United Left Alliance will form party, says Higgins

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

hoorsmelt wrote: »

For socialists the question isn't about 'slicing the pie', it's about who owns the bakery. If the bakery were publicly owned, then bread could be baked for everyone rather than for the profits of a small minority.

In socialist theory, in practice (time and time again) you endup with socialist paradises like Cuba, North Korea and exUSSR where you be lucky to get a loaf of bread or have to queue for hours to get one...

edit: dang posted same time as Permabear

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

First off - I wouldn't be advocating a return to any form of centralised economy and especially not one run by the Irish State...

But our current implementations of the 'market' aren't as robust as the theory would suggest and no where near as good as proponents suggest it is. We have a free market operating in most of the world now and famine and misery seem to be fairly endemic. I'll give you political repression - it isn't as high in free market countries. One reason the hard left will continue to attract a portion of the vote (albiet a small one and on topic one that will reduce in the next election) is that is demonstrable to significant numbers of people that the market doesn't function particularly well either.

RE Centrally planned economies are always failures - offshoot thread warning - to me GE, Proctor and Gamble and a handful of other companies operate like centrally planned economies at least internally. Decisions about how to spend resources, how much to allocate to healthcare (dental plans etc), how to decide things in general are carried out by as close to politburo than has ever been implemented. If one considers the sheer size of these places then their internal economies are bigger than many countries. Admittedly the success function applied to decisions is always market driven through intra-corporation competition, however that is the external economy. Internally they act like centrally planned economies.
A quick google search reveals this theory already exists - "Theory of the Firm". The main point apparently being that the transactional cost of carrying out an activity on the free market given externalities and imperfect information will be higher than doing it internally (this is what they argue is true for large corporations).

Point being, that centrally planned economies work assuming that the information available internally is better than the information in the market, which is unlikely when it comes to pricing the overwhelming majority of goods and services.

mikom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It'll go well with the free cheese.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because the centre right asset stripped the poor and redistributed to the wealthy.

45% of the Irish electorate voted left. 45% of the Irish population are not left wing. There is a protest vote in there that you are deliberatly ignoring.

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True enough - I didn't suggest otherwise. I merely pointed out that famine and misery haven't gone away. In the case of famine the jury is still out on whether the market will continue to solve this problem. Many people are still whinging about futures, options etc and the effect on food prices. I think this one will need clearer definitions of free-market countries and tin-pot regimes. I suspect your definition and mine may vary.

With regard to misery, the evidence strongly suggests that Western countries have more problems, c.f. tin pot regimes and primitives. What causes this exactly isn't known - the point simply being that it hasn't gone away and is increasing. I'm not suggesting the market some how magically makes people depressed or miserable.

The hard left attracts votes in first-world countries because they promise to asset-strip the wealthy and redistribute the proceeds to the poor. Those who vote hard left are merely trying to vote themselves an "entitlement" to the wealth and earnings of others—nothing more.

I really doubt that's why anyone votes left. I really don't know how to answer such a jaded view - why not just call them thieves and be done with it?

Centrally planned economies will always fail because of the socialist calculation problem outlined by Mises and Hayek.

Hayek assumes perfect information in the market and rational actors. This isn't always the case, and has been subsequently demonstrated for many markets, second hand car sales famously. The examples I gave of large centrally planned economies (the internal economies of GE and P&G) would have information not available to the market and that's what allows them to operate. Point being, to reiterate that it is possible for a centrally planned market (with more information) to beat a poorly informed free market.

Jack Sheehan

While I don't usually agree with the hard left I have no problem with them being represented in the Dail. Their ideas are radical, yes, but if they are effective in making their voices heard then perhaps the best of what they advocate will be implemented in some regard. Say, for example, someone had been bleating incessantly about how the banks need more regulation, circa 2002 or so...

SupaNova

Socialists have this belief that rich business owners only make money off the backs of others and therefore rich people have some moral obligation to them. But their initial assumption is completely false. They fail to go back a step and see how those businesses began. They began because that business owner worked and saved enough to start a business. That option is available to them(something they don't realize). Capitalism is a fair system. And it would be a much better system producing much better results if it were not for government interference.

Sorry to inflict that on the majority of people who realize this, just posted in case we have socialists here still making assumptions like this. If you really think this system is unfair and If you have the funds, get yourself a self sufficient house and food supply and you never have to work in the evil capitalistic world again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hoorsmelt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The transition from centrally planned to free market economies in Eastern Europe was catastrophic. Life expectancy collapsed and alcoholism and poverty has increased. For Christs sake, Russia lost 50% of its industry in one year, 1992, thanks to privatisation and a switch to full free market and it still hasn't recovered. Doesn't say much for 'efficient allocation of resources by the market' does it?

The actual outcomes of a planned socialist economy are inevitably famine, misery, and political repression, in which the masses are held under the authoritarian jackboot of the state—a far cry from the society of equality and plenty that was promised.

Again, that is rubbish. People generally judge the Soviet economy by its collapse in the Gorabchev years, but that fails to take into account the supergrowth that was possible only on the basis of a planned economy. Moreover, political repression emerged in Russia and China for particular reasons, most notably the fact that both countries were extremely backward with medieval conditions proliferating throuighout the interiors and a lack of education and democratic conditions. We could do much better for ourselves if we tried.

hoorsmelt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's not a picture of this sorry incident is it by any chance?

http://examiner.ie/ireland/ididmhcwid/

In scenes reminiscent of a failed state, more than 700 people queued from early morning amid fears they would miss the free food parcels to be distributed — and they were right to worry as demand overwhelmed the friars and basic items like bread, tea, sugar and canned foods all ran out.

The speed and brutality with which the economic crisis is searing through Irish society was clear from the faces of young people and parents amidst the hundreds of people snaking along Dublin’s Church Street, their grim reality mocked by the unseasonal sunshine.



Read more: http://examiner.ie/ireland/ididmhcwid/#ixzz1FSTu90ed[/QUOTE]

Out of sight out of mind eh?

hoorsmelt

SupaNova wrote: »

Socialists have this belief that rich business owners only make money off the backs of others

Which they do.

and therefore rich people have some moral obligation to them. But their initial assumption is completely false. They fail to go back a step and see how those businesses began. They began because that business owner worked and saved enough to start a business.

The rich make their money because they employ others to make products or provide services for them and pay them a small fraction of the value they create in compensation. Small business owners are generally the worst for this kind of exploitation, and I say this as someone with wideranging experience of the lowpaid jobs market.

That option is available to them(something they don't realize). Capitalism is a fair system. And it would be a much better system producing much better results if it were not for government interference.

Yeah, because the thousands of children who die of curable diseases or lack of clean water each day, or indeed the 450,000 unemployed in this state, are there because it's 'fair'. Are you drunk by any chance?

Sorry to inflict that on the majority of people who realize this, just posted in case we have socialists here still making assumptions like this. If you really think this system is unfair and If you have the funds, get yourself a self sufficient house and food supply and you never have to work in the evil capitalistic world again.

Capitalism is the dominant form of production at present. It's almost impossible to live outside it because one has to pay tax, if one wanted to be self sufficient you'd have to buy seed and fertiliser from a private company to start up or privately own land to grow your food on, you'd need to pay for materials to build your house, and for any form of long distance transport you'd need some form of vehicle with an internal combustion motor. This argument is generally the last resorte of people who don't understand what socialism is (using the wealth and means of production to create a more efficient and equitable economy which can be democratically controlled).

hoorsmelt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Malnourishment increased among children in Chile following the Pinochet coup in 1972. A more damning indictment is the fact that almost 15% of the US population suffers from food insecurity and hunger in what is the worlds largest capitalist economy. Hurrah for the free market.

The hard left attracts votes in first-world countries because they promise to asset-strip the wealthy and redistribute the proceeds to the poor. Those who vote hard left are merely trying to vote themselves an "entitlement" to the wealth and earnings of others—nothing more

.

Again, this is right-wing bollox. Have any of ye dealt with the fact that the core of the ULA programme, and indeed of any true socialist, is reducing unemployment and getting as many people back to work as possible?

Centrally planned economies will always fail because of the socialist calculation problem outlined by Mises and Hayek.

More rubbish. The present crisis is evidence their own system doesn't work. After all, this is what happens when you deregulate the financial sector, it goes nuts. This has been proven time and again since the South Sea Bubble in the 1720s.

doopa

Unfortunately, much like true libertarians true socialists appear to be an elusive bunch!

SupaNova

The rich make their money because they employ others to make products or provide services for them and pay them a small fraction of the value they create in compensation. Small business owners are generally the worst for this kind of exploitation, and I say this as someone with wideranging experience of the lowpaid jobs market.

They make their money from starting and running businesses. They pay workers a rate that workers are willing to work for that still allows them to make a profit, that's not exploitation. Now cue the socialists spin saying look at these evil guys running a business for profit, they only care about profit. If they didn't run businesses with the goal of making a profit they wouldn't be in business very long and there would be no jobs.

Yeah, because the thousands of children who die of curable diseases or lack of clean water each day, or indeed the 450,000 unemployed in this state, are there because it's 'fair'. Are you drunk by any chance?

What thousands of children are you referring to. Is it somewhere in Africa that have suffered horrible dictatorships and violence for decades or some free capitalistic society? The 450,000 in this country aren't unemployed because of capitalism. They are unemployed because of a housing bubble and a bank bailout resulting in massive sovereign debt.

Capitalism is the dominant form of production at present. It's almost impossible to live outside it because one has to pay tax, if one wanted to be self sufficient you'd have to buy seed and fertiliser from a private company to start up or privately own land to grow your food on, you'd need to pay for materials to build your house, and for any form of long distance transport you'd need some form of vehicle with an internal combustion motor. This argument is generally the last resorte of people who don't understand what socialism is (using the wealth and means of production to create a more efficient and equitable economy which can be democratically controlled).

It was a little tongue in cheek to suggest becoming self sufficient. I understand socialism. Taking from rich and giving to the poor basically.

using the wealth and means of production to create a more efficient and equitable economy which can be democratically controlled

Socialists don't understand the economy or capitalism. Its been alluded to already by others why it can't work along with a book referral. I wouldn't recommend that book yet since you don't understand an economy and capitalism. Try 'How an Economy Grows and why it crashes'. 'Economics in One Lesson' is a great follow up. Maybe after that you can attack Von Mises.

What you are doing now is just looking at all the injustice in the world and equate that to Capitalism, because someone else told you its the fault of capitalism. I suggest you read the recommendations and you might realize that all the injustices in this world has everything to do with power hungry rulers abusing people and nothing to do with capitalism.

SupaNova

Again, this is right-wing bollox. Have any of ye dealt with the fact that the core of the ULA programme, and indeed of any true socialist, is reducing unemployment and getting as many people back to work as possible?

Look all socialists are well intentioned, they all mean well, but the fact is they have never picked up a book on economics. 'Economics in one lesson' explains every thought process flaw that you here spouted by government not only socialists. I had a look at the ULA website and some pdf outlining there intentions, fantasy stuff to say the list.

The very idea that government should be in charge of creating jobs is illogical. Lets tax the rich entrepreneurs who have had many successful business ventures and are likely to invest again and take their wealth put in the hands of government to dump it on whichever industry will give them the most votes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In reference to the first point he assumes that all of the information is available to the market. If not specifically to all actors in it then at least that all of them combined would have all of the information and would therefore be able to reach the right decision about the price to pay for things. Some would pay over and some under depending on the spread of information.

I haven't seen any proof/disproof that people acting on mass act rationally and I think recent elections and the main point of this thread would bear that out.

The point I was making is that in reference to large corporations that operate internally like centrally planned economies they have information that the market does not and hence are able to outcompete the market. I'm not suggesting that this is somehow transferable to government but you can also see this happening in monopolies where they hold significant information about the costs that isn't available to the market and hence distorts prices. Arguably its pretty much the same problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't have a kindle and hence my books aren't to hand . I would concede I'm am fuzzy on the exact differences between mainstream economics and the Austrians - kill me. I assume the austrians are the true capitalists and all of the other besmirch the good name of Smith and will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. However...

I didn't bring macroeconomic context into the discussion. I'm deliberately limiting the discussion to show that it is not always (your italics) true that centrally planned economies cannot outcompete the market.

I didn't suggest that large corporations are anything but a cog in the wheel of the national economy. However, they can be thought of as having an internal economy, in some cases the size of that economy is larger that some nations. And that economy is centrally planned, and in the case of GE, Microsoft, P&G quite successful. I'm not asking you to sign up for a job with them or love the fact that they work but they do. Cue prophecy of the fall of GE, MS etc.

Purposeful and rational. Largely a semantic difference - prepared for clarification. Purpose = intentionality of an action. Rational = the assumption that the intention and the action would be thought through (and implicitly beneficial). I don't see how that really changes anything. Of course people have a purpose in an economy. Centrally planned economies have a purpose, its the same in both sets of economies - to try to ensure efficiency. Furthermore, I would suggest that at least some of of human action isn't purposeful - subject to change of definition of that word. Behavioural economics seems to be suggesting that this idea of rationality (or purposefulness if you prefer) doesn't really exist, at least not in the classical economic sense. Though don't know if you care about that since you'll still be free to suggest that if only we implemented true Austrian capitalism this wouldn't be a problem.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As have I. This links in with an inchoate research idea I have been looking at in tandem with my reading of Nozick; are there any sources or articles you would recommend on this specific subject?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You know whats wrong with socialism?
people who dont know how to bake pies trying to slice the pie more "equally"

they should be concentrating on how to grow the pie for all and learn how to bake

The problem I see with a lot of business owners is that too many of them sneer at those who are not doing the same thing they are. "Well see how you like it if you had to run a business" isn't a realistic reply because not everyone is going to start and run their own business, and business owners are always going to need people to work for them.

To extend the pie metaphor further, business owners may know how to bake pies, but at the end of the day, someone had to pick the apples, make the butter and sow the wheat to make that pie, assemble the oven you baked it in, and then deliver it when it is done. A vibrant economy has a lot of moving parts to it that need to be understood and respected, and that includes BOTH employers and employees, capital AND labor.

In addition, the last ten years have truly laid bare the myth of the relationship between deregulation,wealth accumulation, and job creation - particularly in the US. Job creation, particularly in the private sector, has been poor, yet corporate profits have been astronomical. Lower taxes have not filtered down through the economy, there has just been more hoarding at the top. Capitalists claim that they should be left alone because they create jobs, but that simply has not been true in most post-industrial economies over the last 10-20 years - and many of the jobs they have created are based outside of the countries these companies are based in. I don't think that nationalization or socialism is the answer to this problem, but I do think that more capitalists need to acknowledge that it exists...Which is unlikely, for if Marx was right about anything, it was the inability of capitalists to independently modify their behavior in order to prevent system collapse.

There are too many capitalists who have little to no regard or respect for those who work for a check instead of for themselves. And I will gladly concede that there are too many socialists who pay little to no attention to how markets work. Unfortunately this thread seems to have collapsed into a debate between two relatively extreme positions, so I'll bow out here...but that's my two cents anyway.

doopa

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Loads of his shorter essays are also available online.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

doopa

I'm still not sure about the purpose point. But then its not clear enough to ask further questions. I suppose in order to help understand - I get that the opposite of rational would be irrational. In this context what's the opposite of a purposeful actor/agent? I would imagine a lot of decisions and processes are a result of what's sometimes called contingency (where it means historical accident - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_contingency).

I get the explanation of planning tractor manufacture. I appreciate taking the time to make it clear.

I suppose I should supply a counter-example as a thought experiment. We are talking about large groups of people in this example a corporation like GE. I'd argue they don't have a pricing mechanism either - but I don't particularly want to get into technical jargon.

They want to undertake a piece of work - say build a new diagnostic device. In order to achieve this they have work out the best way to achieve this and allocate the finite internal resources they are given in order to achieve that task. Similar to the commie's they lack information about resources, albeit in this case human capital, technological improvements, and so on. They also lack loads of other pieces of information. However, they seem to be quite capable of allocating resources and making decisions in an efficient way and a way that seems to be very stable. Decisions are made inside that company about how to carry out the tasks by a group of people that act for intents and purposes as central planners.

Once they have the product and start selling it they have a pricing mechanism and the price would reflect the investment they made, and the investment a competitor would have to make in order to achieve the same. Here stuff like the macro-economics and other stuff starts to apply again.

ei.sdraob

southsiderosie wrote: »

To extend the pie metaphor further, business owners may know how to bake pies, but at the end of the day, someone had to pick the apples, make the butter and sow the wheat to make that pie, assemble the oven you baked it in, and then deliver it when it is done. A vibrant economy has a lot of moving parts to it that need to be understood and respected, and that includes BOTH employers and employees, capital AND labor.

For all those "moving parts" to move there has to be free and fair competitive trade, and more importantly an environment conductive to business. Whats the point of growing apples or assembling ovens if they are taken away from you?

Unfortunately socialism has a tendency to try to control all aspects of the economy, time and time again destroying economies and countries by distorting prices and trying to control production and going over the top with the whole redistribution business. And worse of all killing the will to bake apples or sow wheat or make butter, whats the point of doing all of that if you are provided for anyways?

Control and socialism go hand in hand, without top down control how else will be sliced equally?

Looking forward to your reply.

Soldie

hoorsmelt wrote: »

The rich make their money because they employ others to make products or provide services for them and pay them a small fraction of the value they create in compensation. Small business owners are generally the worst for this kind of exploitation, and I say this as someone with wideranging experience of the lowpaid jobs market.

Greetings, time traveler! Allow me to point you to the marginal revolution, which rubbished the labour theory of value some 150 years ago.