Socialism

You've gone from utopian understanding of markets to a rejection of exchange. You just don't realise it. Shouldn't you be teaching yourself the basics so you can deliver a sucker punch?

 

A childish effort.

 

You're right. I deleted that. It was immature.

 

Much less coercive than a wealth tax extracted by the government to redistribute wealth and a government ban on exchanging ones labor for a wage.

 

dixon,

I hope you're not going to ignore my little question: Could you list these factors that impact on wages that are independent of supply/demand criteria?

 

You are dodging the question. You seem to imply that economic freedom cannot coexist for such equality of oppurtunity and the protection of labour's property rights. So my question is, does this extend to the local level, state level, national level, or world system?

Am I wrong in assuming that the free market must either be erradicated or constrained to be in order for the system you propose to work? If so, on what level of constraint or elimination?

 

I don't reject exchange. I'm merely thinking about your theory of underpayment. If your theory says that a person should be paid X but the price is Y, then perhaps the person is not being underpaid. Perhaps your theory is simply wrong.

And as far as being involuntarily unemployed goes, is that like being involuntarily single?

 

No, I'm implying that you do not have a coherent idea of economic freedom.

Not a particularly interesting question. I've been referring to socialism at the national level (although dixon, god bless him, has been wrongly referring to national socialism)

The free market doesn't exist. You're starting from a myth

 

The theory is based purely on the consequence of exchange. I'll repeat: teach yourself the basics and you won't put your foot in it without knowing it

 

That's your lot, I'm off! Dixon, you've got some time to think up an answer: List these features that are independent of supply/demand that impact on wage rates.

God bless

 

You have a theory that a person ought to be paid more than they are actually paid. If you don't want to defend it, that's your problem.

So underpayment is a crock, as far as I'm concerned. A person gets paid what they can command, and no more no less.

 

As you say, the free market does not exist, or you implying that you can make it free?

So the question becomes, who sets the terms of the lack of freedom? Is it better to have bureaucrats doing it or simply to let the market work itself out?

Put another way, what countries have the most wealth to redistribute, thus having an overall higher standard of living? Is it a market with capitalism or otherwise? In fact, why did China opt for a more capitalistic system? Do you think they are ignorant of economics as well?

And lastly, why does it work on a national level but not on a local level or individual level? I don't get it?

 

I'll give you a clue as to where I'm coming from. No one has all the answers. No one of us is smarter than all of us. States should be allowed to pursue their own experimentation. That means you can take your ideology to a state like California where they will suck it all up and vote for socialism. Would that suffice, or must we bring the nation along for the ride? You know what I think? I think that people like you are terrified of competitive ideologies in practice, because yours might fall flat on its face compared to your rivals.

 

Of course not, they all own it, as long as they have the two core ideas: social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy (i.e. worker owned businesses, factories, etc.). If it has those two factors, it is socialism.

Because it HAS different forms! My god, read! Every economic system has different forms, but those forms have to share a common factor. Capitalism has the same thing. It doesn't mean nobody can settle on a definition, it just means they have multiple ways of implementing it.

Yes, it is, because most of those lacked the two necessary components required to have a socialist economy.

 

Labour has no property rights. Only individuals who own property have property rights

 

I don't know, I'm a word purist. I think the easiest way to dumb down a language is to let people devalue the meaning of words and concepts to the point where they can mean whatever the hell you want them to mean.

Call me anal, I just don't like it. *shrug*

 

Freedom doesn't involve providing choices. It is the freedom to choose from the choices available. And extraction of a wealth tax, to redistribute wealth, and provide more choices for others is at the expense of the freedoms of those whose wealth you've extracted

 

You have a different concept of freedom. Most would consider an individuals ability to voluntarily exchange their labor for an agreed to wage, to be a freedom. You consider taking away that ability by government prohibition to be freedom. Most would consider the ability to keep their wealth to be a freedom. You believe that a wealth tax to take away that wealth in order to redistribute the wealth to be freedom. Restricting economic choices that are otherwise available is the opposite of freedom.

 

Supply and demand is a simplistic mode that assumes theoretical, perfect competition. Such perfect competition does not exist. Every real world factor that is a departure from perfect competition, is a factor other than supply and demand that effects the level of a wage.

 

You've only gone and let me down. Supply and demand doesn't assume perfect competition. 'Wage taking' within supply and demand assumes that. Monopsony, where we break the law of one wage, merely adjusts the nature of supply conditions faced by the firm. So far you've not been able to offer one factor independent of supply/demand criteria.

Again, we see the general phenomena: anti-socialism will commonly originate from an innocence of a labour market (or a deliberate restriction of the perceived importance of that market)

 

You really dont have a clue.

 

No, you don't. What is monopsony? Is it an attack on supply and demand? No! It merely informs us that labour supply is upward sloping for the firm. Its still supply and demand; it just leads to a rejection of the law of one price.

Amusing to see you use wikipedia though. Perhaps anti-socialists are more prone to its use?

And I of course note that you even managed to misrepresent the wikipedia page. That's impressive!

 

I could use a Jr High Economics textbook to show you dont have a clue.

 

His worker owned and directed enterpriises couldnt compete with the capitalist owned enterprises, if they were allowed to continue to operate. Thats why they advocate prohibiting hiring workers for a wage.

 

I'm still laughing dear chap! You've basically said "supply and demand isn't important because perfect competition doesn't exist". That is, I'm sorry to say, cretinous. Does the monopsonist ignore supply and demand when making its factors of production decision? Of course not. In the traditional model we just have market supply coinciding with firm supply.

You can't actually refer to one factor independent of supply and demand criteria can you?