Quote :

"I've already explained why one firm could possibly produce more. Enforcing efficiency is a job I'd think would be best left up to sociology."

But it's not going to be sociologists making policy, it's going to be the people with guns. In a democracy it would be politicians in a legislature striking a compromise, in communism it is the party faithful, etc etc.

Quote :

"That's something akin to stealing, it's in their immediate best interests to do it, but in the long run, they will get caught. But why would this apply to the government? We're talking about individuals."

Government, like private enterprise, is made up of individuals. If your socio-economic system does not handle individuals well then your system is not going to work well.

8/2/2006 11:40:25 PM

Quote :

"That's an argument against quotas, not the government."

aint the government setting those quotas though?

8/3/2006 12:46:40 AM

Quote :

"But it's not going to be sociologists making policy, it's going to be the people with guns. In a democracy it would be politicians in a legislature striking a compromise, in communism it is the party faithful, etc etc."

Communism doesn't neccesitate dictatorship. It is an economic system.

Quote :

"Government, like private enterprise, is made up of individuals."

But individuals act different aggregately than they do individually.

Quote :

"aint the government setting those quotas though?"

Who said we needed a quota system to begin with?

8/3/2006 1:30:31 AM

Quote :

"Communism doesn't necessitate dictatorship. It is an economic system."

Where in what you quoted did I say the word dictatorship? I mentioned democracy and communism, neither of which is technically a dictatorship.

Quote :

"Who said we needed a quota system to begin with?"

Well, out of curiosity, what did you have in mind? Perhaps you could point me to some literature (preferably online) which lays out literally how you would like your system organized. It doesn't have to be historical, just detailed.

8/3/2006 8:04:19 AM

What are we worried about. Raul looks like a friendly enough socialist. He looks like he'll apply the wonderful principles of communism fairly.

8/3/2006 10:52:00 AM

Quote :

"Where in what you quoted did I say the word dictatorship? I mentioned democracy and communism, neither of which is technically a dictatorship."

You implied that communism and democracy were mutually exclusive. Communism does not neccitate despotism.

Quote :

"Well, out of curiosity, what did you have in mind?"

I've discussed it a several times here. No need for me to go into it agian.

Quote :

"Perhaps you could point me to some literature (preferably online) which lays out literally how you would like your system organized. It doesn't have to be historical, just detailed."

This is a good start, but still probably going to be less specific than you want:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm

Quote :

"What are we worried about. Raul looks like a friendly enough socialist. He looks like he'll apply the wonderful principles of communism fairly."

YEAH DOOD HES UGLY HE GOT TO BE A BAD GUY!!!

[Edited on August 3, 2006 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/3/2006 1:45:13 PM

Quote :

"This is a good start, but still probably going to be less specific than you want:"

You got that right. I had no idea Marxists back then were so enamored with Christianity. His biggest complaint against private property was that it encouraged people to fullfill the unchristian desires of others.

8/3/2006 2:28:59 PM

You know damned well I didn't ask you to prove whether or not economies of scale existed, but way to cut off a quote mid-sentence.

Also, you scenario of wal-mart v. joes DOES imply that wal-mart is more efficient. That's the reason it puts joes out of business. Taking advantages of economies of scale IS efficiency you dumb fuck. If you pass on them whereas some other firm does not, you are the less efficient firm.

8/3/2006 2:42:45 PM

Quote :

"I had no idea Marxists back then were so enamored with Christianity."

I'd say he liked it more than judism, but no matter how noble it's original goals it still ends as a tool of the rich. But we're getting kind of off topic aren't we?

Quote :

"If you pass on them whereas some other firm does not, you are the less efficient firm."

Little local joe's grocery doesn't really have that option of reducing fixed cost to the degree wal-mart does.

8/3/2006 5:28:05 PM

Quote :

"Little local joe's grocery doesn't really have that option of reducing fixed cost to the degree wal-mart does."

So?

8/3/2006 6:42:31 PM

Assiming market equilibrium is enforced, one big firm is able to produce more goods at a lower cost to society.

8/3/2006 7:34:23 PM

Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement, but you make it sound bad that "one big firm is able to produce more goods at a lower cost to society."

8/3/2006 7:41:02 PM

That's not what I intended, bgmims has kind of spun the statement around a bit.
I argue that one firm is the best at doing stuff, and I use wal-mart's success as an example. It should be obvious that we should take advantage of this, the only issue should be enforcing equilibrium.

8/3/2006 7:58:18 PM

If one firm should do it then one probably will eventually under a free-enterprise system.

However, life isn't always simple, as Wal-Mart has learned from its utter failure to find any market penetration on any continent other than North America. Hell, Wal-Mart has completely abandoned both Korea and Germany, suffering massive losses as a result. As in any industry, local knowledge is key, and it is this knowledge that government has never been good at utilizing.

8/4/2006 12:23:25 AM

Peggy Noonan has a good idea...

Quote :

"With Castro gone, why not seize the moment for some wise, judicious, free-market love-bombing? As in: Allow Americans to go to Cuba. Allow U.S. private money into Cuba. Let hotels, homes, restaurants, stores be developed, bought, opened, reopened. Use Fidel's death to reintroduce Cubans on the ground to Americans, American ways, American money and American freedom. Remind them of what they wanted, what they thought they were getting when the bearded one came down from the Sierra Maestre. Use his death/illness/collapse/disappearing act as an excuse to turn the past 40 years of policy on its head. Declare him over. Create new ties. Ignore the dictator, make partnerships with the people. If he is actually ill, why not arrange it so that the last sounds he hears on earth are a great racket from the streets? What, he will ask the nurse, is that? "Oh," she can explain, "they are rebuilding Havana. It's the Hilton Corp. Except for the drills. That's Steve Wynn. The jackhammer is Ave Maria University, building an extension campus." Imagine him hearing this. It would, finally, be the exploding cigar. That's the way to make his beard fall off."

American Capitalism is a potent weapon. Our blue jeans and nikes did as much to bring down the soviets as our military presence. Let's swamp the island with prosperity and let the dying dictator sink away.

8/4/2006 2:06:03 AM

Quote :

"If one firm should do it then one probably will eventually under a free-enterprise system."

You're right, it probably will, but unfortunately equilibrium won't be enforced, so the firm will operate ineffectively.

Quote :

"As in any industry, local knowledge is key, and it is this knowledge that government has never been good at utilizing."

It's not done that bad of a job, but that's more to blame on our brand of democracy moreso than government in general.

Quote :

"Our blue jeans and nikes did as much to bring down the soviets as our military presence."

BS. It was all those missles we were making them buy and build.

8/4/2006 1:54:45 PM

Quote :

"BS. It was all those missles we were making them buy and build."

BS. If their system was so fragile that they couldn't handle a little arms race then they should have quit. Which, honestly, is what they did: military spending was already falling in the 80s, that it collapsed by the 90s meant the system was doomed all along, regardless of the amount of money wasted on military spending.

Hell, according to CIA estimates factor productivity (outputs over inputs) peaked in the 1960s and fell every decade after that. Political and economic collapse was not inevitable, but the system was done, there was nothing else left for it to do.

Your best bet is to argue that Soviet Russia was not your form of communism and that your form would be radically different and able to keep up with the west not just militarily but technologically.

[Edited on August 4, 2006 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/4/2006 2:26:52 PM

so basically it sounds like the US made Russia keep up with us militarily and that led them to the poor house

8/4/2006 2:31:36 PM

Quote :

"BS. If their system was so fragile that they couldn't handle a little arms race then they should have quit."

It wasn't really a "little arms race". It was the biggest the world has ever seen, and it continues to be the driving force behind the fighting taking place even today.

But I do agree, they should have quit, but their national pride was thick, but honestly, had we have been the poorer nation, I think we would have went down the same way.

Quote :

"Which, honestly, is what they did: military spending was already falling in the 80s, that it collapsed by the 90s meant the system was doomed all along, regardless of the amount of money wasted on military spending."

That was all more or less part of the fall. It's not surprising that collapse wasn't instant. It was something akin to a tanker wreck. By the time you've seen you've gone to far, you can do little but sit and wait for it to happen.

Quote :

"Hell, according to CIA estimates factor productivity (outputs over inputs) peaked in the 1960s and fell every decade after that."

I blame that on the rise of military spending causing reinvesting in themselves to lower.

Quote :

"Your best bet is to argue that Soviet Russia was not your form of communism and that your form would be radically different and able to keep up with the west not just militarily but technologically."

I've said several times that it wasn't my flavor of communism. Mine doesn't come through revolution, that's not really practical in the modern world. I'd say early stages of my system would be better observed in Denmark or Sweden. But I still do not deny the success of the soviets. It's something to learn from.

Quote :

"so basically it sounds like the US made Russia keep up with us militarily and that led them to the poor house"

You'd be right, that's basically what happened.

8/4/2006 3:18:19 PM

Quote :

"You'd be right, that's basically what happened."

well with all this shit thats going on now in the world, do you see something similar happening with the US?

like all these expenditures for iraq, and the whole middle east debacle, and iran getting all pissy, and north korea shooting missles, higher gas prices, etc...do you foresee the US falling?

8/4/2006 3:23:45 PM

not really, it's kind of different, back then it was a battle of superpowers, this is more of an example of a superpower spreading itself out thin

what will probably happen should the US hit signifigant financial troubles (depending on our debt to china), is that we will just draw back a bit from world political involvement

it would take a whole lot to cause us signifigant damage, and the only nation that could even possibly hurt us like that in the near future would be china, and they're both a far ways from it, and for now, fairly uninterested in doing it.

8/4/2006 3:46:33 PM

Quote :

"well with all this shit thats going on now in the world, do you see something similar happening with the US?"

Let me put it this way: at it's height, the soviet union was spending almost 30% of GDP on defense (a rediculous figure, especially since it cannot be verified because under the soviet system nothing had costs, only arbitrarily determined prices with no relation to costs, so this figure was calculated using guestimation of opportunity costs).

The U.S., right now, is spending about 5% of GDP on defense, a smaller percentage than was spent in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. This is in no small thanks to the surging private sector productivity growth of the 90s and 00s.

[Edited on August 4, 2006 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/4/2006 4:32:09 PM