This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Classic
TBC
Communism Solution?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Humans are intrinsically selfish - all animals are. We act to maximise our utility, always.
Maximising utility and being selfish are not the same thing.
How is it not? To act in a way which benefits yourself primarily isn't being selfish?
Also note - if helping other people makes you 'happy', then helping other people will still be to your benefit. Utility isn't measured purely in goods maximisation (which is why economists find it difficult to rationalise acts of charity).
Post by
Arathian
I am pretty sure that during the 20's USA had become almost exactly what we call free market economy. That changed after the economy breakdown. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be glad to see them.
Evidence to what? You're the one making some random claim.
Okey,you officially confused me.
I believe USA had free market during a period.
You don't.
I say I would like to see why you believe that.
I lost you there, I never asked for evidense, just why you think that.
I believe that USA used to be a almost 100% free market economy because,well,goverment had minimum involvement which is kinda the definition of 'free' market economy.
Now you claim this is false. In all seriousness I would like to see why. Just to clarifie, this isn't a challenge, I seriously wanna learn why. Different PoV are important to me
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I believe that USA used to be a almost 100% free market economy because,well,goverment had minimum involvement which is kinda the definition of 'free' market economy.
There. Right there.
See, you just made a claim. Now, that claim in meaningless until you provide evidence that the government did have a minimum involvement.
Unless you don't actually have evidence, and you're just assuming it. In which case, just say so.
Post by
Deepthought
How is it not? To act in a way which benefits yourself primarily isn't being selfish?
It can benefit yourself and others on the same level.
if helping other people makes you 'happy', then helping other people will still be to your benefit. Utility isn't measured purely in goods maximisation
That's sort of my point, right there.
Post by
Arathian
What's your definition of assuming?
My only source admitably is my history book. My history book claims that it was a free market because: there was no social security, no minimum wage, no restrictions in antagonism between companies, no official employement policy, minimum taxes, minimum spendings from the goverment,no direct involvement of the goverment etc
Does this qualifie as a free market economy in your eyes?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
How is it not? To act in a way which benefits yourself primarily isn't being selfish?
It can benefit yourself and others on the same level
Benefiting yourself is the end of the action. Benefiting others is a consequence.
Distinctions like that are necessary.
Post by
Deepthought
How is it not? To act in a way which benefits yourself primarily isn't being selfish?
It can benefit yourself and others on the same level
Benefiting yourself is the end of the action. Benefiting others is a consequence.
Distinctions like that are necessary.
A result of actions; that which is produced by a cause.
Same thing?
Post by
Squishalot
Yes, but the goal from your perspective is to benefit yourself. The consequence isn't the primary driver behind your choice to act.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, but the goal from your perspective is to benefit yourself. The consequence isn't the primary driver behind your choice to act.
^
Post by
Arathian
On a sidenote, wasn't the threads original purpose to think of MyTie's idea? I think it derailed 'a bit'
Post by
Squishalot
I'm still on topic. I'm waiting for MyTie to reply to my comment that his suggestion of government incentives drags his proposal back to capitalism.
Post by
MyTie
I'm still on topic. I'm waiting for MyTie to reply to my comment that his suggestion of government incentives drags his proposal back to capitalism.To reward someone for producing more is capitalism at its core.
Historically, this has been true (theoretically), but that isn't the definition of communism. Communism is just complete control over the economy by community (read: government). It doesn't mean that the government can't offer incentives.
Post by
Squishalot
Communism is just complete control over the economy by community (read: government). It doesn't mean that the government can't offer incentives.
Perhaps, but not quite. Communism would involve the ownership by the government of all economic capital, including human capital. Therefore, the government would essentially be prescribing what each person was to produce. Once it starts incentivising for overproduction, the government starts to lose control of the human capital, as people produce more than the government wants.
Post by
Deepthought
Yes, but the goal from your perspective is to benefit yourself. The consequence isn't the primary driver behind your choice to act.
The goal is meaningless in this case, because it does actually end up helping someone else and you have meant to do it (albiet it possibly to make you feel even better).
Otherwise all actions must be selfish.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Otherwise all actions must be selfish.
They are.
Post by
MyTie
Perhaps, but not quite. Communism would involve the ownership by the government of all economic capital, including human capital. Therefore, the government would essentially be prescribing what each person was to produce. Once it starts incentivising for overproduction, the government starts to lose control of the human capital, as people produce more than the government wants.
That doesn't mean it has deviated from Communism. And I don't think overproduction is going to be your problem, as much as under production.
It is still as far from capitalism as it gets.
Post by
Squishalot
It's deviated in the sense that the Government no longer controls production, and therefore doesn't control economic capital.
Underproduction is still a primary issue, from a practical perspective. But overproduction is still a gap from Communism insofar as the Government no longer has control. Practically speaking, it can still happen even in a system that doesn't incentivise/penalise over/underproduction, but one would think that in a true Communist system, it wouldn't encourage deviations from the national plan. Why should production levels be taken out of the hands of the Government and put in the hands of the workers, so they can be abused for the individual's selfish wants?
Post by
MyTie
It's deviated in the sense that the Government no longer controls production, and therefore doesn't control economic capital.
Underproduction is still a primary issue, from a practical perspective. But overproduction is still a gap from Communism insofar as the Government no longer has control. Practically speaking, it can still happen even in a system that doesn't incentivise/penalise over/underproduction, but one would think that in a true Communist system, it wouldn't encourage deviations from the national plan. Why should production levels be taken out of the hands of the Government and put in the hands of the workers, so they can be abused for the individual's selfish wants?
The government would still have control over the workers, no matter what their motives are. If government has control over milk production, and the milk goes bad, it doesn't mean that the economy is controled by anyone else other than government, just that government made a mistake. Explain how government offered incentives is anything other than government control?
Post by
Squishalot
Explain how government offered incentives is anything other than government control?
Because it's putting production levels in the hands of individuals with individual wants and desires and motives. The principle behind government control of capital is to prevent selfishness from influencing decisions and production (and distribution). By providing incentives for production, you are putting selfishness back into the equation.
The government doesn't control the level of production, it pays out incentives in accordance with a formula it's set in place. Giving people a tax benefit for having insurance isn't control - it influences people, definitely, but the government still has no control over insurance coverage.
Post by
Deepthought
Otherwise all actions must be selfish.
They are.
And we're back to where we started.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
