Jim Devine wrote:
John Vertegaal wrote:
FWIW, it looks like we both agree that central planning is a dead end and
that social democracy is the way to go.
I didn't advocate any kind of social democracy. Social democracy would
involve a system of more rational management of capitalism due to
pressure from labor unions and other popular forces. It's better than
what we have now, but I didn't advocate it in my e-mail.
Fair enough
Instituting a not-for-profit economy would be a revolutionary change.
And all to get rid of that 1-2% av. profit margin? Some revolution!
Of course, it is utopian at this point.
What makes you so sure it won't be in the future? You are going to have
to play god by fixing demand. Or does supply determine demand in your
not-for-profit economy? In any case it means sending workers home after
they produced their apportioned output and keep them on longer if they
didn't yet, all for the same pay. Truly a workers' paradise?
"From each according to ability, to
each according to deeds", I also concur with.
Charlie Andrews' system (if it works) tends toward "from each
according to ability, to each according to needs." It sees the "deeds"
criterion as transitional.
Why transitional? Economic or PC considerations?
But because we cannot sidestep
natural elasticities between costed inputs and demand for output, and deeds
become valued through the demand for one's output, I hold that a for-profit
economy is by far the most effective way to deal with this situation; as
long as it leads to an after the fact (of supply) remuneration in the form
of profit sharing. This necessitates cost+ pricing, rather than a command
system, at least for a substantial portion of an economy. A "tendency to
gradually move toward a non-market communism" would be absent. But why would
that matter in an environment where social needs are adequately taken care
of?
This is gobbledygook, full of sound and fury but saying almost nothing.
A most persuasive critique indeed. If you don't think it merits one, you
are of course entitled to your opinion.
Capitalist profit-seeking destroys people and the natural environment.
It might, but I could just as easily say the same for that "great
experiment" of the last century; and then we both would be equally
hard-pressed to provide a direct link.
It's "effective" (efficient?) only at promoting the individual profits
of those who already own a lot of wealth.
Perhaps if "For a non-growing economy (with only simple reproduction)
the profits of the sector producing means of production (S1) are
positive as long as the wages of that sector (V1) are less than the cost
of using up means of production in the consumer goods sector (C2)" were
true. I believe to have shown it to be "gobbledygook", rather than just
proffered an opinion.
We already have a "command"
system: if it's not profitable for a powerful economic interest, it
does not happen.
No we don't already have a "command" system; for if capitalists had the
power to fix demand, there wouldn't be any negative growth until we ran
out of natural resources.
Those with money rule.
And they will continue to do so, as long as all economic theorists agree
with them that money is a amassable thing of value. So they will keep on
laughing all the way to the bank, until a theory is provided that shows
money to be just a unit of account that if net accumulated, directly
destroys. No paradox about it.
John V
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
