Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
He, Karl Marx, might have been right about the downfall of Capitalism?

I think he might have been on to it. We'll have to wait and see if any of it pans out at all.

Marx theorized that capital would inevitably invest increasing amounts of their profits into technology, marginalizing the share of wealth generation that entered the hands of labor. This has happened. We can already observe that. It started in Marx's time and continues to this day. However, Marx thought that the inequity of the system would eventually cause a mass uprising of the working class, spurring them to seize control of the means of production and through some very ill defined process, produce a utopian society devoid of inequality. That obviously didn't happen. There was no global uprising of workers. I think Marx underestimated that the emergence of unions and socialism in politics and industry in the Western World would ultimately be so successful in redressing many of the most obvious and gross inequalities he observed in his own era. Its not hard to see why he thought Revolution was inevitable. His time was filled with political uprisings and upheaval throughout Europe.

I think though that his base premise, that increasing investment would inevitably be capitalism's end, may have more merit. It's already possible to see a future where automation takes over the bulk of industry, and capitalism as we know it doesn't function in an environment where capital becomes labor (in the form of automation). Marx thought the reverse would happen (that labor would become capital via revolution).

This is the guy who espoused a system so inept and corrupt in nature that it had the shelf life of not even a Twinkie?

There's nothing particularly corrupt about Marx's idea of communism (especially since at its nuts and bolts, its very vague past the "revolution" part). Marx denied that Communism was a state of affairs, or status quo. He rather used the term to collectively refer to a sort of economic end game that was an inevitable result of capitalist economies. It bares little resemblance to many of the command economies that rose in the 20th century and took the name "Communist" to describe themselves. As a basic example, Marx envisioned the communism as a democratic society subject to universal suffrage. The USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. None of them were/are democracies, and they largely denounce democracy as a tool of capitalism to keep the working class fooled. Marx laid the seed for that later thought in his own description of Alienation in society, but it's not a critique he directed at democracy, but rather at Labor itself. Marx further differentiated between the nationalization of production (command economy), and the socialization of production (worker owned economy). Pretty much every Communist state got started by nationalizing its economy under the "Stewardship" of a political elite. Marx actually considered nationalization a simple continuation of capitalism by other means. It was an obstacle he saw in the eventual formation of Communism, one he never seems to have formulated a concise solution for.

I think there's a great argument to be made that there is no solution, and thus Marx's idea of the Communist Revolution is functionally a dead end that can only result in what he called "State Capitalism." One of the most curious things about the communist states that rose in the 20th century is that they didn't emerge from strong capitalist economies. They emerged from very agrarian, underdeveloped quasi-Feudal and mercantile economies that latched onto the optimistic ideal of revolution as a means to resolve the inequality of their societies (Didn't exactly work out did it?). It's one of the reasons the rapid industrialization of Soviet Russia was so shocking to the world. No one expected the Russian Empire, technologically and economically behind its peers for many decades by the time it fell, to suddenly become so strong. It was so shocking everyone missed when that growth completely stuttered out in the 60s, and Soviet Russia went back to being decades behind its peers before its own fall in the early 90s.

And, you do realize he wrote a lot more than the Communist Manifesto? His work on Value Theory is still relevant today, after having previously overridden that of Smith and Ricardo. He's one of the fathers of Sociology, and his influence in Political Science is profound. Especially in history, his break from the "Great Men of History" model to describe past events as the produce of Class Struggle was incredibly significant. Marxist History isn't very popular in the field anymore, but many historians do occasionally bounce back to his models when examining class struggles and economics. His theories on Communism are a very small faction of his work.

it's purest form without political manipulation.

There's not such thing. It's an ideological myth.

it's not a zero sum game

If you recognize its not a zero sum game, why are you so keen to treat it as such?

Well, so far history is not on Marx's side. How it plays out? I'm a fan of the trend and it doesn't favor Comrade Karl.

It's not a myth, it's a sound, well developed theory that gets mucked when politicians decide to overstep the position of government. Government guidance to check abuse is one thing, free market tampering, i.e. subsidies, punitive import taxes, protectionism is the poison that government too easily succumbs to introducing to the market. I posted a link to a speech given by Economics Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman earlier, please take a look.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Milton+Friedman+Pencil&&view=detail&mid=29EA2AD34D6D111BB4E529EA2AD34D6D111BB4E5&FORM=VRDGAR

I don't treat it as such. I readily admit and accept there are winners and losers in Capitalism and that, as painful as it can be some times, is also the dynamic that keeps it rising every time and moving forward.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think Marx underestimated that the emergence of unions and socialism in politics and industry in the Western World would ultimately be so successful in redressing many of the most obvious and gross inequalities he observed in his own era.

I would say that social democracy, the grand compromise between capital and the workers' movement, has not actually been "ultimately successful" because we are today seeing how public systems are being rolled back. Many advances were made, that is true, but they could only exist for as long as socialism was a genuine threat to capital in the West. Once the driving force behind public systems was gone the field was wide open for capital to act unopposed.

 dogma wrote:

So, barbarism? A society that inevitably led to people forming groups, and therefore politics of differing sorts, and manipulating the system into one which eventually became capitalistic?

It's always funny to encounter someone who embraces "socialism or barbarism" from the other end.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. A Objectionist vs. subjectionist?

No, objectivist. The philosophy espoused by Ayn Rand and adored by a lot of American libertarians., in spite of all its glaring problems.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Okay, so who's subjectivity will be the arbiter in this Utopian society you paint?

I would argue that utopia is impossible, it is right there in the name after all. I would also argue that there always exists means to improve society. Sometimes that means less government regulation, sometimes that means more; it all varies according to a large number specific factors.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. B Please don't deflect from the point I'm making. Your idea of socialism puts the government in the business of dictating winners and losers in the market. That is not, and never has been, government's job. The social safety net prescribed in many Capitalist works does not interfere or compete in the market dynamics. Learn the immense difference, please.

Social safety nets interfere with the market, pretty much by necessity. Indeed the very existence of government interferes with the market, pretty much by necessity. All I'm arguing is that we should recognize this fact instead of ideologically hand-waving it.

Honestly you just seem to be hung up on the term "socialism", as if calling a spade a spade altered its nature.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. C(not Twinkie C, the other C) Barbarism is actually your response?

That is pretty much Hobbes' state of nature, the absence of society. Even he recognized it wasn't sustainable, as societies definitely existed when he was writing, and many philosophers since then have agreed. Some have even argued that the state of nature requires society, which obviously leads to government of some sort.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

It's not a myth, it's a sound, well developed theory that gets mucked when politicians decide to overstep the position of government.

You brought up Milton Friedman. Even he didn't believe a perfect free market was possible. No one who has seriously thought about economics, society, politics, history, or a host of other subjects believe that.

It's not a myth, it's a sound, well developed theory that gets mucked when politicians decide to overstep the position of government.

Who elaborated this theory, and how do they address the innate tendency of power to collude with power? Most people would heavily credit Adam Smith as a the foremost developer of Capitalist theory, and he wasn't as foolish to make such an argument. Also;

subsidies, punitive import taxes, protectionism is the poison that government too easily succumbs to introducing to the market.

These are all things Adam Smith argued for as being necessary in capitalist economies btw.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Milton+Friedman+Pencil&&view=detail&mid=29EA2AD34D6D111BB4E529EA2AD34D6D111BB4E5&FORM=VRDGAR

And Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said "he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work." Given that Friedman didn't win a Nobel for his work in "Free Markets" but rather for his work on consumption and monetary history (probably helped along by his advocation against conscription in the middle of the Vietnam War, the Nobel committees love that stuff peace loving hippies that they are ). " Your video mentions the phrase free market once, with no explanation of it given, then proceeds to rephrase in clever analogy Adam Smith's work on self-interest. It's neither enlightening, nor does it support your claim that the market can magically exist independent of the state. It actually doesn't address the issue at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
I would say that social democracy, the grand compromise between capital and the workers' movement, has not actually been "ultimately successful" because we are today seeing how public systems are being rolled back.

I don't mean to say it was ultimately successful period. I merely mean that in the end, social democracy and unions had a lot of success in advancing the needs of the Proletariat in the Progressive era and on wards. Their success cut the feet out from under the factors that Marx though would cause the mass revolution. I suppose hypothetically, it could still happen (highly skeptical).

Evidently there is no competitive market as the Fed government won't permit other entities to sell a similar product. If you have a government monopoly you can set the price. Thanks Obama.

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently there is no competitive market as the Fed government won't permit other entities to sell a similar product. If you have a government monopoly you can set the price. Thanks Obama.

More like "thanks IP law", and the widespread acceptance of its abuse.

Pure free market systems don't work. Attempts to put them in place just leads to untold suffering unless you were lucky enough to be one of the few that triumph (and it is mostly luck involved).

Putting in safety nets makes it not a free market anymore. Safety nets change the demand curve and involve the government choosing winners and losers to an extent. A pure free market leads to monopolies eventually without goverent intervervention. In this case the government helps 'choose' winners and losers by virtue of what grounds they decide to intervene to prevent monopolies.

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently there is no competitive market as the Fed government won't permit other entities to sell a similar product. If you have a government monopoly you can set the price. Thanks Obama.

There isn't a government sanctioned monopoly on Epipens, just a nearly de facto one.

The FDA settled with Mylan to allow generics nearly 2 years ago. Every very similar competitor so far has dropped the ball somehow - one didn't do enough research before release and was rejected by the FDA, and another got recalled. Even despite that, you can right now get Adrenaclick for about $70 a dose, or if you want to do a little more work, you can get a prescription for epinephrine and just fill a syringe with it for a few bucks per dose.

However, if you want to shift the argument over to Obama dropping the public option - I'd be right there with you.

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. A Objectionist vs. subjectionist?

No, objectivist. The philosophy espoused by Ayn Rand and adored by a lot of American libertarians., in spite of all its glaring problems.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Okay, so who's subjectivity will be the arbiter in this Utopian society you paint?

I would argue that utopia is impossible, it is right there in the name after all. I would also argue that there always exists means to improve society. Sometimes that means less government regulation, sometimes that means more; it all varies according to a large number specific factors.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. B Please don't deflect from the point I'm making. Your idea of socialism puts the government in the business of dictating winners and losers in the market. That is not, and never has been, government's job. The social safety net prescribed in many Capitalist works does not interfere or compete in the market dynamics. Learn the immense difference, please.

Social safety nets interfere with the market, pretty much by necessity. Indeed the very existence of government interferes with the market, pretty much by necessity. All I'm arguing is that we should recognize this fact instead of ideologically hand-waving it.

Honestly you just seem to be hung up on the term "socialism", as if calling a spade a spade altered its nature.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Pt. C(not Twinkie C, the other C) Barbarism is actually your response?

That is pretty much Hobbes' state of nature, the absence of society. Even he recognized it wasn't sustainable, as societies definitely existed when he was writing, and many philosophers since then have agreed. Some have even argued that the state of nature requires society, which obviously leads to government of some sort.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

It's not a myth, it's a sound, well developed theory that gets mucked when politicians decide to overstep the position of government.

You brought up Milton Friedman. Even he didn't believe a perfect free market was possible. No one who has seriously thought about economics, society, politics, history, or a host of other subjects believe that.

Ah, my bad. So, where did I interject objectivism? I've stated there's a place for intelligent regulation as a check on abuse. I've stated the necessity of a non-obstructionist social safety net that doesn't interfere with or compete with the market is part of Capitalism. Doesn't sound laissez-faire to me? So what is your point here?
You keep dancing away from the essence of this argument relative to the thread.
You once again respond to my challenge, at the core of this argument and immediately relative to this thread. That the free market with price discovery is superior to a government manipulated one. There is no defense of the interjection of a governmental overlord who would, what, step in when prices are out of control? By what standards? By what relative marker? You've defended introducing a subjective, prejudiced, biased yardstick to what prices are/should be and in so doing, have created perceived relief to one segment at the expense of another. What arrogance! When I pressed you on this early on, with regards to your belief that the SF real estate is unfair and needs addressing, i.e. government regulation and how that would then relieve one perceived unfair situation(perceived unaffordability) with the creation of another(governmental price control which would punish land owners), you incredulously said that well, the land owners could probably handle it. You're in education, right? How about we slash your salary because kids in the projects have a hard time trying to afford higher education? We'll just get the government to underwrite a big check to get everyone access to online programs that don't require all those "expensive" tenured professors and the overhead associated with a full blown campus.
Not hung up on the term socialism, but you confuse, repeatedly, social safety nets which can function outside of the free market with your prescribed government overstep into an area that is outside government's mandate with some perceived need to pick winners and losers.
And yes, MF always noted the disparity of theory vs. what happens when the rubber hits the road. But the rounding of the edges to the free market due to political/social factors was almost always noted as the wrong path, supported by studies time and again. The absolute FM doesn't exist in the world, nothing absolute does except the deliciousness of Pistachio Ice Cream, but the need to strive towards it and adhere to it's essence is absolutely necessary and should not be compromised for political convenience.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

It's not a myth, it's a sound, well developed theory that gets mucked when politicians decide to overstep the position of government.

Who elaborated this theory, and how do they address the innate tendency of power to collude with power? Most people would heavily credit Adam Smith as a the foremost developer of Capitalist theory, and he wasn't as foolish to make such an argument. Also;

subsidies, punitive import taxes, protectionism is the poison that government too easily succumbs to introducing to the market.

These are all things Adam Smith argued for as being necessary in capitalist economies btw.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Milton+Friedman+Pencil&&view=detail&mid=29EA2AD34D6D111BB4E529EA2AD34D6D111BB4E5&FORM=VRDGAR

And Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said "he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work." Given that Friedman didn't win a Nobel for his work in "Free Markets" but rather for his work on consumption and monetary history (probably helped along by his advocation against conscription in the middle of the Vietnam War, the Nobel committees love that stuff peace loving hippies that they are ). " Your video mentions the phrase free market once, with no explanation of it given, then proceeds to rephrase in clever analogy Adam Smith's work on self-interest. It's neither enlightening, nor does it support your claim that the market can magically exist independent of the state. It actually doesn't address the issue at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
I would say that social democracy, the grand compromise between capital and the workers' movement, has not actually been "ultimately successful" because we are today seeing how public systems are being rolled back.

I don't mean to say it was ultimately successful period. I merely mean that in the end, social democracy and unions had a lot of success in advancing the needs of the Proletariat in the Progressive era and on wards. Their success cut the feet out from under the factors that Marx though would cause the mass revolution. I suppose hypothetically, it could still happen (highly skeptical).

The video was of a discussion on Price System, I thought it went without saying that PS operates most effectively in a free market environment.

I hate to be smug about it but there has been some misuse of the term "socialist" here.

Some seem to think that the government doing stuff in the economy is "Socialism" which is frankly absurd, I mean was the the oligarchical and slave-owning Roman Empire socialist because the government built roads and aqueducts? This also overlooks that capitalism has been dependent on the government ever since its inception and cant function without a government.

Socialism is when the means of production is owned by the workers, think of it as democracy in the workplace. Welfare states, handouts and minimum wage laws has nothing to do with socialism but are rather attempts to make capitalism more bearable for the common people.

As soon as you have a safety net or the government preventing 'abuse' it is no longer a pure Free Market system.

Any safety net shifts the demand curve and lets the government pick winners and losers.

Same with the government preventing 'abuse'. What is defined as 'abuse' is the very example of picking winners and losers.

Don't call it a Free Market system when it isn't one.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Ah, my bad. So, where did I interject objectivism? I've stated there's a place for intelligent regulation as a check on abuse. I've stated the necessity of a non-obstructionist social safety net that doesn't interfere with or compete with the market is part of Capitalism. Doesn't sound laissez-faire to me? So what is your point here?

Literally everything you're saying is party-line objectivism, including the point you just reiterated about a social safety net that is fundamentally impossible. Objectivists are generally just fine with socialist policies so long as they aren't called socialist, and are implemented in a way which is necessarily impossible. Often they know full-well that such policies are impossible, and are using their "advocacy" as a means to dupe others into believing their overall position is reasonable.

In essence they would get into power, vaguely try to implement an impossible socialist policy, throw their hands up and say what they want to do is impossible, then carry on about their main argument of "socialism is evil" while citing their own failure as evidence.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
There is no defense of the interjection of a governmental overlord who would, what, step in when prices are out of control? By what standards? By what relative marker?

The ability of people to pay for medication that is necessary for them to live, and, more broadly, their ability to access basic necessities. Those are pretty basic tenets of a social safety net, something you seemingly advocate.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You've defended introducing a subjective, prejudiced, biased yardstick to what prices are/should be and in so doing, have created perceived relief to one segment at the expense of another.

No, I argued that all measures relevant to the matter at hand are biased, and that what we should be concerned about is how they're biased.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

When I pressed you on this early on, with regards to your belief that the SF real estate is unfair and needs addressing, i.e. government regulation and how that would then relieve one perceived unfair situation(perceived unaffordability) with the creation of another(governmental price control which would punish land owners), you incredulously said that well, the land owners could probably handle it.

They likely could and, if not, they could sell the building to someone with the ability to deal with the costs associated with owning a rental property. At any rate they would almost certainly be more able than the people that are renting from them.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You're in education, right? How about we slash your salary because kids in the projects have a hard time trying to afford higher education?

I was a TA for awhile, but currently I'm a partner in a non-partisan political consultancy who moonlights as a personal trainer and NPO consultant. When I was a TA I was making ~30k USD (though technically I was also a lecturer) plus insurance benefits, free tuition, free board, and school (read: government) subsidized rent. I was doing pretty good, a lot better than any of the undergrads I was teaching who were relying on a mixture Federal loans and school (again, read: government) grants. If the government had back on any of my benefits, because ultimately that's who was paying me, in order to give better benefits to some of those kids I likely would have been fine with it.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

We'll just get the government to underwrite a big check to get everyone access to online programs that don't require all those "expensive" tenured professors and the overhead associated with a full blown campus.

It already does that by way of student loans and school grants. There are plenty of State funded schools where you can get your entire degree without ever setting foot on campus. Hell, I got my MA at Eastern Illinois while living in Chicago (that's a ~3 hour one way drive); I set foot on campus less than 10 times.

But, really, that's an entirely separate thread.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
...but the need to strive towards it and adhere to it's essence is absolutely necessary and should not be compromised for political convenience.

Right, it's "essence". Another thing objectivists are fond of saying. It's like a religious mantra.

Rosebuddy wrote:
The United States powered through WW2 on the back of a command economy.

Competition is inherently inefficient because you'll end up with losers having wasted resources and will have spent a lot of time to get to this point. It's needless effort.

Yes, there is waste in competition. But to compare and contrast the progress of the US economy post WWII with the Soviet economy post WWII and conclude anything other than an obvious win for capitalism is trade in deluded fantasy.

This doesn't mean unfettered capitalism is answer to all our problems, of course, but there is a reason that the reality based community has chosen capitalism tempered by government as their starting point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Trial-and-error and competition aren't the same thing, though. You don't need multiple companies working to outlast eachother in order to know what product or service is necessary to fill a need. New products are developed in order to create new markets, not to better fill needs. We get new models of smartphones and cars every year to push their predecessors onto the trash heap despite both of them being of limited necessity, while millions live with food insecurity despite the enormous amounts of food being produced. How's that for innovation? Hah!

Soviet Russia had a poverty rate of 20%. Throughout their postwar history it was shown to be about a third higher than the US at any stage, despite having a much lower threshold for poverty.

The 20th century, the century of managed capitalism, has produced the greatest reduction in poverty in human history.

You are quite simply completely and utterly wrong. Move on. Pick a new cause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
The answer, as is with almost everything in life, lies not at either end but somewhere in the middle.

What we have now, capitalist economies with redistribution and a social safety net, is the middle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think you'll be able to put forth a compelling argument that a Command Economy is incapable of feeding the masses. All you have to do is organize the economy to do so. The mass starvation in countries historically with such economy set ups wasn't because a Command Economy innately can't do it, but rather because extant examples purposefully chose to not care (or even set out to cause starvation as a way of reducing the population).

The general reason a Command Economy is bad is because there's enough corruption between business and government when they're distinct entities (money, money, MONEY!), and it just goes up to 1,000,000 when they're the same thing. It's one thing to have a state regulate businesses, and another to have the state own them. It is yet another thing to have the State basically own shares in everything to the point it owns the economy.

You're argument is basically that Command Economies can provide for everyone, but because of politics they won't. That's pretty much the same thing.

I can shoot 1,000 three pointers in a row, but because I'm not particularly talented and have never played basketball, I won't.

 dogma wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Ah, my bad. So, where did I interject objectivism? I've stated there's a place for intelligent regulation as a check on abuse. I've stated the necessity of a non-obstructionist social safety net that doesn't interfere with or compete with the market is part of Capitalism. Doesn't sound laissez-faire to me? So what is your point here?

Literally everything you're saying is party-line objectivism, including the point you just reiterated about a social safety net that is fundamentally impossible. Objectivists are generally just fine with socialist policies so long as they aren't called socialist, and are implemented in a way which is necessarily impossible. Often they know full-well that such policies are impossible, and are using their "advocacy" as a means to dupe others into believing their overall position is reasonable.

In essence they would get into power, vaguely try to implement an impossible socialist policy, throw their hands up and say what they want to do is impossible, then carry on about their main argument of "socialism is evil" while citing their own failure as evidence.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
There is no defense of the interjection of a governmental overlord who would, what, step in when prices are out of control? By what standards? By what relative marker?

The ability of people to pay for medication that is necessary for them to live, and, more broadly, their ability to access basic necessities. Those are pretty basic tenets of a social safety net, something you seemingly advocate.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You've defended introducing a subjective, prejudiced, biased yardstick to what prices are/should be and in so doing, have created perceived relief to one segment at the expense of another.

No, I argued that all measures relevant to the matter at hand are biased, and that what we should be concerned about is how they're biased.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

When I pressed you on this early on, with regards to your belief that the SF real estate is unfair and needs addressing, i.e. government regulation and how that would then relieve one perceived unfair situation(perceived unaffordability) with the creation of another(governmental price control which would punish land owners), you incredulously said that well, the land owners could probably handle it.

They likely could and, if not, they could sell the building to someone with the ability to deal with the costs associated with owning a rental property. At any rate they would almost certainly be more able than the people that are renting from them.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

You're in education, right? How about we slash your salary because kids in the projects have a hard time trying to afford higher education?

I was a TA for awhile, but currently I'm a partner in a non-partisan political consultancy who moonlights as a personal trainer and NPO consultant. When I was a TA I was making ~30k USD (though technically I was also a lecturer) plus insurance benefits, free tuition, free board, and school (read: government) subsidized rent. I was doing pretty good, a lot better than any of the undergrads I was teaching who were relying on a mixture Federal loans and school (again, read: government) grants. If the government had back on any of my benefits, because ultimately that's who was paying me, in order to give better benefits to some of those kids I likely would have been fine with it.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

We'll just get the government to underwrite a big check to get everyone access to online programs that don't require all those "expensive" tenured professors and the overhead associated with a full blown campus.

It already does that by way of student loans and school grants. There are plenty of State funded schools where you can get your entire degree without ever setting foot on campus. Hell, I got my MA at Eastern Illinois while living in Chicago (that's a ~3 hour one way drive); I set foot on campus less than 10 times.

But, really, that's an entirely separate thread.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
...but the need to strive towards it and adhere to it's essence is absolutely necessary and should not be compromised for political convenience.

Right, it's "essence". Another thing objectivists are fond of saying. It's like a religious mantra.

"I was a TA for awhile, but currently I'm a partner in a non-partisan political consultancy who moonlights as a personal trainer and NPO consultant. When I was a TA I was making ~30k USD (though technically I was also a lecturer) plus insurance benefits, free tuition, free board, and school (read: government) subsidized rent. I was doing pretty good, a lot better than any of the undergrads I was teaching who were relying on a mixture Federal loans and school (again, read: government) grants. If the government had back on any of my benefits, because ultimately that's who was paying me, in order to give better benefits to some of those kids I likely would have been fine with it."

There we have it! I knew it had to be there j-u-s-t beneath the surface of the debate. Let's replay my favorite part of that gem. "If the government had back on any of my benefits, because ultimately that's who was paying me, in order to give better benefits to some of those kids I likely would have been fine with it."

But of course you would have been "fine with it"! It wasn't your money paying for it now, was it! Free insurance, free tuition, free board, subsidized rent...you had no skin in the game! You're attempting to debate the merits of a free market when you're the product of an environment that is the antithesis of it! Where, btw, do you suppose the money for all that "free" came from? Hmmm, had to be generated somehow. Oh, yeah, someone else's pocket. No wonder you're so comfortable about government raiding those pockets when there's a subjectively perceived imbalance.

Sorry, man, but methinks too much dining at the subsidized trough has left you without much objectivity or practical experience for this debate. This has been a lot of fun and I've meant absolutely no offense, if I've come off that way my apologies, but this bit seals it for me.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The video was of a discussion on Price System, I thought it went without saying that PS operates most effectively in a free market environment.

I don't think anyone has debated the nature of the price system thus far. They've debated that a free market can exist devoid of outside influence, and your video doesn't remotely address the subject.

 LordofHats wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The video was of a discussion on Price System, I thought it went without saying that PS operates most effectively in a free market environment.

I don't think anyone has debated the nature of the price system thus far. They've debated that a free market can exist devoid of outside influence, and your video doesn't remotely address the subject.

Then you're looking at a different video.

 LordofHats wrote:
And that still doesn't address the base point that nothing really prevents a command economy from feeding people.

Poverty and starvation existed in the Soviet Union long after Stalin. Seriously, by the collapse of the Soviet Union the poverty rate was still north of 20%.

It wasn't down simply to decisions to starve people, but due to the basic inefficiencies of the command economy. Think of it this way - here in the West today we still do a pretty crappy job of spreading around the welfare bucket to make sure everyone gets enough. But because of the wealth created by the much healthier economy there is simply a much bigger bucket to throw around - so even when the money isn't allocated ideally, the sheer size of the money being thrown around means most of the inefficiencies are overwhelmed by the size of the bucket.

But a planned economy has all the same political imperfections, but because the economy itself operates so much more poorly there is a much smaller bucket to allocate.

To put it another way, the current Russian economy is worth $1.1 trillion. The total welfare budget in the US, govt healthcare, social security, all that stuff, is $2.1 trillion. The socialist part of the US economy is about twice the size of the total Russian economy.

I know that the current Russian economy isn't a control economy anymore, it's more a kleptocracy, but it is what it is today because of seven decades of socialist control.

 sebster wrote:
I can shoot 1,000 three pointers in a row, but because I'm not particularly talented and have never played basketball, I won't.

Surely you are able to distinguish between the limitations of a specific basketball player, and the constraints of the game of basketball.

I would consider it important to consider the distinction between what a system allows (both as probability and possibility), and what a specific iteration outputs. I'm not proposing that command economy might work. I'm proposing the distinction between the failings of command economy as a conception and the specific ones that came into being. Especially in the murkey case of starvation in Communist/Marxist states, almost all of which were suffering starvation anyway, and for whom the issue of starvation has a number of exigent circumstances. Was it that they were command economies, or that they were developing economies? Starvation and famine are so common place in developing economies as to be a norm.

Poverty and starvation existed in the Soviet Union long after Stalin.

It's not like things were fine, then communism, then starvation. Between 1900 and 1922 Russia endured 5 separate famines within its borders. China endured 3 between 1922 and 1942. Going further back into the 19th century there were even more famines. So was it Command Economy that ushered in the problem, worsened the problem, prevented solutions, or would it have happened anyway regardless because economic considerations are not the sole cause of famine? I think arguments can be put forward for all four (with multiple choice variations). Even were we to concluded that communism was the foremost cause, was it because of the economic limitations of command economy as suggest in thread, or because political considerations prioritized saving face, killing people the ruling elite didn't like or care about, or because someone was making a lot of money off grain exports?

My argument is nothing more than "it's not that simple," and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking it is for the sake of our own ideological convenience.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Then you're looking at a different video.

Then link to the right one?

Or will you just presume that anyone who disagrees with you must be living off the government dime and declare them incapable of meeting your objective standard? Maybe say you mean no offense while proceeding to be offensive? That is a classic move. Very high brow, and quite novel.

 Manchu wrote:
@LoH - Not quite; the debate is more like, does history matter or not? No doubt the barrel of a command economy can be aimed at whatever target and as long as [ahistorical assumptions] it will work out fine. The part in brackets is what spurs me to ask, so what? It strikes me that you leave out the "and where are they now" part of your description of the USSR and why, supposedly, avoidance of mass starvation was in fact perfectly possible.

It's definitely true that a command economy can pick any issue and just hammer that thing until it goes away. That is a sense is the problem - you end up with an economy focused around a series of nation building projects. The Soviets made great strides in rocketry and space exploration because that's where they believed the future was. So did the American government for that matter.

While everyone was staring at space however, the real revolution was happening in computing tech. There was government support, but it was mostly driven by the private sector.

That's why command economies fall behind and capitalist economies grow. Because innovation by its very nature comes from unexpected places.

The final twist in the tail is that now that all our attention is focused back on Earth, a bunch of entrepreneurs have started making great new strides in reducing the cost of space travel.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Capitalism doesn't create wealth, labour does. Capitalism merely concentrates it into the hands of the ruling class.

200,000 years of humans providing labour. 300 years of capitalism organising that labour, which just happen to be the 300 years with the greatest growth in the size of capital. Coincidence!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I posted a link to a speech given by Economics Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman earlier, please take a look.

If you want to talk about history as the final judge, you should be aware that history has not been kind to Mr Friedman. I mean, if you want to go through his big ideas...

Permanent Income Hypothesis - was always a contrivance, was accepted for political reasons, and is now utterly discredited by behavioural economic research.
Money growth targeting - was attempted and proven to utterly disastrous in the control of inflation. It is a less famous disaster than the Phillips curve only because it was more obviously disastrous and therefore abandoned much sooner.
Quantity theory of Money - is pretty solid, as long as we look long term enough. One theory has held up.
Friedman Rule - A total failure, it is incredible that anyone would have ever taken our current low interest, low inflation, low growth world and talk about it as a desired position. Incredibly stupid. As a sidenote could there be any field but economics where one of its most famous thinkers has two famous rules that are in direct contradiction with each other?
Adaptive Expectations - Not so much rejected as simply abandoned. Even the Freidmanites don't bother including it in their models anymore.
Utility Function - Is actually really solid, works as both a micro-foundation and as an observational piece of economics.
Rejection of Fiscal Stabilisation - I left this until last because it is the biggest, wrongest of them all. I get there was a time when people might have ideologically fallen for a dream that government could have no part in fixing an economy, but even if we look at this with a case of trying to make it true it was always extremely weak. The subsequent example of Japan trying to fix its protracted slump with monetary policy alone clearly proved how wrong the theory was, but did it ever even need that?

So that's 2/7, with one big idea and one very small idea holding up. For the record, that's worse than Marx.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
And Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said "he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work." Given that Friedman didn't win a Nobel for his work in "Free Markets" but rather for his work on consumption and monetary history

Sort of but not really. Friedman's work is primarily in consumption and monetary policy... but the point was to use his observations in those fields to argue against government involvement. As an example, his big idea in consumption was that people averaged out their expected income over their lives, so if a person got a windfall of $1,000 today he is going to spread that out and spend it over time. The argument here was entirely political - he was arguing against the benefit of 'helicopter money' to boost an economy in an acute recession. He was making this argument because he was a fierce advocate for the free market.

His idea above was wrong, of course. Its obviously wrong, just by observation, that people's spending tends to be short to medium term consistent, even as incomes and savings fluctuate. And that people burn through windfalls like lottery winnings and inheritances and don't actually balance those incomes over their lives. Behavioural economics has done the work in the last decade to establish that Friedman was totally wrong... but they shouldn't have had to. It remains a testament to the dishonesty of the freshwater school that such a silly idea was ever argued for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Surely you are able to distinguish between the limitations of a specific basketball player, and the constraints of the game of basketball.

Of course, but it's utterly irrelevant to the analogy. Just because something can happen, it doesn't mean we should treat it with anything but the remotest chance of actually happening. That's true both of individuals shooting baskets, and institutions managing economies.

I would consider it important to consider the distinction between what a system allows (both as probability and possibility), and what a specific iteration outputs. I'm not proposing that command economy might work. I'm proposing the distinction between the failings of command economy as a conception and the specific ones that came into being.

I find it problematic to find some kind of hypothetical, possible kind of command economy that is different from every single command economy ever put in to place.

It's not like things were fine, then communism, then starvation. Between 1900 and 1922 Russia endured 5 separate famines within its borders. China endured 3 between 1922 and 1942. Going further back into the 19th century there were even more famines. So was it Command Economy that ushered in the problem, worsened the problem, prevented solutions, or would it have happened anyway regardless because economic considerations are not the sole cause of famine?

I think it's more that human history has had famine, starvation and suffering. The feudal economies of Russia and China weren't unique in that regard. And in failing to stop famine and starvation the Soviet Union and PRC weren't unique either. In that sense communism wasn't so much a cause, as it was a failed solution to an existing problem,

Where communism gets judged more harshly is that it happened to be applied at the same time that an actual working solution was in place. The poverty that had existed for all of European history has reduced to a fraction of its former size, and this has come through the wealth creation of capitalism.

[quote[I think arguments can be put forward for all four (with multiple choice variations). Even were we to concluded that communism was the foremost cause, was it because of the economic limitations of command economy as suggest in thread, or because political considerations prioritized saving face, killing people the ruling elite didn't like or care about, or because someone was making a lot of money off grain exports?

My argument is nothing more than "it's not that simple," and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking it is for the sake of our own ideological convenience.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Evidently there is no competitive market as the Fed government won't permit other entities to sell a similar product. If you have a government monopoly you can set the price. Thanks Obama.

There isn't a government sanctioned monopoly on Epipens, just a nearly de facto one.

The FDA settled with Mylan to allow generics nearly 2 years ago. Every very similar competitor so far has dropped the ball somehow - one didn't do enough research before release and was rejected by the FDA, and another got recalled. Even despite that, you can right now get Adrenaclick for about $70 a dose, or if you want to do a little more work, you can get a prescription for epinephrine and just fill a syringe with it for a few bucks per dose.

However, if you want to shift the argument over to Obama dropping the public option - I'd be right there with you.

The FDA sets the conditions of the testing. Its a defacto monopoly. You have to love government monopolies and crony capitalism.
yes the price increases suck and are unconscionable. Thats what happens when there are no competitors.

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I can shoot 1,000 three pointers in a row, but because I'm not particularly talented and have never played basketball, I won't.

Surely you are able to distinguish between the limitations of a specific basketball player, and the constraints of the game of basketball.

I would consider it important to consider the distinction between what a system allows (both as probability and possibility), and what a specific iteration outputs. I'm not proposing that command economy might work. I'm proposing the distinction between the failings of command economy as a conception and the specific ones that came into being. Especially in the murkey case of starvation in Communist/Marxist states, almost all of which were suffering starvation anyway, and for whom the issue of starvation has a number of exigent circumstances. Was it that they were command economies, or that they were developing economies? Starvation and famine are so common place in developing economies as to be a norm.

Poverty and starvation existed in the Soviet Union long after Stalin.

It's not like things were fine, then communism, then starvation. Between 1900 and 1922 Russia endured 5 separate famines within its borders. China endured 3 between 1922 and 1942. Going further back into the 19th century there were even more famines. So was it Command Economy that ushered in the problem, worsened the problem, prevented solutions, or would it have happened anyway regardless because economic considerations are not the sole cause of famine? I think arguments can be put forward for all four (with multiple choice variations). Even were we to concluded that communism was the foremost cause, was it because of the economic limitations of command economy as suggest in thread, or because political considerations prioritized saving face, killing people the ruling elite didn't like or care about, or because someone was making a lot of money off grain exports?

My argument is nothing more than "it's not that simple," and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking it is for the sake of our own ideological convenience.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Then you're looking at a different video.

Then link to the right one?

Or will you just presume that anyone who disagrees with you must be living off the government dime and declare them incapable of meeting your objective standard? Maybe say you mean no offense while proceeding to be offensive? That is a classic move. Very high brow, and quite novel.

Actually I presumed that someone understands a video discussing and presenting an example of the dynamics of a free market doesn't have to actually say those words a set number of times to be relevant and make a point, but could rather present a very simple and clear example of the subject for review. Next time I'll send you over a link with with the words "free market" said at least 3 or 4 times, would that suffice?
As to my comments to another member, they were sincere and in reference to a very spirited debate we've had running for a while and not knowing him personally, I don't know how he had taken said comments, considering the main weakness of any means of electronic discussion being that intent and tone can often be misconstrued. Very "high brow" of you to insult me for offering a genuine sentiment to another member.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@LoH - Not quite; the debate is more like, does history matter or not? No doubt the barrel of a command economy can be aimed at whatever target and as long as [ahistorical assumptions] it will work out fine. The part in brackets is what spurs me to ask, so what? It strikes me that you leave out the "and where are they now" part of your description of the USSR and why, supposedly, avoidance of mass starvation was in fact perfectly possible.

It's definitely true that a command economy can pick any issue and just hammer that thing until it goes away. That is a sense is the problem - you end up with an economy focused around a series of nation building projects. The Soviets made great strides in rocketry and space exploration because that's where they believed the future was. So did the American government for that matter.

While everyone was staring at space however, the real revolution was happening in computing tech. There was government support, but it was mostly driven by the private sector.

That's why command economies fall behind and capitalist economies grow. Because innovation by its very nature comes from unexpected places.

The final twist in the tail is that now that all our attention is focused back on Earth, a bunch of entrepreneurs have started making great new strides in reducing the cost of space travel.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Capitalism doesn't create wealth, labour does. Capitalism merely concentrates it into the hands of the ruling class.

200,000 years of humans providing labour. 300 years of capitalism organising that labour, which just happen to be the 300 years with the greatest growth in the size of capital. Coincidence!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
I posted a link to a speech given by Economics Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman earlier, please take a look.

If you want to talk about history as the final judge, you should be aware that history has not been kind to Mr Friedman. I mean, if you want to go through his big ideas...

Permanent Income Hypothesis - was always a contrivance, was accepted for political reasons, and is now utterly discredited by behavioural economic research.
Money growth targeting - was attempted and proven to utterly disastrous in the control of inflation. It is a less famous disaster than the Phillips curve only because it was more obviously disastrous and therefore abandoned much sooner.
Quantity theory of Money - is pretty solid, as long as we look long term enough. One theory has held up.
Friedman Rule - A total failure, it is incredible that anyone would have ever taken our current low interest, low inflation, low growth world and talk about it as a desired position. Incredibly stupid. As a sidenote could there be any field but economics where one of its most famous thinkers has two famous rules that are in direct contradiction with each other?
Adaptive Expectations - Not so much rejected as simply abandoned. Even the Freidmanites don't bother including it in their models anymore.
Utility Function - Is actually really solid, works as both a micro-foundation and as an observational piece of economics.
Rejection of Fiscal Stabilisation - I left this until last because it is the biggest, wrongest of them all. I get there was a time when people might have ideologically fallen for a dream that government could have no part in fixing an economy, but even if we look at this with a case of trying to make it true it was always extremely weak. The subsequent example of Japan trying to fix its protracted slump with monetary policy alone clearly proved how wrong the theory was, but did it ever even need that?

So that's 2/7, with one big idea and one very small idea holding up. For the record, that's worse than Marx.


.

The link was not a blanket endorsement or detraction of Milton Friedman's cataglogue of work, but was posted because the video was just an extraordinarily simple, yet concise presentation of the free market dynamics inherent superiority. It's nothing more.

 skyth wrote:
As soon as you have a safety net or the government preventing 'abuse' it is no longer a pure Free Market system.

Any safety net shifts the demand curve and lets the government pick winners and losers.

Same with the government preventing 'abuse'. What is defined as 'abuse' is the very example of picking winners and losers.

Don't call it a Free Market system when it isn't one.

Thats because there is no such thing as a "pure free market system", All markets are artificially constructed and have constraints on how, where and when you can act in them.

Going back to the original topic of EpiPens and the price gouging, I heard on the radio this morning that the company announced they'll start selling a generic version that will be $300 for a two-pack. They'll still sell the branded, expensive version too. So, can't wait to see how hard it will be for pharmacies to stock the generic, but easy to get the branded.

 sebster wrote:

To put it another way, the current Russian economy is worth $1.1 trillion. The total welfare budget in the US, govt healthcare, social security, all that stuff, is $2.1 trillion. The socialist part of the US economy is about twice the size of the total Russian economy.

Exhibit A why we love seb's post.

Also, to swing this thread back to the topic a bit, Mylan to offer GENERIC Epipen at Half Price.

Public outcry, for once, actually fething worked.

But, let's not congratulate ourselves yet... the underlining framework that allowed this issue in the first place is still a problem. Namely the IP laws, massive FDA regulation and other onerous protectionist practices.

EDIT: dammit, ninja'ed by Tanner

 whembly wrote:
Also, to swing this thread back to the topic a bit, Mylan to offer GENERIC Epipen at Half Price.

Public outcry, for once, actually fething worked.

That was listed earlier actually. Cutting the price in half after raising the price several hundred percent isn't much of a victory. If something was $10 and you raised the price to $600 and people got upset (and more importantly you lost the company three billion in investments) so you cut the price to $300 you still aren't near $10.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Also, to swing this thread back to the topic a bit, Mylan to offer GENERIC Epipen at Half Price.

Public outcry, for once, actually fething worked.

That was listed earlier actually. Cutting the price in half after raising the price several hundred percent isn't much of a victory. If something was $10 and you raised the price to $600 and people got upset (and more importantly you lost the company three billion in investments) so you cut the price to $300 you still aren't near $10.

The big deal here is that they're offering a GENERIC.

That pulls in more coverage/subsidies such that the consumers won't pay as much. It's MUUUUUUUUCH easier to get a GENERIC medication on your prescription coverage's formulary (meaning, it'd just be your co-pay).

 whembly wrote:
It's MUUUUUUUUCH easier to get a GENERIC medication on your prescription coverage's formulary (meaning, it'd just be your co-pay).

Well, let's see how easier it will really be to get these generics. I would not be surprised if they produced the generic in much more limited numbers.

Something that still boggles my mind. Are these things completely mechanical, as on, no electronic components? If so, there's no way they can cost as much to make as a smartphone or video game console (and those things have massive r&d and marketing costs, too). Charging such a high price really is nothing but monopolistic greed.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's MUUUUUUUUCH easier to get a GENERIC medication on your prescription coverage's formulary (meaning, it'd just be your co-pay).

Well, let's see how easier it will really be to get these generics. I would not be surprised if they produced the generic in much more limited numbers.

Something that still boggles my mind. Are these things completely mechanical, as on, no electronic components? If so, there's no way they can cost as much to make as a smartphone or video game console (and those things have massive r&d and marketing costs, too). Charging such a high price really is nothing but monopolistic greed.

Don't dismiss the mechanical engineering with these epipens.

It has to deliver the expressed dose every time. Some of the other competitors couldn't pass the FDA test in this regards.

However, you're right in the sense that availability can be an issue. (it still is with insulins and vaccines)

There's still shortages of NARCAN (opiate antidote) that is hurting many ED depts in the states...

 BigWaaagh wrote:

There we have it! I knew it had to be there j-u-s-t beneath the surface of the debate. Let's replay my favorite part of that gem. "If the government had back on any of my benefits, because ultimately that's who was paying me, in order to give better benefits to some of those kids I likely would have been fine with it."

But of course you would have been "fine with it"! It wasn't your money paying for it now, was it! Free insurance, free tuition, free board, subsidized rent...you had no skin in the game! You're attempting to debate the merits of a free market when you're the product of an environment that is the antithesis of it! Where, btw, do you suppose the money for all that "free" came from? Hmmm, had to be generated somehow. Oh, yeah, someone else's pocket. No wonder you're so comfortable about government raiding those pockets when there's a subjectively perceived imbalance.

How is job-related benefits "out of someone else's pocket" ? Schools often offer a food and board incentives package to staff as they already have these programs in place for students so it's trivial to offer them to staff as well.

When I worked at a hotel in my younger days two additional perks were staff could eat free (as the hotel was already producing massive quantities of food anyway) and half price stays in properties across the country.

What is the functional difference between 30k plus benefits and 40k a year?

 feeder wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

There we have it! I knew it had to be there j-u-s-t beneath the surface of the debate. Let's replay my favorite part of that gem. "If the government had back on any of my benefits, because ultimately that's who was paying me, in order to give better benefits to some of those kids I likely would have been fine with it."

But of course you would have been "fine with it"! It wasn't your money paying for it now, was it! Free insurance, free tuition, free board, subsidized rent...you had no skin in the game! You're attempting to debate the merits of a free market when you're the product of an environment that is the antithesis of it! Where, btw, do you suppose the money for all that "free" came from? Hmmm, had to be generated somehow. Oh, yeah, someone else's pocket. No wonder you're so comfortable about government raiding those pockets when there's a subjectively perceived imbalance.

How is job-related benefits "out of someone else's pocket" ? Schools often offer a food and board incentives package to staff as they already have these programs in place for students so it's trivial to offer them to staff as well.

When I worked at a hotel in my younger days two additional perks were staff could eat free (as the hotel was already producing massive quantities of food anyway) and half price stays in properties across the country.

What is the functional difference between 30k plus benefits and 40k a year?

You don't think those free items were free to the university providing them, do you? Someone had to write a check to the insurance provider. That board has built-in expenses, i.e. utilities, insurance, maintenance, etc. Who covers that? Government subsidized rent...self-explanatory. Free tuition? Professors work gratis and the infrastructure supporting them don't have a cost? Not when I went to college. Just follow the trail on this one.
"There is no free lunch." One of the oldest and truest adages out there.