This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Communism Solution?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Most of the "important" goods that we buy are inelastic, meaning that more often than the suppliers can raise the price and still make profit.
At some point all prices become elastic in terms of supply and demand.
Post by
Deepthought
That's the consumer's fault for not informing themselves.
It's her fault for wearing a short skirt.
It's better at least than having someone else tell you what to buy and not buy, in which case you're just as likely to be hurt unknowingly.
This is just straight up wrong. In the case we are in now, it is still possible to buy products that do nothing but hurt you (cigs), with some dangerous products banned. In a Communist society, the people decide what is acceptable and it is the responsability of everybody, not the individual, to make sure the individual knows what they are putting into their body.
In effect most arguments you bring against the free market can be made against a government controlled market too.
A government in the terms you seem to be talking about does not exist in a Communist society.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's the consumer's fault for not informing themselves.
It's her fault for wearing a short skirt.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
It's better at least than having someone else tell you what to buy and not buy, in which case you're just as likely to be hurt unknowingly.
This is just straight up wrong. In the case we are in now, it is still possible to buy products that do nothing but hurt you (cigs), with some dangerous products banned. In a Communist society, the people decide what is acceptable and it is the responsability of everybody, not the individual, to make sure the individual knows what they are putting into their body.
Take raw milk. Most states have decided that I have no right to buy raw milk because they have decided it was bad for me. I, on the other hand, have decided that pasteurized milk is bad for me and I have just as much science as they do to back me up.
Examples are meaningless if you pick and choose them.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In effect most arguments you bring against the free market can be made against a government controlled market too.
A government in the terms you seem to be talking about does not exist in a Communist society.
Make up your mind, are we talking about the concepts or actual governments? Because if the latter, you can't argue against free market because it has yet to exist in a pure form.
Edit: Anyways, lovely time, but that's all I have time for at the moment.
Post by
Deepthought
Which has nothing to do with anything.
It has everything to do with this arguement. You are claiming that when an offence is commited against something, it is sometimes the victims fault because the victim could've taken precautions to possibly prevent it.
Take raw milk. Most states have decided that I have no right to buy raw milk because they have decided it was bad for me. I, on the other hand, have decided that pasteurized milk is bad for me and I have just as much science as they do to back me up.
Examples are meaningless if you pick and choose them.
So said laws should be repealed if the evidence is that damning. What's your point?
Post by
TheMediator
In effect most arguments you bring against the free market can be made against a government controlled market too.
Government controlled markets can force suppliers into competition with each other or regulate prices. In free markets, if there are significant barriers for entry, those suppliers already in market can work together to drive the price just to the point where it would become worthwhile for other parties to enter the market. In some cases, you might end up with only one supplier and he can drive the price very, very high if the barrier of entry into the market is high enough (like the market for providing power). That is called a monopoly, which is very bad for the consumer. If the good has inelastic demand, that is very, very, very bad for the consumer. There's a reason that power companies are so heavily government controlled - otherwise they would have WAY too much market power (lol).
Have you seen Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?
Post by
MyTie
Thanks for your participation everyone. Allow me to try to bring it back to my origional point:
Would a comprehensive computer system that tracks and records all consumer actions and product levels, and automatically issues work orders based on supply and demand, and rations out goods based on population, make the communistic system more possible, or more likely to succeed?
Post by
TheMediator
Would a comprehensive computer system that tracks and records all consumer actions and product levels, and automatically issues work orders based on supply and demand, and rations out goods based on population, make the communistic system more possible, or more likely to succeed?
Well we already have a system in place to get a good grasp on the supply and demand, a communistic society need only emulate it. If demand is high, then the product will likely be purchased more often, and the supply will be increased, likewise if demand is low, then the supply will be decreased.
You don't really need a computer tracking system to know what is and isn't in demand, assuming the government was using proper accounting methods and had a sense of economics.
In a communistic society, you would simply issue a certain number of credits to people - if a good is desired, then they would spend their credits on the item, and you would change the supply depending on the demand. Basically, if you wanted to have a communistic society, all you would need to do is standardize wealth and have a government body control every aspect of the supply side to its maximum production level (meaning that you would sell goods at the cost required to produce them).
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
You can't look at it from an individual viewpoint but as a society.
Well at the same time, it might not be best for the society to only give the same rations to the doctor as the unskilled laborer, otherwise the doctor might not perform as well as he should, because being relocated to another task will not cause any decline in "wealth". That was part of why Communism was a problem in the USSR, because you didn't have that much motivation or innovation.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So said laws
should
be repealed if the evidence is that damning. What's your point?
Should isn't good enough. The evidence is there, yet the laws
are
in place--practical proof that governments don't necessarily do what they
should
, no matter how nice you paint them in theory.
Would a comprehensive computer system that tracks and records all consumer actions and product levels, and automatically issues work orders based on supply and demand, and rations out goods based on population, make the communistic system more possible, or more likely to succeed?
No, because I'd foment a rebellion.
Post by
MyTie
Labor itself could also be cataloged and distributed.
Do you mean that people recieve different rations based on the amount/difficulty of their labour?
Everyone could be given a rating. Reports from their bosses, education level, job difficulty, that works as a multiplier on their ration. Also the actual people could be distributed to the work needed to be done. If the software needed more milk produced, for increase in demand for egg nog, it could distribute more laborers to farms... etc...
Post by
Deepthought
Should isn't good enough. The evidence is there, yet the laws are in place--practical proof that governments don't necessarily do what they should, no matter how nice you paint them in theory.
A non-communist government doing something is relevent how?
You're 100% right. I guess the only way to have pure Communism is to incorporate only people who are purely selfless. The chances of this happening are slim to none. The only motivation you could really give would be a personal motivation based on enjoyment from helping others, if you were something such as a doctor.
This is a pretty dim view to hold for humanity and I'm sorry for you that you hold it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Should isn't good enough. The evidence is there, yet the laws are in place--practical proof that governments don't necessarily do what they should, no matter how nice you paint them in theory.
A non-communist government doing something is relevant how?
So once a government becomes communist they magically achieve enlightenment and will from then on always do what they should?
Whether a government in communist or not doesn't change the fact that it can and will do things for its own benefit at the expense of the people.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
So once a government becomes communist they magically achieve enlightenment and will from then on always do what they should?
Stop pretending that you don't understand my point.
Whether a government in communist or not doesn't change the fact that it can and will do things for its own benefit at the expense of the people.
Whether or not a market is "free" or "capitalist" doesn't change the fact that it can and will do things for it's own benefit at the expense of all but it's own elite.
Don't be; I'm just being realistic.
You aren't.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Whether or not a market is "free" or "capitalist" doesn't change the fact that it can and will do things for it's own benefit at the expense of all but it's own elite.
The market is not an entity (ie can't do things of it's own accord), so that makes absolutely no sense.
Stop pretending that you don't understand my point.
I don't think anyone understands your point because you don't have much of one. Communism is better because I say so isn't going to do much.
Post by
Deepthought
Don't be; I'm just being realistic.
You aren't.
Please, elaborate.
I don't believe Humans are inherently selfish.
Uh yeah, that's basically it.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.