It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ketsukoOnce you lose the right to your basic property, the government that gives you everything can also take everything, and once you stop believing in your basic rights, they means nothing and the government will no respect them either.
originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: greencmp
That's about right.
originally posted by: greencmp
1.The argument from the mode of production is as empty analytically as Marxism was from the beginning,
2. Socialists never did come up with a blueprint for how their system could deal with the problem of scarcity.
3.None of them ever described in detail a socialist incentive system that will rationally allocate wealth, and will also maintain economic incentives for high productivity -- incentives that will match, let alone exceed, capitalism's incentives.
4.This was openly admitted in 1990 by Robert Heilbroner, In it, he wrote these words: "Mises was right." Right about what?
5. About the impossibility of rational economic calculation in a world without private property and capital markets.
6.He then called for the next phase of socialism, one which will be based on environmentalism, not economic theory. He said that only by mobilizing the masses behind the idea that the government should intervene in order to save the environment, could socialism once again gain a hearing. Otherwise, the movement was dead.
7.His third erroneous conclusion has to do with the structure of capitalism. He thinks we are headed for decentralization. So do I. He thinks this is anti-capitalist. I do not. On the contrary, it is the essence of advanced capitalism.
8.How are we -- whoever "we" are -- going to create all this? How are we going to cooperate? If we do not cooperate through central planning, then we have to do it through the free market. There is no third choice. It is either the coercion of the state or the voluntarism of the free market that lets us do anything jointly on a large-scale basis. Society is not a small family farm. We face an either-or situation.
9.Leftists do not have an analytical blueprint. They also do not have a practical blueprint.
10.Yes, neoliberalism is a spent force. But, analytically speaking, it was always a spent force. There was never any analytical foundation to it.
11.The socialists' mythology and impulse have always been driven by one claim above all other claims: the absence of scarcity in nature. They always come back to the same theme: if we just get rid of free-market institutions, universal abundance will cascade over all of us.
12.The whole society is not like a factory. It is like an auction. It is governed by a fundamental principle: high bid wins. It is a system of competitive pricing. It is a system of allocation by means of competitive bidding. It is not like a factory; it has never been like a factory. That line of reasoning was Frederick Engels' line of reasoning, and it wasn't correct then. He never made it work in terms of economic analysis, and neither can Mason.
13.He steadfastly ignores the following fact: these new technologies are based on production for the market. The main thrust of the technological and digital revolutions is in the direction of decentralization and private ownership. Always, there is private ownership. Without private ownership, there are no prices. Without prices, there is nothing but economic blindness. That was Mises's point in 1920, and Leftists never respond to it.
14. Socialists specialize in stringing together slogans. They never offer any economic blueprints, but they are long on slogans. They never tell us how their dreams can be implemented. They never describe the system of sanctions -- judicial and economic -- by which people will get what they want through cooperation. They never discuss economic cause-and-effect, but they are really good at listing slogans.
15.This is utopianism.
16.Paul Mason is the latest example of Leftism's desire to bury free market capitalism. The end of capitalism is always just around the bend.
I tried to cut out as many empty insults as I could and numbered his "points" for a little clarity. I'll probably go over each in the next few days. Point by point.edit on 28-7-2015 by JeanPaul because: (no reason given)edit on 28-7-2015 by JeanPaul because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: largo
a reply to: greencmp (actually to all)
I happen to like (or have a propensity toward) reading discussions about economic models and the array of thoughts bent to fit a particular ideology.
Mostly it is a defense of maintaining ideas in a world that NEVER conforms exactly with the visions of dancing plums performing the prescribed minuet.
Since the models are normally projected from an ideal perspective, they FAIL. The world is not anything other than a statistical mash-up. This cause great fuzziness to develop in what had a been a clinical exercise.
The reason any system will stumble forward is that humans endeavor to find a niche (think hermit crabs) that will suit them. The impetus to achieve Maslow's 'needs' causes all interactions in every system. Most of these systems do not acknowledge the complete list (and it's not perfect) and start as inadequate. They are fundamentally flawed.
Think of a Bell Curve with all of those extended edges. The vast majority of people can have similar interests grouped around that middle (any topic) but even within those interests a spectrum exists. Identical people do not exist and any system that wants to hold sway and keep influence can only form around the middle cohorts.
We ALL do not live merely to achieve a ranking in the hierarchy:i.e., live to work.
We ALL do not want to live so minimally that our health/family health/tribal health is afflicted.
We ALL do not have the same motivations which means we can not design an Utopia.
Government does a GOOD job on routine things. Governments are not real innovative because you must then fund it and live with the consequences of change. We do not like a lot of change when it comes to water delivery, electricity, trash removal, medical treatment, etc. These forms of socialized institutions, routine necessities, have been proven to be best served (efficiency/outcomes) by commonly owned agencies.
This is where government shines.
Capitalism (small economic units) is much more flexible as it is designed to be opportunist. The baying of the economic hounds lead everyone to areas where success can be had. Large unit capitalism is inevitable. This is where the poison lands lie.
Capitalism must be fair or it is just a means to form economic indenturtude for the VAST majority. These entanglements are principally the insistence of mortgaging a future to achieve socially accepted and desired goals.
We enter into fascism inevitably. The influence of the Elites becomes excessive and socio-pathic behavior becomes standardized as an admirable achievement. Unlimited consumption by the Elite while beggarhood swallows 90% of the population.
The only way to make a society turn to a bright sun is to give them sunscreen and sunglasses. Socialism considers this as a good that should be freely available. Capitalism can figure out how to assist with a budget provided by consumers for a minimal expenditure. It can offer gee-gaws to please the tastes (Bell Curve here) of the individuals and at added expense to those particular, discerning purchasers, but everybody is better off.
As most of us know, we are individually, mice. The enormous machinery that we wend our lives through can overcome us singletons without a concern. The government WE can vote for is not responsive but then it is not designed to be. It is designed for you to struggle with it in order to make changes. It is a monster for routine and a fractured egg when changed. It does permit changes by popular demand.
Corpserations (sic) SUPPOSEDLY have greater amounts of flexibility. This is a lie when the only purpose is profit. Then the bean counters rule. Amoral, uncommunicative, maniacal planners are in charge. They are essentially the enemy of humans as they reduce us to accountable resources.
Both of these concepts need a leavening of JUDGEMENT by the participants. Blending them with the purpose of meeting our needs with allowance for the triple sigma events is desirable. It could be robust, amenable (slowly), humane and efficient because it represents what we are, a freaking mob with as many characters and caricatures that must be shoehorned in while achieving a good solid base for futures unguessed.
No system will be perfect, no more than we are perfect. What is needed is to blend what works into a cohesive, comprehensible system. One that suits HUMANS with their foibles and differences as opposed to theoretical constructs based on metrics that are ALWAYS narrowly defined.
I think Danish folks have it mostly right and they are considered to be happier than just about anyone. That is what all your scenarios need to account for, happy masses do not form angry mobs.
These models are great in the abstract but as has been said, 'No battle plan survives contact with the enemy'.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul
The distortions in the marketplace created by interventionism unavoidably create de facto monopolies who, it is later asserted, can only be brought to heel through confiscation and nationalization.
The road always leads to the end of private property which is the indispensable component of the ability to assign price.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul
Monopoly (the game) is a fantastically foreign representation of what equitable trade is. It really couldn't be further from how people actually behave and migrate or how resources are in fact utilized.
On the first point, that prices are only possible with private property, without the assignment of value as dictated by demand, no allocations can be made