4 ms·

>Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself...I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has

>Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself...I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints. Ha! I take your point, but I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Even that example assumes that my wife would be deprived of resources. But, to your larger point, I'm not asserting that we can just rip up the current economic system and no one will care. I'm saying that these debates frequently take a form that suggests that there are other factors that prohibit change, beyond the fact that people will care.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Honestly, no. I'm mostly just reacting to the things you're saying under the assumption that you seem to be advocating Maoist principles.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >you seem to be advocating Maoist principles I've actually tried to avoid advocating specific principles (although I'll allow that some may have leaked through). But, FWIW, I don't think the choices are between unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism and full-blown Maoism. IMO that common framing is part of the notion of immutable laws and fixed, mutually exclusive systems, etc. In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist. So we basically believe the same thing, and have just been arguing semantics. Why does this keep happening!? :P I guess what threw me off was the idea of economic systems being arbitrary and unconstrained in terms of allocation. This is basically the foundation of Maoism, and the rest follows pretty easily. (If the current method for distributing wealth is just arbitrary, we should immediately redistribute all wealth in order to maximise the common good).
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >Why does this keep happening!? :P I'm sure it's me. :) >foundation of Maoism I can see how you'd think that's the path I was going down, especially given the topic of the original article. But, that next step to full Maoism is a doozy! My original point was actually more meta: kind of an observation on the way these discussions are approached versus an argument for a specific model. But, yes, I later revealed my belief that there is a degree of inequality that is untenable and actually anti-capitalism. I believe we should address this and that we actually have in the past (e.g. labor unions), while stopping well short of anything resembling communism. So, I think these decisions are much more related to political will, the power of specific interest groups, etc. Hence, they are simply choices. However, instead of addressing them as choices, we are instead rather disingenuously led into these discussions as if we are powerless against the immutable force of nature that is the economy. This approach obviously benefits the status quo. So that's the whole of it in one place. I'm sure it's much clearer now.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Honestly, no. I'm mostly just reacting to the things you're saying under the assumption that you seem to be advocating Maoist principles.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>you seem to be advocating Maoist principles I've actually tried to avoid advocating specific principles (although I'll allow that some may have leaked through). But, FWIW, I don't think the choices are between unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism and full-blown Maoism. IMO that common framing is part of the notion of immutable laws and fixed, mutually exclusive systems, etc. In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist. So we basically believe the same thing, and have just been arguing semantics. Why does this keep happening!? :P I guess what threw me off was the idea of economic systems being arbitrary and unconstrained in terms of allocation. This is basically the foundation of Maoism, and the rest follows pretty easily. (If the current method for distributing wealth is just arbitrary, we should immediately redistribute all wealth in order to maximise the common good).
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >Why does this keep happening!? :P I'm sure it's me. :) >foundation of Maoism I can see how you'd think that's the path I was going down, especially given the topic of the original article. But, that next step to full Maoism is a doozy! My original point was actually more meta: kind of an observation on the way these discussions are approached versus an argument for a specific model. But, yes, I later revealed my belief that there is a degree of inequality that is untenable and actually anti-capitalism. I believe we should address this and that we actually have in the past (e.g. labor unions), while stopping well short of anything resembling communism. So, I think these decisions are much more related to political will, the power of specific interest groups, etc. Hence, they are simply choices. However, instead of addressing them as choices, we are instead rather disingenuously led into these discussions as if we are powerless against the immutable force of nature that is the economy. This approach obviously benefits the status quo. So that's the whole of it in one place. I'm sure it's much clearer now.