Time to overhaul the world order

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, there are three kinds of debts.
1) Debts that one can repay with ease.
2) Debts that one can repay with difficulty.
3) Debts one cannot repay.

The first isn't too bad or enslaving.
The second is kind of enslaving.
The third is self-destructive and enslaving.

I don't see how you've actually refuted the measurement of incomes. The only real refutation is to argue against the assumptions of price stability across groups used, but I would really guess that this is not that favorable given that premium goods are not proportionally better given the cost.


Umm..... the big issue is still "do these alternative proposal work". I tend to be a skeptic.

Even further, if there is no other proposal, then I don't have to say anything. The status quo would tend to win by default. Given historical comparisons though, the status quo is better.


I wasn't addressing sustainability with the argument about better income distribution. I addressed issues of resource use through pointing out intensive growth, and that the real driver of our growth is faster processing, not just mining more out of the ground.(for this I pointed out factories, which were a major driver of growth)

As for my argument. I don't know where I've said that, and if I even came close, I might have simply made an extrapolation, which isn't intellectually dishonest at all. Extrapolations are used all of the time, but the big question is whether they are justified or not, but the presumption isn't against an extrapolation.(as most predictions ARE extrapolations)

That being said, isn't it actually the literal case that your argument is "because something is happening today, it will happen tomorrow too", as where are you drawing your conclusions on global destruction? You certainly can't know the future. You aren't making a substantive argument either. You seem to have made the exact same mistake that you accused me of.


No, it does not argue human beings are rational "profit-maximizers" at all. That's very wrong, and against what economists would say. Economists would say that human beings are rational UTILITY maximizers, in which utility basically means that human beings are good at maximally achieving their objectives. (utility is really a utilitarian term, but the notion that human beings seek happiness isn't a necessary assumption for economics to work.)

I really don't know where to make the distinction between "irrational pack animal" and "rational utility maximizer", as the latter is certainly an idealization, but the former is just nondescript.

I don't really know about how to describe "narrowness" either. Classical economics is dead. There is the Keynesian-Neo-classical synthesis though, and it actually is giving more attention to psychology and economics as a field (and labeling it behavioral economics, and the field does not seem to outright endorse your conclusion, as although errors are found, repeated exposure to issues is also found to reduce cases of seeming irrationality) I dunno, I doubt you know much about the Austrian school either, as you've probably mostly been exposed to radical Rothbardians who strictly insist on Praxeological a priorism, while many Austrian economists are more flexible methodologically. Even further, the big Austrian point is really that economics cannot be practiced in a positivistic manner due to the nature of human society, but rather we have to fill-in a lot of issues with our pre-existing knowledge of human actions, and use those in a positive manner to promote our knowledge. Austrians in economics today actually will do empirical work, even using statistics, they just have a different focus, and a more humanistic attitude on the matter.

Ok? But there are trade-models based upon geographic distance. In fact, a distance based model of trade is actually one of the first things taught in an average undergraduate international trade class. It is an abstraction to be certain, but at the same time, anything taught at the undergraduate level will be something like that. I believe more advanced efforts have been made on that issue. Even further, empirical work is sometimes used, as is theoretical work that is so non-ideal that it is not even applicable to the real world.(there are trade-models of how trade can fail that require assumptions that are very unlikely to ever happen in reality)


Well, no, scarcity is inherent because human desires are potentially limitless. Human desires are potentially limitless, because human beings tend to always have something more that they might want to happen in reality. Even if I had billions of dollars, I still might want more so that way I could do something else with it, even if it was just promoting or creating organizations for favored social causes or something else. (social cause not necessarily meaning "political cause") Profit-maximization isn't even relevant to the argument.

The difference between owning and use isn't that big either. In order to use a car at will, which one can if one owns a car, we would likely need a number of cars equal to the number of persons. The reason being that the degree of planning necessary to do with less cars would likely be rather insane, as a car would have to be in stock at the very location, and moment an individual wants one. I suppose you might also be talking about a major transportation shift as well. Really though, ownership could be described as "right to use an object at will".


There are a lot of mechanisms that you aren't talking about, and if you don't recognize that, then it is hard to have a conversation.

We need to have capital moved around for producers to use. Generally, in capitalism, all money is owned by individuals, so capital has to be gotten from these individuals. A system where the "producer service" decides everything is either going to have to pander to individuals, or it will have to have the right to effectually levy taxes. Either way presents real issues. As for "just order that", we still end up with a lot of different issues of weighting. Are sex toys going to be weighted the same as books on nuclear physics and exercise equipment? Less? Are the resources involved in organizing production and supplies to make sex toys going to be accounted for? How?

Now, I mean, I know capitalism has answers. The issue is how another system will end up doing this without social planning, as there is a lot of social coordination necessary.


Under all societies people have to be socially tuned.

That being said, how are social skills less necessary with the children and elderly? If anything, they are more necessary.

Most resource-based economy ideas seem relatively similar to me. I am not going to review every website.

* As stated, GDP per capita isn't telling much since it is ignoring the inequality of the access of resources in all societies.

* Even if human wants are limitless, the human ability to consume is limited, and the Earth most certainly is limited. Your solution to that problem - which is a non-solution - is to have prices which regulate who is going to get what. That is a highly wasteful and inhumane process, as it denies many people (especially those who need it the most) the access to resources. As earlier stated, under conditions where human beings cannot accumulate, the scarcity-based model will fall to pieces, no matter what wants people might have.

* Alternative proposals need to be experimentally tested out first before implemented on a larger scale.

* Most predictions about resource usage are showing a trend that the current usage is unsustainable. Given that you use the typical economistic glasses evaluating everything, you willfully ignore this ----> http://www.footprintnetwork.org/earthovershootday/ . If these trends are continuing, it stands clear that the ecosystems will collapse before the 22nd century.

Your solution: Rely on the magic of the market (which might or might not solve anything), just so that the current system where the large part of the Earth's resources are concentrated into the hands of a small minority is kept.

You assume that in a resource-based society people would "pay" to have things fixed for them? In a resource-based society, one organisation is managing the resource production (I imagine though that people still could have personal plots to grow and produce things independently of the organisation if they want to).

There should be a total overview of the resources under the management of the system. The system will be divided into production units, which would focus on producing various items.

The people will receive individual consumer capacity accounts (which is the total amount of resources/total amount of people), which they could allocate to the system so it would be possible to understand what they want. The individual units will be destroyed when allocated into the system, since they aren't supposed to work as money. Thus, they cannot be saved, and trade and exchange on a scale larger than barter will be impossible, meaning basically that each individual is owning a part of the productive capacity which he or she could use at her disposal and allocate to have whatever they want produced for themselves.

It is frustrating to debate with you, since you misinterpret 50% of what I am writing and is attacking entirely different things than what I am advocating.

Your tactic could be summed up as:

Ignoring the trends of the current resource usage.

Claim that there is no alternative proposal because I didn't present an alternative proposal in the opening post, something which I openly announced in that post that I wouldn't do.

Ignore to even read the links and just claim that they are all BS.

Saying that, the solution of the economists to any kind of environmental problem (if they aren't ignoring the physical reality altogether, like Marian Radetzki), is to raise eco-taxes and propose price increases and privatisations of the commons, a series of policies which are hurting the weakest in society (those who lack property) while preserving and enstrengthening the corporations, as usual.

As a side-note, the sector in society which will thrive under a post-capitalist system of the variety I am advocating is the social sector, since the care of the children and the elderly is one of the few sectors where human beings are indispensable. The retail sector will be automatised, most sectors will be massively downsized, and several sectors (banking, financial advice, insurance) will be outright abolished.

I don't remember you stating that. Even further, I have mostly invoked the world GDP per capita, and the issue there is that it is dramatically smaller than the incomes of the vast majority of people in first world countries.


You only made an argument for inhuman. Even further, I am taking for granted my cynicism towards a structure that would work better. For the most part, the poorest people in the poorest areas will tend to lack these resources, as control over them is both personally and nationally far away from their hands. Getting it to them isn't likely though, without economic growth.

As for "the earth being limited", the real issue is extrinsic vs intrinsic economic growth. If we make our machines and other things smaller, then we still have economic growth, but these smaller things might really be using less resources. That's the big cynicism I have about people who look at the Earth's resources is that our GDP is really only somewhat related to those resources, and really is more fundamentally related to how much we can use of what we have.


Ok.


And if they don't continue? Sorry, you made the argument against this kind of reasoning before.


I already pointed out that by the "magic of the market", global inequality is declining.


No, I've encountered people of that mindset. I didn't make that assumption at all. "One organization" though, does suggest a planned economy.


Umm.... you have no clue, do you? Production cannot just happen at the drop of a hat, UNLESS we are massively overbuilt for what is needed. Even then, wants would still likely take a relatively long-time to fulfill. As such, the capital for creating what people want would have to exist BEFORE they ordered it, so that way the equipment in the proper order and configuration to create this item would have to exist. This means that allocation would have to be done before consumption in the system. Your accounting system is screwy for that reason.


1) Not intentionally.
2) Given that you've misinterpreted roughly 50% of what I have written, how do I know that this isn't your end that is messing up?


"because something is happening today, it will happen tomorrow too"

Sorry, I just already pointed out to you that you were doing this. You never addressed the issue. I mostly haven't addressed that concern, and this is because consumption patterns depend a lot on relative scarcity. Your best argument is one that capitalism is under-pricing certain goods, but otherwise, this isn't a big issue.


No, I claimed there is no alternative because I don't believe in the existence of one at the present moment. This issue still has relevance to the opening post, as your claim only makes sense with the existence of a viable alternative.


I said "I am not going to review every website.". This is not unfair if I think that you are really just dumping websites on my lap. I don't have to read every url that I see, and if there is something critical to your argument, you can quote it from a source. If these were small articles, my opinion might be different, but even then I still reserve the right.


Well, furthering market processes. I mean, so far, I still don't think there is a better solution. And this kind of rationing does make some sense.


Eh, I end up thinking that your idea will likely not be as good as desired. Usually you'll have to have individuals contact other individuals for some reasons, like if there is an error or whatever else have you.

I stated it here:

The market economy you are talking about is an idealised version which exists in economy text-books (which is hardly surprising since economics as a subject is partially existing to legitimise the current order). In reality, smaller machines are produced, but they are also produced with planned obsolence in mind. It would be an easy - but not profitable - thing to produce a cell-phone which is maintaining itself during decades and only need software transfers then and then. Despite that, cell-phones are produced to break down and be replaced quite much more quicker, to stimulate the market. The same could be applied for almost all electronic products.

Within the food sector, it is well-known that the reason why people starve isn't because there isn't enough food, but because food distribution is designed according to profitability, which means that those who cannot afford to eat don't eat.

There is a difference between claiming that a forest which has more trees cut down each year than are replenished eventually will be depleted from trees, and claiming that we would be able to continue to take as many trees as we need to maintain growth from the forest as the invisible hand will guide us and give us technical innovations which would solve the forest problem. One of the predictions is made on actual statistics, and one is made on wishful thinking.

As for resource accounting. Not all production capacity is transferred to the people. A part is still in the system to maintain the infrastructure, and a part is left idle so that we could use that for construction and/or disaster relief.

What you or I believe doesn't matter. What ultimately does matter is that we find a working alternative since the current system will not be able to continue for more than another century (if the trends since 1970 are continuing in terms of resource usage) and will eventually lead to a disaster which will leave most people worse off than today. My goal is to explore alternatives, set up experimental networks together with like-minded individuals and if successful, use that as a starting ground to replace the current system.

Your idea is that what we have now essentially is good and that technical innovations will solve the environmental and social problems (even though the problem with the system is inherent, it's need for growth and to find new markets, rather than simply technical).

Economists claim that physicists don't understand economics. Physicists counter with the fact that economists doesn't seem to understand physics.

If we only had a plan...topic

...from Venus (Click on it, but do not count on it )

I think the topic was removed at the behest of the OP member, but as I recall, the idea as a global solution cannot fly at present.

The world order is not as centralized as Venusians would have humans on earth believe.

It isn't realistic to believe that a society as that advocated by The Venus Project could be installed in just a few years, as there are too many structural issues which need to be resolved first. But in 300 years maybe, we could progress towards that. What we need to discuss is transitionary models.

Products made outside of capitalism suck. Just look at the cars made by communist countries. Top Gear did a thing on it once, and they were all crap.

I like my technology, and furthermore I like my luxury products, and as you can tell by the fact I have a Rolls-Royce as my avatar, I'm very unbiased

However, I don't think capitalism is unfair. If you live in the US or the UK, or any developed capitalist country for that matter, you can make as much damn money as you want if you are willing to work for it. Just look at the multimillionaire businessmen who grew up in poor areas with poor families but made their own money by building their own businesses.

Furthermore, it's impossible for everyone to be equal. Even if we only got what we needed from the state, the guy down the road with a bigger family would still be able to brag about having more stuff than me.

It is in human nature to strive for more and always want better, and systems which fight fundamental human nature are doomed to fail.

Last edited by Asp-Z on 13 Oct 2010, 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Human nature does actually exist, but not as a lot of people are imagining it. Humans are generally adapted to live in small packs on the savannah, chasing gazelles together and being chased by lions together. It was just 10 000 years ago when agriculture was developed.

In general, money could be a motivator, but people are only interested in what money could bring them (security, status items and so on). What is a higher motivator on the work place is generally peer reception.

The reason why centrally planned socialism failed was a combination of too much centralisation with authoritarianism and corruption. The post-capitalist economy won't be a planned economy in terms of consumer goods.

First of all, I'd like to apologise for all the typos in my post, I just fixed all the ones I noticed and I reckon I need to better proof read my forum posts in the future

Anyway...

Human nature has many different layers to it. Even when we were all hunters living in caves, we wanted to keep going after bigger animals and we started using fire because we wanted to be warmer or we wanted to cook the animals we caught, right?

Along those same lines, humans, to this day, always want something better. I saw the example of cellphones used earlier, and it's perfect. After all, Apple, HTC, etc, couldn't keep selling all these new models if people didn't desire them and were content with their current phones.

But this extends to pretty much everything. Give a person a house and sooner or later he or she will want a bigger and better one. Give someone a car and they'll want a faster or more luxury one. I've been studying that in Economics recently - humans have unlimited wants. It's one of the first things they teach you.

Bearing that in mind, can you explain exactly how the production of consumer goods will work inside your system? Because I don't think human wants can be sufficiently fulfilled outside of capitalism, but I'm open to having my mind changed.

I do agree there are more motivators; it isn't just money. But money is still a big one for many people, and it does vary by person, not to mention that there are some jobs which people only put up with because of the big paychecks.

The system I am advocating is built on physics.

Firstly, the total production capacity of the entire system is accounted for, so that there is full awareness about how much we could produce.

Secondly, we divide that production capacity into consumer quotas, which are distributed to all citizens/users. In short, everyone is owning a part of the production capacity.

People then allocate their consumer quotas into what they want produced for themselves, and the energy is automatically allocated to the closest factory or other production unit which is able to best adapt to the needs of that individual users.

The consumer quotas are not exchanged, but destroyed when used. They cannot be accumulated. The price represents actual production capacity being allocated for production of specific items or service, not any subjective concept of value.

Every six months, the quotas are reset (of course to the new total production capacity).

The main difference will be that products will be produced to hold for decades, and that there will be no advertising (the system will not attempt to consciously make people consume more and more, instead leaving that choice wholly up to the consumer).

The only thing which is somewhat "planned" is infrastructure. The decision of what is going to be produced should be left to the consumers.

There was somebody else who used to post links to the Venus Project and there was something that never really sat well with me about it.

It's homogenous.

It assumes that people will just go along because they will see that it is for the greater good but that's just not how people work. There are 6 billion of us and we are divided into >100 countries. The idea that 6 billion people from >100 countries and many, many incompatible cultures would just drop all that and do this instead is preposterous at best.

At worst, it's genocidal. There have been several attempts to build perfect societies where people should just go along with whatever the plan was for the greater good and these have all involved mass murder. A wide variety of leaders (demagogues, dictators) have discovered that the only way to get everybody to Get With The Program is to kill those who won't. It really doesn't matter how good it looks on paper. No matter what the plan looks, there will be MANY who will resist it. What happens to them? I asked that to the last guy who was excited by this and I ask you too. Given that many of the resistors will be entire nations with armies (and probably nuclear weapons) of their own, what happens when they don't just decide that this is a great idea. I think that any attempt to implement this plan, no matter how tweaked and perfected it ultimately is, would start WWIII.

1. Productivity is not a matter of physical quantities entirely. There are subtleties which are not merely physical and mechanical.

2. You said the Q-Word, quota. And who will set the quotas? And who will allocate resources and time to the quota setters? And who shall guard the guardians and watch the watchers?

Utopian notions all have one thing in common. They DON'T work.;


ruveyn

No advertising? Then how will people know what is available?

ruveyn

People themselves will design what they will have. There will be some modular standardisation, but nothing which would inhibit diversity.

About your other point, that about hypocrisy or the idea that I haven't mentioned any "totalitarian ruling class". The quotas will be determined from one thing, and that is bio-sustainability. It is simply impossible to consume for more than the Earth could replace. The key is to always keep production capacity within the capacity of Earth itself, so we don't get any situations like today where civilisation is festering on more than the planet could handle.

Life is simply too valuable and rare in the universe to be subject to the limitless will to accumulate. You can disagree if you want to, but I know my priorities.

There is more to biosustainability than quantity of energy. The earth receives far more energy from the sun than is used by animals, plants and people. The fallacy in you approach is the fact the the earth is a wide open thermodynamic system that operates far from thermodynamic equilibrium. So the normal entropy measurements won't work.

You approach is undermined by weight the mere physics of our doings too heavily. There is the subtle matter of utility which is not captured by a purely physical or thermodynamic analysis. In short, real life is a lot more complicated than our best physical (especially thermodynamical) theories can handle.

ruveyn