3 ms·

That's an interesting take. I personally think that where the 'classic' examples of Socialism or Communism failed is with regards to markets. Starting with the

by esarbe 5y ago

That's an interesting take. I personally think that where the 'classic' examples of Socialism or Communism failed is with regards to markets. Starting with the Soviet Union, most of these countries tried to do away with markets. At best they were able to integrate it somewhat haphazardly into official policies (North Korea with their food markets), at worst they drove them underground. Markets are not perfect, but they are - if controlled, constrained and guided - a pretty efficient tool for resource allocation. Trying to micro-manage the need for and production of every consumer good from toothbrushes to toilet paper is ridiculously inefficient; markets are better for that. Such a shame that only a few countries got to learn that. That, and democracy. There needs to be some form of democracy to keep the ruling elite in check.

yetihehe 5y ago
Yeah, markets are good for resource allocation, but how do you allocate resources properly without money or how do you allocate that money? Typically more money is allocated to those who are more productive (contribute more back to markets), so you have inequalities now. Those who own their means of production are typically more productive (when people don't own your means of production or don't partake in results according to their work quality, they are too wasteful and don't really care, I've seen it too many times myself). Capitalism (owning means of production) seems like the best idea, the problem is that currently we have too few capitalists (the one-precenters) and too many serfs (almost all workers). I think it's just because people are not good at organizing themselves. Those who can organize other people can amass more productivity and therefore have more money. How to combat this simple formula which leads to increasing inequalities - probably some regulations, but currently regulators are part of the problem.
- esarbe 5y ago
  Any system with a market needs some kind of exchange token. The fiat paper money we are using is nothing more than that and having a universally accepted token is a desirable thing. I would argue that some inequality is not only necessary but maybe even desirable since it provides incentives to interact with the market. Since we want our - tamed - market to be efficient in resource distribution, we need to maximize its reach. > Those who own their means of production are typically more productive [..] I think you are on to something here. Ownership - especially close ownership - fosters a certain interest that the thing owned is put to good use. That can in many ways lead to increased productivity. I don't think that a state-enforced market would be a good thing, but a tamed market with players like the Mandragora Corporation - which is successful in the current "capitalistic"[0] market and refrains from corporate management excesses - I consider a viable alternative. (Not that I see how such a transformation could be pushed.) > Those who can organize other people can amass more productivity and therefore have more money. Or it is the people that have money have access to the means of organizing other people and the necessary liquidity to setup and maintain an initial structure to profit from other peoples productivity. (Another factor is the tight social circles that these moneyed groups form; elite universities are not as much elite because of the quality of their education but because of the familiarity it breeds between the scions of wealth.) Humans are - in general - thrifty and entrepreneurial and creative; given that they don't have to put their and their families' livelihoods at risk. That risk-taking ability seems to me to be one of the deciding factors why wealthy people get wealthier: Even the most ingenious business idea might fail. For a rich family at worst a good business lesson. For a poor family at worst a catastrophe. [0] Quotes because our current crony-capitalism looks more like neo-feudalism than anything else.
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    > Humans are - in general - thrifty and entrepreneurial and creative; given that they don't have to put their and their families' livelihoods at risk. That risk-taking ability seems to me to be one of the deciding factors why wealthy people get wealthier: Even the most ingenious business idea might fail. For a rich family at worst a good business lesson. For a poor family at worst a catastrophe. Well said. That's why UBI looks like a promising idea. Everyone has their basic needs taken care of, but if they want something more, they have to show at least minimum of care. Maybe there would be too many people at start who would sit all day and do nothing, but from what I've seen in many social circles, it's just that what they would like to do/create is not valued enough to make a living and/or has too much barrier to start. I would be perfectly happy to be one of those pulling humanity forward when many sit around just consuming if my hard work would not just be used by someone else just because he had more money and can dictate the rules. The problem is that in democracy, too many people in such a system will just vote for those who will increase their UBI allocation which will collapse whole system rather fast.

by esarbe 5y ago

yetihehe 5y ago

Yeah, markets are good for resource allocation, but how do you allocate resources properly without money or how do you allocate that money? Typically more money is allocated to those who are more productive (contribute more back to markets), so you have inequalities now. Those who own their means of production are typically more productive (when people don't own your means of production or don't partake in results according to their work quality, they are too wasteful and don't really care, I've seen it too many times myself). Capitalism (owning means of production) seems like the best idea, the problem is that currently we have too few capitalists (the one-precenters) and too many serfs (almost all workers). I think it's just because people are not good at organizing themselves. Those who can organize other people can amass more productivity and therefore have more money. How to combat this simple formula which leads to increasing inequalities - probably some regulations, but currently regulators are part of the problem.

esarbe 5y ago
Any system with a market needs some kind of exchange token. The fiat paper money we are using is nothing more than that and having a universally accepted token is a desirable thing. I would argue that some inequality is not only necessary but maybe even desirable since it provides incentives to interact with the market. Since we want our - tamed - market to be efficient in resource distribution, we need to maximize its reach. > Those who own their means of production are typically more productive [..] I think you are on to something here. Ownership - especially close ownership - fosters a certain interest that the thing owned is put to good use. That can in many ways lead to increased productivity. I don't think that a state-enforced market would be a good thing, but a tamed market with players like the Mandragora Corporation - which is successful in the current "capitalistic"[0] market and refrains from corporate management excesses - I consider a viable alternative. (Not that I see how such a transformation could be pushed.) > Those who can organize other people can amass more productivity and therefore have more money. Or it is the people that have money have access to the means of organizing other people and the necessary liquidity to setup and maintain an initial structure to profit from other peoples productivity. (Another factor is the tight social circles that these moneyed groups form; elite universities are not as much elite because of the quality of their education but because of the familiarity it breeds between the scions of wealth.) Humans are - in general - thrifty and entrepreneurial and creative; given that they don't have to put their and their families' livelihoods at risk. That risk-taking ability seems to me to be one of the deciding factors why wealthy people get wealthier: Even the most ingenious business idea might fail. For a rich family at worst a good business lesson. For a poor family at worst a catastrophe. [0] Quotes because our current crony-capitalism looks more like neo-feudalism than anything else.
- yetihehe 5y ago
  > Humans are - in general - thrifty and entrepreneurial and creative; given that they don't have to put their and their families' livelihoods at risk. That risk-taking ability seems to me to be one of the deciding factors why wealthy people get wealthier: Even the most ingenious business idea might fail. For a rich family at worst a good business lesson. For a poor family at worst a catastrophe. Well said. That's why UBI looks like a promising idea. Everyone has their basic needs taken care of, but if they want something more, they have to show at least minimum of care. Maybe there would be too many people at start who would sit all day and do nothing, but from what I've seen in many social circles, it's just that what they would like to do/create is not valued enough to make a living and/or has too much barrier to start. I would be perfectly happy to be one of those pulling humanity forward when many sit around just consuming if my hard work would not just be used by someone else just because he had more money and can dictate the rules. The problem is that in democracy, too many people in such a system will just vote for those who will increase their UBI allocation which will collapse whole system rather fast.