Marxism

[steve_bank]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.


Part f the Chinese restructuring was getting rid of state run industry and requiring a busyness t be able to stand on its own.

Here inn Seattle I heard an idea floated to tax big business like Amazon to support small business that can not sustain itself.

Progressives are triyng piece meal solutions to economic problems but it will not change much.

It requires a federal restructuring of the economy. Not likely. The progressive Biden would say repeatedly 'Its itj to be rich'.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

In the long term conservatives are making their worse fears come true. Polls show decreasing support of capitalism and growing support for socialism among young people.

The question iIMOi is if we change rationally or end up with craziness like Venezuela with a devastated economy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fascinating. Culture is destiny.

I should probably clarify, by the way, that my point in bringing up all this Econ 101 stuff was to back you up -- I'm arguing you're right that it's possible for everybody to be rich, and bilby's counterarguments don't hold up.

I was unaware that ECON 101 stuff indicates it is possible for everyone to be rich. It suggests that market economies will cause a distribution of income that cannot be redistributed without making at least one person worse off, but it suggests nothing about whether everyone (or anyone) ends up rich.

I didn't say it does. Bilby implied it was impossible for everyone to be rich because "Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?". So I pointed out Econ 101 stuff indicates getting $100 an hour for toilet cleaning wouldn't take magic, just comparative advantage. Of course you can propose some completely different argument for why it's impossible; if you do so, we can check if Econ 101 refutes that one as well.

But that's a quite static way to look at which services are available in a market. Almost everything is dynamic in a market.

The demanded price for toilet cleaning can get so high that nobody is willing to pay it. That's where Scandinavia is today when it comes to toilet cleaning in private homes. Or where England is when it comes to butlers. 100 years ago butlers where common in England. Now it's, pretty much, just the king who has a butler.

A market can reach a point where we will optimise away a service, so it just gets baked into what normal people is expected to do by themselves. Which is the inevitable result when everyone is rich.

There's a lot of shitty jobs that have increased in price so much so that it gets replaced by machinery. For example dock workers loading and unloading ships. That used to be a shitty job for the poorest. Today is a well paid specialist job, done by machinery.

Don't underestimate the creativity of the market to make it work.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.

Is it? Humans also want safety and predictability. Humanity have two strong drives in direct opposition. We want variety and abundance and we want safety and predictability. We can't have both, but we want both.

I'd say no system is a particularly good fit for humans. It's simply a question of compromise.

And that's ignoring the stark reality of that communism, at best, doesn't work at all, in providing economic stability.

Part f the Chinese restructuring was getting rid of state run industry and requiring a busyness t be able to stand on its own.

Here inn Seattle I heard an idea floated to tax big business like Amazon to support small business that can not sustain itself.

Progressives are triyng piece meal solutions to economic problems but it will not change much.

The curse of unintended consequences. This kind of regulation doesn't work. Fun fact, Europeans joke about how complicated American corporate beaurocracy is. The legal system for corporations in USA punish small companies. The red tape is, by European standards, extreme. Sweden was a couple of days ago in the Economist held up us the best place to start a company... in the whole world. Not USA.

It requires a federal restructuring of the economy. Not likely. The progressive Biden would say repeatedly 'Its itj to be rich'.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

In the long term conservatives are making their worse fears come true. Polls show decreasing support of capitalism and growing support for socialism among young people.

That's exactly my point. Marx has won the ideological war. The ideological war is no longer communism vs capitalism. It's now, which kind of socialism should we have. I think the shift has happened already. It happened in the 1960'ies.

Everyone today seems to think that the govornment is responsible for the wellbeing of it's citizens. That's the socialist mindset. The state as a super daddy, taking care of us.

The question iIMOi is if we change rationally or end up with craziness like Venezuela with a devastated economy.

I think the big question is whether or not democracy will inevitably lead to a slide into nanny state socialism, with a hobbled economy. I can imagine a scenario where China is less socialist than any western country and therefore becomes the wealthiest country on Earth.

 

[Bomb#20]

Pursuit of profit in the long run benefits all. It generally worked, but now the income disparity is making it impossible for increasing numbers of people to make ends meet.

The system as it is to me is obviously failing, politically and economically.

That just isn't true. Income disparity does not cause poverty. The number of people who can't make ends meet is decreasing, and has been for many years. There was a temporary increase due to Covid but we got it under control.

What does it mean to be rich? If as ityraditionaly meant in part a lot of decedent creature comforts then a large part of the masses have it. Cars, global air travel, good clothes. a wide variety of food everyday.

Running hot and cold water everywhere, sewers, electricity, cell phones and so on.

Technology and manufacturing efficiency the result of free market competition can supply a large amount of material goods for all.

By traditional standards nearly everyone in modern countries already is rich. The perception that the poor are getting poorer is an illusion caused by expectations rising in parallel with prosperity.

If rich means the stereotypical idle rich who can lounge around living on investments(a family fortune), all can not be rich. A extreme prime example is the British royal family. The idle rich.

Sure, all can be rich, even by that standard. All can live on investments; all can be the idle rich if they choose, or the working rich if they prefer. Not today, true; but give robotics technology another hundred-odd years to develop and it will be perfectly feasible.

 

[laughing dog]

Fascinating. Culture is destiny.

I should probably clarify, by the way, that my point in bringing up all this Econ 101 stuff was to back you up -- I'm arguing you're right that it's possible for everybody to be rich, and bilby's counterarguments don't hold up.

I was unaware that ECON 101 stuff indicates it is possible for everyone to be rich. It suggests that market economies will cause a distribution of income that cannot be redistributed without making at least one person worse off, but it suggests nothing about whether everyone (or anyone) ends up rich.

I didn't say it does. Bilby implied it was impossible for everyone to be rich because "Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?". So I pointed out Econ 101 stuff indicates getting $100 an hour for toilet cleaning wouldn't take magic, just comparative advantage. Of course you can propose some completely different argument for why it's impossible; if you do so, we can check if Econ 101 refutes that one as well.

I guess “it’s possible for everybody to be rich” confused me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.

Unquestionably. Putting the people with their own assets in charge produces a better outcome that when you put people using other people's money in charge.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

The problem is that this is far more a matter of unreasonable expectations than a true economic problem. It's just the internet has made reality more obvious.

We do have a problem with companies having too many choices and getting into decision paralysis because of it. Candidates A, B, or C--they pick one. Candidates 1..1000, they hold out for the unicorn.