How do you rationally allocate goods without price?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 18:00
Well, um...what?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 18:18
Need
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 18:57
>>2
What system would a socialist use as a subsitute for price signalling.
>>3
>Implying 'need' isn't ambiguous and almost impossible to quantify in economically usefull terms
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 18:59
>>2
What system would a socialist use as a subsitute for price signalling.
>>3
>Implying 'need' isn't ambiguous and almost impossible to quantify in economically usefull terms
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 19:30
Everybody works together
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 21:02
We all sit in a circle and play drums and sing "Kumbaya" until the problem solves itself.
>>5 is a THOUGHTCRIMINAL and will report for REEDUCATION tomorrow morning.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 22:22
>>4
So you prefer the "economically useful" term Demand eh? You must be a troll. Poor grammar, spelling, a double post, and an ignorant comment? Back under that bridge, you.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-09 0:52
I'm not a socialist but I'm guessing here that they would use a price mechanism to fulfil the mathematical function of finding the equilibrium point of limits to a reasonable degree of accuracy, use exchange value to assign value and pay everyone equally so the exchange value represents "need".
Of course I'm not a socialist so I do not believe problems like poverty can be addressed with such irresponsibly oversimplified axioms as "capitalism is always evil".
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-09 9:11
>>8
>So you prefer the "economically useful" term Demand eh?
What system would a socialist use as a subsitute for price signalling?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-09 9:59
>>9
Of course I'm not a capitalist so I do not believe problems like poverty can be addressed with such irresponsibly oversimplified axioms as "socialism is always evil".
>>10
How about transparency. "Price signaling" is just another nonsense term from the lexicon of economancy; another way to deceive consumers, manipulate the market and maximize what it calls "profit".
Your question implies a similarity between the two systems that can not exist in reality. The goals of socialism and capitalism are different, and in truth, at odds. It's I want to feed everybody, vs. I want to feed me, but I'll leave plenty of crumbs.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-09 12:16
>>11
Of course I'm not a capitalist so I do not believe problems like poverty can be addressed with the belief in irresponsibly oversimplified dichotomies such as "if you're not a socialist you're a capitalist".
Just because the goals of socialism and capitalism are different doesn't mean that reality changes. Do you actually have some kind of structured logical argument?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-09 12:47
>>12
Argument? I'm not in an argument. I've made a few comments, and explained a few things from a different point of view in an effort to illustrate that other points of view exist. I have seen nothing here worth arguing. It's all, including my contributions, the same old shit, meaningless talk in an unimportant venue, intellectual play and ego masturbation while real people in real places fight to survive.
>>11
>How about transparency. "Price signaling" is just another nonsense term from the lexicon of economancy; another way to deceive consumers, manipulate the market and maximize what it calls "profit".
Your question implies a similarity between the two systems that can not exist in reality. The goals of socialism and capitalism are different, and in truth, at odds. It's I want to feed everybody, vs. I want to feed me, but I'll leave plenty of crumbs.
Well no it is a pretty simple question which needs to be addressed. Ok I'll make it even simpler. In a capitalist economy things are produced and consumed based on price, this is how a market rations goods based on scarcity. How would this be achieved in a socialist society?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 4:21
>>13
You've certainly illustrated different points of view exist, but you haven't really illustrated their validity.
There are real people in living in decrepidation and poverty, but there are also rich people living in opulent splendor and a vast middle class and they got there thanks to capitalism. So what if they have to exploit some niggers to be awesome? Exploitation is actually beneficial anyway, it makes people work nice and hard to grow the economy, if the west is evil imperialist capitalist pig disgusting then South Korea, Hong Kong and Chile wouldn't be enjoying the same levels of wealth as we do.
personally i dont think socialism or communism can really work in an industrial society though, but their ideas seem to be based on communal tribal standards and practices.
capitalism plays on the fact that people cant deal with this many people and access to limited resources. the idea of commonly sharing resources can only work if there is an even distribution of resources. a disparity would necessitate regulation and rationing. with a larger population, such as in industrial societies, this becomes increasingly difficult.
then im sure you wouldnt mind putting on these chains and working for scraps of food right?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 16:24
>>18
Modern life in the industrialised world is hardly like being a slave.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 16:32
>>19
Nonetheless, for most it remains a gilded cage.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 17:26
The working class white descendants of the Catholic and Orthodox eastern and southern European immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island between 1890-1910 were discriminated against and persecuted in the early 20th century. They weren't even considered white. And now their grandchildren have joined the Republican Party after assimiliating. Sell-outs! The Republican Party is a continuation of xenophobic and nativist bigotry. I know some issues are important like morality, taxes, and crime but should we forget what they did to our ancestors?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 17:40
>>20
A cage they could climb out of if they wanted to.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 18:30
>19
you are talking about exploitation, correct? are you trying to say that theres a limit to whats considered appropriate exploitation?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 18:36
>>22
For them to want to, they must first be made aware that they're in a cage. And I'm talking about you.
If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I would have freed thousands more.
Harriet Tubman
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 21:59
>>24
But it's not really a cage if they can climb out and no, not everyone thinks having to work for someone for a living is some kind of breach of their human rights.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-10 22:58
>>25
"Cuz mah massah loves me. I's like part of the family. You jus be talkin' crazy!"
>>28
And uppity to boot! Well looky heah boy, throughout the whole of human political history there has been a constant effort to progress towards a more just society. And don't get me wrong, I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the progress we've made, but I do not believe that we have progressed as far as we can, or should, and I will not be bought off. So just remember that when you're addressing those of us who stand up when told to shut up; those of us who must deal with doubt and abuse from the very people that we are trying to help, that you are talking to your betters. Because you "consciously decide to be a house nigger in full knowledge of the implications". Cool integrity, bro.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-11 18:09
ITT nig-o-nomics
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-12 9:19
>>30
There is no integrity in rebelling against the system if it serves no purpose, I'm all for change, just change that actually accomplishes.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-12 14:15
>>32
And what rebellion serves no purpose? Any and all rebellion is an expression of dissatisfaction, and not only serves to communicate that dissatisfaction, but also helps to offset the inertia of the intransigent tyrannical majority, so that when the right idea comes along change happens faster.
>Implying man isn't innately selfish towards people who don't directly affect his interests and life
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-23 17:50
>>37
No. Not necessarily. "Irrational" dissatisfaction is still information, and information leads to progress. Furthermore, as we inexorably exist in a temporal framework, all activity is progress, though a "positive" result may take many generations. Like your post, this fact is of little relevance. You were simply trying to troll, or snipe at my statement with an argument that is erroneous, tangential, and semantic.
>>36
All early human societies, familial, clan, and tribal are socialistic. All highly developed human societies progress towards higher degrees of socialism. The very root of the words society and socialism are the same. Your statement is wrong and your metaphor is not apt.
>>38 >Implying Back to plus4chan's /n/ with that implying bullshit, please.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-25 16:51
socialism is awesome!
jesus was a socialist.
fdr was a socialist.
thomas jefferson was a pre-socialist.
capitalism is responsible for the current crisis, which occured after bush let wall street do everything the wanted for the past eight years.
capitalists financed the nazis, just read about all those pro-nazi industrialists like fritz thyssen and henry ford.
and if you support capitalism you like hitler
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-27 13:24
I believe the general idea amongst Marxists is that such market mechanisms would eventually be gotten rid of. After that the basic idea is that all people provide free services for each other (i.e. free public transport, healthcare, rubbish collection etc) rather than working for profit. I couldn't really explain their economic theory more than that, since I haven't read any modern works on Marxist economic theory (of which there is an enormous ammount). Hope that helps...
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-27 14:21
I believe the general idea amongst Marxists is that such market mechanisms would eventually be gotten rid of. After that the basic idea is that all people provide free services for each other (i.e. free public transport, healthcare, rubbish collection etc) rather than working for profit.
This is what marxists actually believe.
I couldn't really explain their economic theory more than that, since I haven't read any modern works on Marxist economic theory (of which there is an enormous ammount). Hope that helps...
Don't worry, I couldn't explain hem ethier.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-28 0:26
>>39
Where is the error? How is it "tangential"? Where are the semantics?
If all information leads to progress then what about my information? Because it disproves you it's not information?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-28 3:51
>>44
I can only assume that you're attempting to goad me into a deconstruction of the posts. Sorry. You're either not being honest, or you really aren't able to keep up. And your information is progress. Much like the aforementioned, nominally relevant, irrational dissatisfaction.
You really need to step up your game.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-28 6:42
>>45
Ok, you don't need to prove how my statement is wrong, I'll just assume you are more intelligent than me and agree with everything you say.
Happy?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-28 12:05
>>46
And since the bullshit didn't work, you turn to sarcasm. Typical.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-02 5:10
>>47
Yes, I am being sarcastic. What the fuck is so difficult about answering these questions?
"Where is the error? How is it "tangential"? Where are the semantics?"
>How do you rationally allocate goods without price?
That's pretty easy and brings forth the worst aspects of human nature. Like the British Empire's gang around Lenin or later Hitler, you have to prove your value to the authorities otherwise they will left you behind with empty hands while being stuck in a scientifically crafted mind control and police state grid.