Is maximum economic efficiency always desirable?

Post Reply New Topic

There's no country in the world that practices anything resembling pure socialism or capitalism. Even in the US the government's share of GDP was around 40% in 2007. Probably much higher now, and higher in practically every other developed country in the world. Ironically, the least 'socialist' countries are also among the worst basket-cases-Mexico only takes around 12% of GDP in tax revenue (most of which is squandered), and hence has little to spare for effective infrastructure, health, education and law enforcement.

The most important variables in determining national wealth are not particular economic systems (the few remaining autarkic dictatorships and kleptocratic quasi-states aside) but rather things like rule of law, trust, political stability, capital investment and demographics. Admittedly boring stuff, compared to cheerleading for idealized systems that haven't existed since the 1930s...

With what you just said in relation to Mexico, it really makes me wonder why we aren't helping Calderone with his clean-up endeavors more than we are - its in our best interest to do things to help them bolster and better their country and its far closer as well as more economically relevant to us than some of the places we have felt compelled to go.

Hum Cod, i dunno if you checked, but i read Japan's PIB (or whatever the english term is >< ) has dropped by ~ 15% nowadays.

"What we currently have is a kind of corporate socialism and a pretty obnoxious form at that. Profits are privatized and losses are socialized. " I wholefully agree with that o.o .

There is a definite division in an economy insofar as efficiency is concerned. If a business can make more money for its stockholders by producing an inferior and socially destructive product it will do so. Many successful businesses are initiated by designers and engineers and scientists that innovate new and very useful products and this is appreciated by the market. But there then is a conversion to managers who seize the opportunity to maximize the profits of the business by decreasing the quality of the product and capitalizing on the ignorance of the public to realize this fundamental change. Although capitalism is efficient at creating new products it is super efficient at degrading the quality and social usefulness of the product to maximize profits. That's why so much shoddy stuff hits the market and the public suffers because the large corporations in control can suppress competition by small startups that produce superior products. Orwell mentioned that his father was frustrated in creating a truly safe aircraft because of economics of this sort and the arms industry is full of military products that are produced through the intercession of bribed lawmakers and have little or no military usefulness but are extremely profitable to produce.

Sturgeon's Postulate: 85 percent of everything is sh*t.

ruveyn

the whole point of socialism is that it is a more efficient basis of production than capitalism.

the example of redistributing GDP is not even a valid one as socialism does not aim to eradicate inequality of income based on real values of the work done, as opposed to the millions garnered by the few who will put money (money they often gained through dishonest means, and don't start talking about the US working from bottom because that land was taken from the previous inhabitants through some of the most horrific violence witnessed in that century) up for someone else to do the work. The communist manifesto even states that there would be a heavily progressive income tax = differences in income.

the whole point is to raise the efficiency of production through better techniques (which in part due to the law of diminsihing returns, and the 'unprofitability' of certain technologies etc amongst others is held back under capitalism), workers better motivated because they run their workplace as opposed to the economic compulsion and exploitation of capitalism etc so that the cost of producing say, a car, is low enough for it to be bought by all in society.

this is not to say i am ungrateful for the advances made under capitalism, despite the blood, not at all. just time to hand over the reins, preferably peacefully.

{a crude summation but I lost the previous, longer version of this post}

Just to add, I'm also uncertain what interests the market forces of a strictly capitalistic society would have in long term planning.

A mix of socialism and capitalism seems most sensible right now, though I lean a bit more towards socialism.

One current example of hugely successful capitalism with an enthusiastic and highly appreciative market is the drug business dealing in marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc. The profits are huge and inspite of gigantic efforts to stop it it goes on and on extremely well.

@ pakled

nope. as a result of socio-economic historical forces there has never existed a capitalist/socialist dialectic. socialism is a result of the dialectic between capitalism and capitalists (the bourgeoisie) v. those exploitated by the capitalists (the proletariat). the synthesis of this process is socialism. the aim of marxists is to complete the process through revolution. its not as simple as written here because there is more than a simple two sided equation to consider. each part; thesis and antithesis are made up of multiple (often contradictory) parts. also it is called dialectical materialism because it is a hegelian dialectical process which is ultimately determined by actual conditions existing in time and space as opposed to the metaphysical process of hegelian dialectics. the work of Foucault on power is especially worth considering in this.

@ ruveyn



People do differ like this yes but the capitalist economy does not distribute according to differences in intelligence etc this distribution is already heavily prejudiced by the inequality of distribution financially, socially (in term s of access to education, healthcare etc) and politically, and is often secured and maintained by brute force, namely the bourgeois state and its agents (police, security services, paramilitaries, military etc.). there's an excellent reason gangster films are used to explore the nature of capitalism: because it is an extremely accurate analogy



(also @ codarac re Japan)
that is an oxymoron. not only is it not socialism it is in fact state-ism, a feature of a fascist state -- "State-ism, no matter where in Italy, Mussolini, in Germany, Hitler, in America, Roosevelt, or in France Léon Blum - means state intervention on the basis of private property, and with the goal of preserving it. Whatever be the programs of the government, state-ism inevitably leads to a tranfer of the damages of the decaying system from strong shoulders to the weak.....State-ism means applying brakes to the development of technique, supporting unviable enterprises, perpetuating parasitic social strata." Leon Trotsky The Revolution Betrayed p.186(2004 first printed 1937, Mineola, Dover Publications).

Trotsky is worth a read, whether you think for or against socialism. Not only will he correct a lot of misconceptions (deliberate or otherwise) regarding whether the USSR was socialist or not, also, he'll either make you a convert or make you scared, depending on whether you part of the rising class or the dying class.

Why just focus on money? Why not intelligence, height, sex appeal, etc?

The people who seem most obsessed with money are not those obnoxious country club yuppies many of us (myself included) find intolerable, but people who demonize them for their wealth and then want to distribute money they don't have to further whatever agenda is in their heads. In turn by wishing to bring about these schemes the need for effective propaganda and centralization almost certainly comes following after, along with ultimatly enforcement via the gun. Socialism is a system that is inherently violent, centralizing, and propagates information to fulfill it's own schemes.

I struggle with what is meant by the word egalitarianism when it is used by people from the left.

And that's a good point as well - mainly that the human condition creates many different kinds of heirarchy, people for the sake of their own comfort need to find their own niche or energy level that they can function to the best of their ability and maintain the pace rather than fry themselves. If it were ironed flat, it means that people would just dream up more creative and cramped methods on how to enforce social heirarchy.

Because it's an economic question, and questions of economics are most easily notated just by simplifying down to a dollar quantity.


That's not what I wanted to debate, though I should note that I made no assertions as to the method of establishing a hypothetical socialist state. Nor is socialism inherently violent.


e⋅gal⋅i⋅tar⋅i⋅an
  /ɪˌgælɪˈtɛəriən/ Show Spelled [ih-gal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1.asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.


Man, this thread sucks. I should have known it would be an epic fail as soon as I used the word "socialism."

Very true, that does seem to be the case indeed, empirical evidence certainly shows that, no doubt. Fortunatly though we also are a species (and from what I know the only one) that isn't completly driven by violent animal instincts. We can actually "see" the benefits of working with other tribes, we can refrain from violence and even disdain it, and we can trade. I find this aspect of humanity very encouraging.


We do seem to be tribal however. And when someone with a scheme wishes to centralize it is bound to cause friction and upheavel. I do not think we are designed for massive centralized society, and for good reason. That being said, I would not be suprised if the desire to centralize was a very primitive animal instinct of maybe marking territory/establishing breeding rights/an odd type of "fight or flight" response or something to that effect.

Yes, we've gotten over the need for 'blood relation', which had a huge effect on leaps and bounds forward starting with the western nation's economies. The only thing we still have, albeit weaker in place of it but still present, is clan-by-agenda. Then again one has to argue that agendas aren't inherently bad and yes, its still much more positive than us clubbing eachother over the heads or icepicking to solve debates.

Orwell, I won't go back and quote your reply to Joe but this is intended I think to answer your underlying question; if it worked, if it was better for society - I would be all for it because the theory, on a surface glance, seems beautiful, innocent, full of hope for a better day and future. Its hard not to love what's really at the heart of its intent at least.

Well, that's actually my question. I wasn't wondering about the theory or the intent. What I wondered was, without considering questions of implementation, whether we should more highly value total wealth produced or the distribution of that wealth. For example, if we could have lower levels of production, but what was produced was distributed in such a way to avoid extreme want, would this be better or worse than producing more and having a very pronounced division of wealth?