On 08/28/2016 02:01 PM, jim bell wrote: > Well, I don't know this to be a "mathematical fact", for one thing. > For many decades,Communists believed that their way HAD TO be better, > because somehow a centrally-planned and cooperative system was just > naturally supposed to be better than one basedon a free market. They > thought it was obviously inefficient and indeed wasteful that > there were hundreds of models of radios, TV's, VCR's, cars, shoes, etc > on the market.But something about Adam Smith's "invisible hand" won > out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand So, show us how > it is a "mathematical fact" that cooperative strategies are "more > efficient" than competitive ones. Could the flaw in this idea be the > fact that such cooperative strategies make a false assumption that > centrally-planned systems can actually WORK? Even with today's > Internet and computers, how can people's desires and needs be > handled in such a way that products are available in a timely manner? > Old Soviet central planning required factories to follow their > "Five-year plans": The rules said that they had to produce X-million > of shoes every year. It didn't matter that the shoes they produced > were not what the people wanted to buy. This must have frustrated > the central-planners to no end. Jim Bell
Maybe we need decentralized planning. The Internet can be good at that. There's not much profit motive in Linux and open-source software generally. It won't be long before the whole manufacturing thing is history. > From: "trep...@sigaint.org" <trep...@sigaint.org> > To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 12:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Was: private] Now 'Re: [tor-talk] http://jacobappelbaum.net/' > > How do you cope with the mathematical fact that, in general, cooperative > strategies are more efficient than competitive ones? > > I know of a place that for the past three decades have had one of the most > unregulated markets in the world (if not the most). The tendency has been > that over time the market becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer people > that form cartels and use the concentrated power to prevent new actors > from entering the market. Currently, and thanks to a few whistleblowers, > it is known that the economic cartels have even bought the government and > the parliament, having government officials and members of the parliament > in its payroll. > >> >> >> From: Razer <ray...@riseup.net> >> On 08/28/2016 09:50 AM, jim bell wrote: >>>> Anyway, I think using the term, "free market" is more enlightening than >>>> "capitalism". >>>> The need to raise and employ 'capital' is one part of a free market, >>>> but >>>> it could also >>>> be argued that even in a non-free-market, some form of capital must be >>>> used, somehow. >>>> Thus, "free market" and "capitalism" overlap, but are not the same >>>> thing. >>>       Jim Bell >> >>> Regarding her motivations... From wikipedia >>> "Le Guin, as Elizabeth McDowell states in her 1992 master's thesis, >>> "identif[ies] the present dominant socio-political American system as >>> problematic and destructive to the health and life of the natural world, >>> humanity, and their interrelations." >> Well, I'm a free-market libertarian, an anarchist even.  And I agree that >> the current system is "problematic and destructive to the health and life >> of the natural world, >>> humanity, and their interrelations."  But presumably, in entirely a >>> differentway than Le Guin thinks. >> >>> Regarding so-called 'free markets'. The way I see it personally there is >>> no such thing as "kinder and gentler capitalism". The people who would >>> foist that off on us utilize people's ingrained, indoctrinated >>> self-interest and narcissism to have us believe it's possible because >>> it's 'better for me', no one else gets screwed in the exchange. Imo That >>> screwing would still happen in a 'real' free markets. >> Well, currently people with life-threatening allergies are being "screwed" >> by afactor-of-6 increase in the cost of Epi-pens.  "How outrageous", I >> hear the fevered shouts!  Problem is, while the decision to make that >> price increase wasmade by Mylan Labs, the organization that made such a >> decision possible isthe FDA, the Federal Food and Drug Administration: >>  By denying the entry intothe ostensibly "free" market of a generic >> alternative, Mylan did what was in theirseeming "self-interest".  >> So, we really don't have a "free market", do we?  We certainly have one >> that employs "capital", making it "capitalism", but when pricing >> decisions can be made by one company when other companies are denied >> access to the marketby the GOVERNMENT, that is far from a "free market". >> In short, "capitalism" or "free market" ISN'T the problem.  The problem > >
