 6y ago

That is precisely the position we communists have today: production for profit mediated by markets is highly irrational and wasteful, even if you were to ignore the inevitable exploitation of the workers. Planned economies can instead more efficiently allocate resources, even when done within a capitalist economy and for profit. The book “People’s Republic of Walmart” goes into a lot of detail on this topic. A democratically planned economy with society’s overall welfare as a goal could be even more efficient.

mantas 6y ago
Planned economies are so bad, people living in them couldn't afford anything go to waste. See: USSR.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  And yet the USSR went from a semi-feudal war torn country to industrialised power that first reached space, all within a handful of five year plans. Even capitalist economies have benefited from significant central planning, most notably South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Today we also see it within the likes of Walmart and Amazon, unlike Sears’ internal markets. Even when profit is your motive planning beats markets.
  - mantas 6y ago
    That first reached space, yet citizen quality of life was pretty miserable. It was still semi-feudal warmongering regime that managed to get to space by diverting all resources to military and honor projects. Fun fact. Pretty much every other family in USSR either has community garden or a land lot (if living in countryside). People had to grow their own food because central supply in shops was so bad. Well educated engineers were spending their weekends growing potatoes and pigs to feed their families. Of course they got to space so that was cool :)
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      Quality of life was pretty good throughout Eastern Europe, actually https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223872 https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223...
choeger 6y ago
Except that planned economies invariably fail to deliver the needed goods and services. There is a reason why overproduction is the foundation of capitalism's success. I even recall a paper that demonstrates that the market problem (balancing supply and demand perfectly) is NP-complete.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Balancing supply perfectly is certainly not worth doing, but how can you look at the world and say that at least some level of central planning isn’t demonstrably superior to pure free market? The free market very often fails to deliver goods and services, for example electricity in Texas this winter. The point of central planning is to step in and prevent foreseeable market failures, where rational market participants will optimize the wrong thing (price, in the case of Texas electricity, where they should have optimized availability).
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    how many energy providers does your average texan have to choose from?
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      Is there a number I could throw out that will prevent you from continuing with this predictable "no true Scotsman" argument?
  - choeger 6y ago
    It goes without saying that a pure free market is not something to strive for. But it has been proven time and time again that a free market delivers more supply than any centrally planned economy in existence. In fact, each centrally planned economy had historically suffered from undersupply and consequently open up to free markets at least partially. Just one example is Cuba. A highly educated and stable society failed to provide food (especially meat) and consequently had to open up that sector for entrepreneurs. As I initially said, there are clear downsides with that, especially overproduction, environmental concerns, and worker treatment. But ironically, the same problems appeared in centrally planned economies as well. Consequently, people will always choose free market economies over centrally plan ed ones because of the better supply situation. This then leads to a conflict between democracy and economy (see GDR).

mantas 6y ago

Planned economies are so bad, people living in them couldn't afford anything go to waste. See: USSR.

lucian1900 6y ago
And yet the USSR went from a semi-feudal war torn country to industrialised power that first reached space, all within a handful of five year plans. Even capitalist economies have benefited from significant central planning, most notably South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Today we also see it within the likes of Walmart and Amazon, unlike Sears’ internal markets. Even when profit is your motive planning beats markets.
- mantas 6y ago
  That first reached space, yet citizen quality of life was pretty miserable. It was still semi-feudal warmongering regime that managed to get to space by diverting all resources to military and honor projects. Fun fact. Pretty much every other family in USSR either has community garden or a land lot (if living in countryside). People had to grow their own food because central supply in shops was so bad. Well educated engineers were spending their weekends growing potatoes and pigs to feed their families. Of course they got to space so that was cool :)
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    Quality of life was pretty good throughout Eastern Europe, actually https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223872 https://mobile.twitter.com/isgoodrum/status/1136693839526223...

choeger 6y ago

Except that planned economies invariably fail to deliver the needed goods and services. There is a reason why overproduction is the foundation of capitalism's success. I even recall a paper that demonstrates that the market problem (balancing supply and demand perfectly) is NP-complete.

jeffbee 6y ago
Balancing supply perfectly is certainly not worth doing, but how can you look at the world and say that at least some level of central planning isn’t demonstrably superior to pure free market? The free market very often fails to deliver goods and services, for example electricity in Texas this winter. The point of central planning is to step in and prevent foreseeable market failures, where rational market participants will optimize the wrong thing (price, in the case of Texas electricity, where they should have optimized availability).
- leetcrew 6y ago
  how many energy providers does your average texan have to choose from?
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Is there a number I could throw out that will prevent you from continuing with this predictable "no true Scotsman" argument?
- choeger 6y ago
  It goes without saying that a pure free market is not something to strive for. But it has been proven time and time again that a free market delivers more supply than any centrally planned economy in existence. In fact, each centrally planned economy had historically suffered from undersupply and consequently open up to free markets at least partially. Just one example is Cuba. A highly educated and stable society failed to provide food (especially meat) and consequently had to open up that sector for entrepreneurs. As I initially said, there are clear downsides with that, especially overproduction, environmental concerns, and worker treatment. But ironically, the same problems appeared in centrally planned economies as well. Consequently, people will always choose free market economies over centrally plan ed ones because of the better supply situation. This then leads to a conflict between democracy and economy (see GDR).