|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 2nd, 2003 08:50 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Furthermore, what is the point of socialism? This is the exact same end that capitalism comes to, only more efficiently and with quicker reaction to changing forces. |
||||||||
| Dec 2nd, 2003 08:18 PM | |||||||||
| Zhukov |
Sure, a wage can be paid in food or clothing. But there are no wages in a communist world. What you posted on the 'incentive problem' is irelevant, because thre is no "Equal Wage". Under Socialism, you get more for working more, you get more for working more productive jobs. Quote:
How much 'specialised training' would you need to take out rubbish? Quote:
Are you thick? No wages under communism, no equal wages under communism or socialism. How many times must it be said? All wages do not need to be calculated to an avrage, all wages do not gravitate to a central wage, all wages are not paid regading how tall you are. You have no undersanding of basic Socialist or Communist principles and ideas. Go and read some marxist works. Go and read an 'introdution to marxism', and stop bothering me with your repetitive insanity. I've asked you before, where do you get your information? |
||||||||
| Dec 2nd, 2003 04:32 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... |
[quote="Zhukov"] Quote:
A wage need not be payed for in money. In may be payed for in food, clothing, etc. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even during times of greater socialism, doctors made more than other workers because wages were not the same for all classes and the government could choose your job. Understand? |
||||||||
| Dec 2nd, 2003 11:06 AM | |||||||||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
Under communism, nobody receives a wage. The labour theory of value is not a way of allocating wages. Quote:
Quote:
There are a few ideas on how to get the undesirable jobs done in a Socialist society, although you have to realise that alot of garbage men/sewer cleaners/whatever, do these jobs because they like them. Other than that, I see eveyone doing these jobs for a small period of time each year. Society can share the task. Quote:
Communism is no money, no state, no class. Quote:
I don't mean to sound mean comrade, do you relate to any particular group or party? Also, you and I, or anyone else, does not get a say in whether Communsim follows Socialism, or not. It either does or it doesn't. Quote:
 Are you doing this on purpose? There is no equal wage under Sociaism. "Equal Wages" is one of the biggest lies that the ruling class has managed to get people to believe. Why would there be equal wages?Quote:
Quote:
Understand? |
||||||||
| Dec 1st, 2003 04:07 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... |
Yes, there would. That factor is called equal wages. Equal wages distort the factors that determine the wage, the supply of and demand for people to fill certain occupations. Because of that distortion, incentive to fill occupationsl either decreases or increases corresponding to the increase or decrease in the wage. In layman's terms, fewer people would become doctors because the job pays less, and more would become artists because the job pays more. This causes a shortage of doctors and an excessive number of artists. Understand? |
||||||||
| Nov 30th, 2003 06:16 PM | |||||||||
| camacazio | I have no clue where that idea came from. It is entirely illogical. There is nothing that would cause any more of an unbalanced human resource allocation that isn't currently in the US. | ||||||||
| Nov 30th, 2003 05:56 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... |
So, under socialism, there will be an over-supply of some jobs, and an under-supply of others because of an inefficient allocation of human resources. The only way such a system could work is if something was able to choose your job, in which case we return the economic calculation debate. |
||||||||
| Nov 30th, 2003 05:31 PM | |||||||||
| camacazio |
The incentive, under such a system, switches from capitalism greed to doing what you want to do. If you don't want to do anything, you're stuck with the garbage man job. There's still the seperation of lazy and non-lazy, because there's those who go through enough school to become a highly specialized worker from those who wish to just take it easy and be the garbage man, both equally valuable tasks in society. I do not advocate communism, though, only socialism. Communism is the mix between pure socialism and pure democracy, and that just begs to be corrupted. I believe people raised in capitalism are inherently greedy because of the way things function around them, but communism doesn't provide necessary structure. A government indissimilar from the current US government, though with a stronger power over economic sanctions and higher taxes to provide many more services, would be what I want. It pushes for socialism of the economic equality type, but provides many important aspects to government. It also maintains a certain level a step away from pure communism: you still have those who would work certain ways, but then you would also have increased wages for being a specializing working, instead of just being better learned and having a job you may enjoy more. |
||||||||
| Nov 30th, 2003 05:20 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... |
Under true communism, everyone recieves their "wage" according to how long they work. Hence, the labor theory of value. How does this not eliminate an incentive problem? This merely spurs the incentive to work, not the incentive to work certain jobs over others. |
||||||||
| Nov 29th, 2003 11:27 AM | |||||||||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
Quote:
"...And they had all decided, left, right and centre, that there was not a thing economicaly wrong with Socialism..." Shame they never old anyone. While they may have come to such a conclusion - when was it puplished to the world? The Right, Centre and Left have never ver ceased to attack Socialism, from every angle. "...everyone, socialists and non-socialists alike, had long realized that Socalism sufered from an incentive problem. Not only does Socialism not suffer from an 'incentive prolem', but you wouldn't be much of a Socialist if you thought it did. "If, for example, everyone were to recieve an equal income under Socialism..." He has either never even read basic Marxist works, or he is just trying to further this fallacy on behalf of the ruling class. "...Or, in another variant, everyone was supposed to "produce acording to their ability" but receive "acording to their needs"..." Wrong again. This is simple stuff to be getting wrong; he does it on purpose. "...Who, under Socialism, will take out the garbage?" A garbage man. He goes on a bit with more "religious communism", then calls Mao a Socialist. Why should I bother anymore with someone who is knowingly peddling lies? You might as well take it to the "Why we defended the USSR" thread if you want to make something out of this. :/ |
||||||||
| Nov 26th, 2003 01:10 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... |
Yeah. One of my links was to that site. You didn't tell me your link was to that site. So why is it horribly misinformed? The first paragraph? |
||||||||
| Nov 26th, 2003 12:26 PM | |||||||||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
 http://www.mises.org/raeDisplay.asp?...ion=alphaTitle Dont pretend you've never been to this site, OAO. 
|
||||||||
| Nov 26th, 2003 06:19 AM | |||||||||
| ziggytrix |
Damn, I thought for sure with a reading assignment like that right before Thanksgiving break, you HAD to be a heartless Grad Student. 
|
||||||||
| Nov 26th, 2003 12:01 AM | |||||||||
| The_Rorschach | I can;t provide a title, I'm sorry, I'm still in the process of having all my things shipped to me, and so most of my books are lost to me at the moment. But his take on the Great Depression, his general contempt of the Federal Reserve Board's doings and Reaganomics as well as his not-entirely Austrian perspective mark him as interesting, even where I disagree with him | ||||||||
| Nov 25th, 2003 08:20 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... | Actually, I'm a high school freshman. | ||||||||
| Nov 25th, 2003 04:51 PM | |||||||||
| ziggytrix | You're a grad student, aren't you? | ||||||||
| Nov 25th, 2003 04:33 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... |
I would comment on whether or not the article is "ignorant", but the link is broken. Tell you what. Why don't you read this first so you can understand why the labor theory of value is considered obsolete, and this so you can understand an alternative approach. After that, I would suggest reading this so you can understand Austrian theory. Then, you should at least read the first 100 pages or so of America's Great Depression. |
||||||||
| Nov 25th, 2003 11:01 AM | |||||||||
| Zhukov |
Well after such a good recomendation how could I not look him up? He is an 'Austrian' Libertarian - you can't pull the wool over my eyes for long. Unfortunatly, I started "The End of Socialism and The Calculation Debate revisited" I found the first paragraphs ignorant enough to warrant that I stop. Silly, I know, but I have an awful lot to read. Any specific recomendations? |
||||||||
| Nov 25th, 2003 02:05 AM | |||||||||
| The_Rorschach | You know Zhukov, I rather strongly suggest you learn a bit about Rothbard (Mr Murry Rothbard, OaO's avatar). I find him quite lucid and terribly insightful. | ||||||||
| Nov 23rd, 2003 11:52 AM | |||||||||
| Zhukov |
Well, how was I to know he was an anarchist. He should be a sad clown. |
||||||||
| Nov 22nd, 2003 10:14 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... | Maybe one day I'll put a big anarchy sign on his forehead. | ||||||||
| Nov 22nd, 2003 09:56 PM | |||||||||
| Zhukov |
Have you seen yours lately? Some sad old man... probably a libertarian economist from Austria. |
||||||||
| Nov 22nd, 2003 09:07 PM | |||||||||
| The One and Only... | Your avatar scares me. | ||||||||
| Nov 22nd, 2003 07:46 PM | |||||||||
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
||||||||
| Nov 22nd, 2003 06:58 PM | |||||||||
| mburbank |
I like to wrap it around a scallop. I also like bacon. |
||||||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||||||
