Conservatives are so greedy. Just look at Bush states.

[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.

[ziggytrix]

You're a grad student, aren't you?

[The One and Only...]

Actually, I'm a high school freshman.

[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

[ziggytrix]

Damn, I thought for sure with a reading assignment like that right before Thanksgiving break, you HAD to be a heartless Grad Student.

[Zhukov]

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.

Shant. Not if you are going to be nasty.
http://www.mises.org/raeDisplay.asp?...ion=alphaTitle
Dont pretend you've never been to this site, OAO.

[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?

[Zhukov]

You didn't tell me your link was to that site.

What's the problem? Do you have a terrible secret or some dark history regarding ths web site? You didn't tell me where your links were going after all.

So why is it horribly misinformed? The first paragraph?

Yeah.

"...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. :/

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Zhukov]

Under true communism, everyone recieves their "wage" according to how long they work. Hence, the labor theory of value.

Nobody mentioned Communism! Be relevant!

Under communism, nobody receives a wage. The labour theory of value is not a way of allocating wages.

How does this not eliminate an incentive problem? This merely spurs the incentive to work, not the incentive to work certain jobs over others.

The so-called Socialist 'incentive problem' is that since people are no longer disease-ridden or lacking education, they wont bother working. Under capitalism people apparantly have to work for these things.

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.

Doing what you want to do is Communism, if you don't want to do anything under Socialism; if you want to lay around and do nothing, you get nothing.

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.

Communism is the mix between pure socialism and pure democracy

There is only Democracy under Socialism, there is no Democracy under Communism. This is the "withering away of the state" that you may have read about. Engels? You know?

Communism is no money, no state, no class.

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.

You have got to be joking. Socialism is workers democracy, not a richer government with more power. Such a system begs to be corrupted.

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.

That factor is called equal wages.

Moron! What have I told you! 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?

In layman's terms, fewer people would become doctors because the job pays less, and more would become artists because the job pays more.

Why would the doctor be paid less? Put your answer in any term you like. He would be paid more. The artist would be paid more too. But if a doctor works harder than an artist (which I am sure they do) then a doctor would be paid more.

This causes a shortage of doctors and an excessive number of artists.

Why does Cuba have so many doctors? They have so many that they send them away to other countries. You may be confused though, because it is possible that a waitress/waiter can earn more in a day than a doctor. This is result of tourists using the US dollar, not "Equal Wages".

Understand?

[The One and Only...]

[quote="Zhukov"]

Nobody mentioned Communism! Be relevant!

Under communism, nobody receives a wage. The labour theory of value is not a way of allocating wages.

Wage: Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

A wage need not be payed for in money. In may be payed for in food, clothing, etc.

The so-called Socialist 'incentive problem' is that since people are no longer disease-ridden or lacking education, they wont bother working. Under capitalism people apparantly have to work for these things.

The incentive problem is much more than that, as I already posted.

Doing what you want to do is Communism, if you don't want to do anything under Socialism; if you want to lay around and do nothing, you get nothing.

But you do not get more for working more productive jobs, hurting incentive.

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.

But under communism, there is no authority to force people to take such jobs, and I have never met garbage men/sewer cleaners/whatever who enjoy their job. Furthermore, even if society did share the task without the necessity of police enforcement, it could considerably hurt productivity as a result of weakened specialization.

Moron! What have I told you! 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?

Really? No wages? In that case, everyone gets everything, regardless of whether they work or not. You have no understanding of what a wage is.

Why would the doctor be paid less? Put your answer in any term you like. He would be paid more. The artist would be paid more too. But if a doctor works harder than an artist (which I am sure they do) then a doctor would be paid more.

I am comparing to modern doctor incomes. A doctor would necessarily be paid less under a communist system, because under communism all wages would need to be calculated to an average and then distributed per capita. Doctors currently make more than the average.

Why does Cuba have so many doctors? They have so many that they send them away to other countries. You may be confused though, because it is possible that a waitress/waiter can earn more in a day than a doctor. This is result of tourists using the US dollar, not "Equal Wages".

Understand?

Cuba is not a socialist or communist country. After the loss of Soviet foreign aid, Cuba enacted several market-based reforms. It is now a "mixed socialist economy in which both the government and the private sector interact to coordinate production and clear markets." http://www.cubafacts.com/Economy/econmain.htm

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?

[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.

I have never met garbage men/sewer cleaners/whatever who enjoy their job. Furthermore

I have. How old are you? Do you talk to many garbage men?

How much 'specialised training' would you need to take out rubbish?

Really? No wages? In that case, everyone gets everything, regardless of whether they work or not. You have no understanding of what a wage is.

DID I SAY "NO WAGES"? I SAID "NO EQUAL WAGES".

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?

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Under Socialism, you get more for working more, you get more for working more productive jobs.

Tell me, what determines the wage? The community? The government? Obviously this cannot be the case, because socialism lacks any sort of economic calculation with which to accurately determine productive value, demand, supply, and de facto price.

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.