[Michaeluj]

I don't think that, objectively speaking, the value of the work I do changes based on how many other people are currently trained or willing to do it. This only matters when I have to compete with others for a job in a free market, when we, in an overcrowded market of architects or doctors or chicken feeders or whatever, are willing to work for less, since the alternative would be financial ruin through unemployment.

No. Economics is about producing what people, the producers included, want. If I spent years studying, let's say, xenobiology, it would be less helpful to others and so have less value.

Wait, I just reread your argument and discovered that, if I sum it like this:

Value of proportions (for labor) doesn't exist because it's only used in a system with that condition embedded in it.

, I can see that your argument is utterly empty. Even though socialism is supposed to exist entirely contrary to capitalism, you can't simply say, 'that aspect of capitalism is unneeded' and wash your hands of explanation. You provided no reasoning for how calculation is supposed to be done otherwise. Why, practically speaking, should everyone have the same value, or, in other words, the same degrees of variation of labor costs as in capitalism but with some theoretical base that's based on some unreasoned point of objective wage?

According to the model I've quoted, only based on productivity/efficiency relative to average.

So, it doesn't matter if there's a surplus, or lack of, a certain job that people need/don't need; all that matters is the differences between people of the same job?

So you're giving people more money for having luck and better machinery, but you're not doing it because more of them are desired? Even ignoring the troubles that this will cause along every single point of finding the cheapest method to manufacture capital goods when there's a plethora of variety for every single step, with different quality and rarity for resources and labor methods, this is just silly for even the really minor calculation argument of organizing labor. With every career having the same total payment based on labor hours, with those values distributed among each career based on the individual's output, you're saying that we have absolutely no need to see where effort put in is below gain produced.
You're also saying that wages are provided by both the student and the teacher at the same time, even though nothing is being produced in the interim but potential, and that makes no sense!

Why are you trying to have equal skill levels? No one will be equally skilled. You're asking me to do the impossible. They also don't need to cost the same to train. I don't see why you find this relevant at all.

That's the point: I was trying to make your calculations as stupidly simple as possible. If that is impossible, then you fail. You also fail for not comprehending.

No, what I am saying is that his "value" derives from his work. If he works for an hour, he is compensated for an hour. This includes his time spent studying, whether in high school or in university. That way, he is unable to claim higher value for his skilled labour, because he willingly undertook the responsibility to become skilled, and was paid for it at the expense of the people.

So an idiot should have the same 'wages' as a genius, taking resources from other produces to the same degree (as long as they're not in the same exact career, when their skills of architecture are objectively compared. ) ... because he should have the same wages?

First thing is that I'll tell you I don't know what you mean by 'just money' and that there is only $2000/person.

It's actually quite simple:
Just money: people like to talk about how they're deprived because the capitalists have millions of dollars worth of resources; however, most of those resources, simply as a matter of being owned, do not deprive those people. A factory can be owned, but it's not like I'm poor, in the resource sense, simply because a factory is worthless by itself; a factory is not wealth but the producer of wealth. How can I convert a factory into furniture? All I can do to be more wealthy is to have the furniture PRODUCED by the factory.
2000/person: Capitalists have money in bank accounts. This is, of course, the surplus that should be entitled to the workers. Divide that by the number of people, and everyone will have a few grand. It'll take a long time for that kind of money to return to the people again.

You are intentionally ignoring the inflationary effects of money accumulation and freely available credit. I'm going by real data and also some anecdotal confirmations: The old folks who sit on our city labour council say that 50 years ago, an average worker with a steady job would need not more than a couple of years of savings to buy a home. Now it is 40 years of indentured servitude through paying half of his or her income. This difference is arrived at simply by adding "cheap" credit to the market. If we remove this, we have a return to more affordable goods (consider that wages would have to go up as well, because cheap credit was introduced as a shortsighted remedy to wage reduction). If we remove the ability for massive accumulation, the relative price of everything drops further, and the returns on each hour of labour increase.

So...inflation reduces the ability for capitalists to collect wealth? I think you're trying to make the argument as erratic as possible to avoid making a solid stance.

That's where I can say with certainty that you are wrong. I don't care in the least bit about "winning" or "losing" this argument. At most, I'm interested in having an honest discussion.

Then don't ever mention the generally unrelated point of capitalism being too broken for even calculation to save it.

So, again, why do you care if that green light / red light is determined by a calculation based on maximising profit, or determined by a calculation based on fair compensation, if you are going to be following it anyway?

Because the amount of traffic produced at intersections is objective; the averaging of those numbers works it's only one stage of 'production' (ie, cars move, then people move; then start the whole thing again); and the issue of variable driver and pedestrian skill levels vs. fuel costs of standing still is relatively minor when the interval of the production is less than a minute; and you cannot rationally tell how much people want one good vs a different good of different quality while walking people want to walk and driving people only wanting to drive. Basically, you can't calculation need in relation to other needs, thus supply in relation to other supplies and all the problems of distribution that this produces. You can calculate between drivers and walkers only wanting their respective goals, while an economy has too much variety.

[naked_turk]

No. Economics is about producing what people, the producers included, want. If I spent years studying, let's say, xenobiology, it would be less helpful to others and so have less value.

And what is your point? That the central aspect of the planning would be so poor as to allocate many educational spots to train individuals in a plethora of unnecessary careers? Or that they would provide jobs for those who want needless careers? I think you're being intentionally daft here. The quoted model, which I will again emphasize is not the only option, suggests the "state" guarantee work for the individual, but not necessarily guarantee work in the field of the individual's choice. I suggest if you are truly interested in criticising this particular model, you read the book before you argue against something that is already covered in it.

So, it doesn't matter if there's a surplus, or lack of, a certain job that people need/don't need; all that matters is the differences between people of the same job?

See above.

You're also saying that wages are provided by both the student and the teacher at the same time, even though nothing is being produced in the interim but potential, and that makes no sense!

Wages are paid to both. Society will require the potential it is investing in, so yes, it does make plenty of sense.

That's the point: I was trying to make your calculations as stupidly simple as possible. If that is impossible, then you fail. You also fail for not comprehending.

Thanks for the favour; it was very kind of you.

So an idiot should have the same 'wages' as a genius, taking resources from other produces to the same degree (as long as they're not in the same exact career, when their skills of architecture are objectively compared. ) ... because he should have the same wages?

Again, you're playing daft by avoiding a common sense fact that people would need to be skill tested, have to meet predetermined standards, and maintain those standards just as in a regular university. Competition for a highly desired spot would necessitate that only the most qualified would be eligible to take the most contested positions. That you refuse to acknowledge this does not subtract from the model I have presented.

2000/person: Capitalists have money in bank accounts. This is, of course, the surplus that should be entitled to the workers. Divide that by the number of people, and everyone will have a few grand. It'll take a long time for that kind of money to return to the people again.

Are you suggesting that the total amount of money in the accounts of wealthy people in the US is less than 700 billion dollars? I find this figure staggeringly difficult to believe, and your blatant lying repugnant. When we consider that there is nearly a 10 trillion dollar money supply in chequing and savings accounts, and wealthy people control 90 percent of that, your argument falls apart. Heck, considering the approximately 600 billion increase in the supply last year, that's a $2000 theft from me alone, with a very few beneficiaries reaping the rewards up top.

My doubling of wages argument stems from this simple fact: as a general rule, a business wants to (and on average does) pay each labourer about half of the value that his or her labour produces.

So...inflation reduces the ability for capitalists to collect wealth? I think you're trying to make the argument as erratic as possible to avoid making a solid stance.

No, I am simply pointing out the price hikes that results from wealth concentration. The higher the wealth, the more expensive an item I want to buy will cost, regardless of the objective value of the item.

Because the amount of traffic produced at intersections is objective; the averaging of those numbers works it's only one stage of 'production' (ie, cars move, then people move; then start the whole thing again) ...

Your analogy ceases to be an effective tool when you've made it so convoluted.

I could beat you here, regarding calculation, but then you'll just say that I'm wrong because I automatically lost a *bigger* argument that we shouldn't even bother to discuss.

I'm leaving this 'debate' now, as it seems to be more about you flexing your ego and your adolescent desire to 'beat' me than an actual discussion. You can assault your next partner with emoticons and insinuate their stupidity in order to demonstrate that you've won.

[Michaeluj]

And what is your point? That the central aspect of the planning would be so poor as to allocate many educational spots to train individuals in a plethora of unnecessary careers? Or that they would provide jobs for those who want needless careers? I think you're being intentionally daft here. The quoted model, which I will again emphasize is not the only option, suggests the "state" guarantee work for the individual, but not necessarily guarantee work in the field of the individual's choice. I suggest if you are truly interested in criticising this particular model, you read the book before you argue against something that is already covered in it.

I could just say, "So how will the state know what everyone wants in relation to literally any other good, but I think the matter here is convoluted enough, so I'll move on to the more interesting bits.

Quote:
You're also saying that wages are provided by both the student and the teacher at the same time, even though nothing is being produced in the interim but potential, and that makes no sense!
Wages are paid to both. Society will require the potential it is investing in, so yes, it does make plenty of sense.

So, with literally no costs going in, how can you calculate when the benefits break even? According to the opportunity costs, the teacher could be doing something immediately useful RIGHT now and the student could be working productively RIGHT now. Don't say that, "But learning and teaching is immediate productive," because it's definitely not; education doesn't make anyone physically happy in the immediate present, so there should be a set of figures showing how this education in one job is better than the work beginning now for a different job. A calculation should be made to express the success of a decision that optimizes the joy of the participants of an economy; you can't just say, "Well, a future architect is better than a current consultant, right?" because that is pure guesswork, and guesswork leads to inefficiencies piling up, year by year and day by day. Just tell me how you can calculate this!

Quote:
So an idiot should have the same 'wages' as a genius, taking resources from other produces to the same degree (as long as they're not in the same exact career, when their skills of architecture are objectively compared. ) ... because he should have the same wages?
Again, you're playing daft by avoiding a common sense fact that people would need to be skill tested, have to meet predetermined standards, and maintain those standards just as in a regular university. Competition for a highly desired spot would necessitate that only the most qualified would be eligible to take the most contested positions. That you refuse to acknowledge this does not subtract from the model I have presented.

No, I did. You wrote that wages will be adjusted for productivity. However, you cannot compare an architect with a doctor, so you will only be able to adjust the wages of individuals grouped with the same job; however, the sum total of each (therefore all, by the way) must end up equaling the labor value of everyone (or else labor-hours will turn out to be over-valued, causing serious problems with how your cogitating the functionality and the inherent 'fairness' of this system). This is an example:
10 architects have total 10 labor hours of work and 10 doctors have total 10 labor hours of work. Let's say that half of the architects are slobs, doing half of the 'expected' quality, so 5 of them have 2.5 labor hours total in payment and the other 5 have 7.5 in total. The doctors, on the other hand, are all competent except for one who is trash; the one is paid a subsistence and the rest get like 1.1 labor credits each. I mean, this is a brutal game where the best literally take away from the worst simply by being even slightly more competent. But, I digress: if an entire career is populated by relative idiots, then the best of those idiots would theoretically have the same buying power as the best of producers, like a good box-carrying boy would be able to acquire the same resources as the best builder of skyscrapers. Clearly, the output of either is vastly different, yet they could both easily consume the same amount of resources, with the box-boy taking the metals (indirectly) that could have been purchased by the latter to make something great. This is an impractical disassociation between skill and reward that will leave everyone poorer in the long run.

Are you suggesting that the total amount of money in the accounts of wealthy people in the US is less than 700 billion dollars? I find this figure staggeringly difficult to believe, and your blatant lying repugnant. When we consider that there is nearly a 10 trillion dollar money supply in chequing and savings accounts, and wealthy people control 90 percent of that, your argument falls apart. Heck, considering the approximately 600 billion increase in the supply last year, that's a $2000 theft from me alone, with a very few beneficiaries reaping the rewards up top.

You do know that people count the factories when making that 9-trillion-dollars-owned-by-the-rich statement, right? Indeed, it seems plausible, with this case, that less than 10 percent of that amount could be the real wealth of the rich that is supposedly depriving people.
Again, remember that a factory is, in the sense of making people directly happier, worthless. What is a share of a factory without its goods, or, for the matter of a socialist society, money? It's just a place to stand in. Money, the part that is crucially being taken from the workers, is small.

My doubling of wages argument stems from this simple fact: as a general rule, a business wants to (and on average does) pay each labourer about half of the value that his or her labour produces.

Well, yeah, especially with capital-intensive production methods. However, that money usually goes to the various people who built that machinery and who maintain it (After all, the ones who push the buttons, while directly producing the goods, don't do all of the work), so, in effect, it pretty much balances until profit margins are reduced.

No, I am simply pointing out the price hikes that results from wealth concentration. The higher the wealth, the more expensive an item I want to buy will cost, regardless of the objective value of the item.

You're going to have to explain that again, and with more care and detail.

Your analogy ceases to be an effective tool when you've made it so convoluted.

Okay, how about this:
It's easier to calculate for 4 variables than 10 million!!

Michaeluj previously wrote:
I could beat you here, regarding calculation, but then you'll just say that I'm wrong because I automatically lost a *bigger* argument that we shouldn't even bother to discuss.
I'm leaving this 'debate' now, as it seems to be more about you flexing your ego and your adolescent desire to 'beat' me than an actual discussion. You can assault your next partner with emoticons and insinuate their stupidity in order to demonstrate that you've won.

Oh, you called me childish. It is now fair of me to off-handedly insult you.
I gave you the respect of using that silly argument by thinking that you did it intentionally, thus to "beat" me. However, I now see that you simply didn't understand that a debate is supposed to be maintained within the regions of directly applicable point and counter-points so that we don't get immersed in details that have no appreciable impact on the veracity of one's stance on economic calculation. I try to anticipate every possible interpretation of an opponent, but even I couldn't predict that you accidentally wandered into such a flawed debate stance.

[naked_turk]

So, with literally no costs going in, how can you calculate when the benefits break even? According to the opportunity costs, the teacher could be doing something immediately useful RIGHT now and the student could be working productively RIGHT now.

Are you suggesting that the teacher and student automatically gravitate towards the most productive paths in the free market whereas they'd be less likely to under this planned system? That in a free market system, teachers and students are dropping in and out constantly to maximise productivity, guided by the green and red lights you spoke of? And on a bigger level, are you suggesting that the current planning of the economy which is done by the economic heavyweights, solely for self-interest, leads to the most effecient outcome? You're really grasping at straws here.

This is where the central planning aspect comes in to determine who could best be used in what position. The fact that WalMart can run a centrally planned economy the size of a country and not fall prey to the inefficiencies that you speak of is proof enough for me. Show me how a business calculates what to put into R&D versus what to put into production and I will tell you that the same model can be applied to your teacher-student scenario. To use your words, how about you "just tell me how you can calculate this!" ... Trying to calculate this "is pure guesswork!" Inefficiencies will pile up! It just can't work! Right?

In any case, again, your argument for productivity and breaking even rings hollow here. We don't care for optimum efficiency and growth; the preferred outcome is a 0 growth economy. We want the economy to expand or contract only based on the population size. When profit is not the driving motive (a concept completely alien to you) none of your critiques apply.

You wrote that wages will be adjusted for productivity. However, you cannot compare an architect with a doctor, so you will only be able to adjust the wages of individuals grouped with the same job; however, the sum total of each (therefore all, by the way) must end up equaling the labor value of everyone (or else labor-hours will turn out to be over-valued, causing serious problems with how your cogitating the functionality and the inherent 'fairness' of this system).

You're absolutely correct in this. What you've missed altogether is that I never suggested that the Cockshott/Cattrell model uses a direct relationship between output and credits. They advocate making just enough adjustments to promote efficiency and punish inefficiency.

As for the Architect/Boxboy - if they both work for 10 hours, and they both do what the job requires of them, I see them as making 10 hours worth of produced goods, no matter how much you try to tell me one kind of job has more value than the other. If we didn't have food producers and box carriers, the job of the architect would become irrelevant as we wouldn't be building skyscrapers. Everything necessary to society has equal value in relation to how much work went into producing it. Current distortions to our interpretation of value, necessary to promote the culture of exploitation, is what makes you unable to grasp this.

Anecdotally, I will mention 3 jobs I have held over the past year: shawarma chef, UPS truck maintenance/then UPS driver, and finally, software developer (how efficient for the system to be employing an engineer in the kitchen of a foreign fast food store!). I can say with certainty that the difficulty or the amount of effort I put in decreases from left to right. The fact that, inversely, pay increases from left to right tells you these are positions of privilege rather than fair compensation for the work. As a developer, I can say that I did may be 10 concerted hours of work in a 40 hour work week - and I was still more productive than my peers. At UPS, 35 out of 40 hours. As a shawarma cook, 28 out of 28 hours, with not even a moment of rest. In your Architect/Boxboy example, the architect may have a seemingly more "difficult" job than the box carrier while getting equal compensation, but I can guarantee that the architect in return receives the benefit of a very lax work environment that adapts to his schedule, and he is certainly not fully engaged in work even 20 out of the 40 hours per week.

As per the question of what to do with a severe underperformer - these severe underperformers exist even now, this is not a unique problem to a socialist economy. The current remedy is that they get fired and take a less desirable job, and failing that, go on social assistance or to psychiatric care facilities. The same sort of demotions can apply anywhere.

You do know that people count the factories when making that 9-trillion-dollars-owned-by-the-rich statement, right? Indeed, it seems plausible, with this case, that less than 10 percent of that amount could be the real wealth of the rich that is supposedly depriving people.

No, 10 trillion is the actual US money supply in chequing and savings type accounts. There is 2 trillion fully liquid in paper money and in chequings alone. The value of publicly traded stocks alone in the USA is almost 60 trillion! If I had included wealth in the form of land, factories, intellectual property and other holdings, this figure would soar to an unknown figure well over and much beyond 100 trillion.

Again, remember that a factory is, in the sense of making people directly happier, worthless. What is a share of a factory without its goods, or, for the matter of a socialist society, money?

The factory owned by the people is run for the people. No capitalist is going to operate one factory at a relative loss and operate the other at a relative profit. He'd just close the one operating below his standards, even if society wants the product. Socialism makes it possible to make use of all productive resources available and putting every person to work. So yes, a factory not being run for the benefit of the people is depriving them of goods simply by having been built.

Well, yeah, especially with capital-intensive production methods. However, that money usually goes to the various people who built that machinery and who maintain it (After all, the ones who push the buttons, while directly producing the goods, don't do all of the work), so, in effect, it pretty much balances until profit margins are reduced.

Google: 38 billion revenue, 12 billion profit. That is 13:19 ratio of costs vs total income. Consider that much of this goes into paying inordinately high wages for management, paying for R&D and intellectual property rights. Cutting out only the hierarchical pay system, we can easily see this becoming 1:2 ratio.

Repeat for any company. When you consider a company with a large cost ratio that requires expensive machinery, aside from profits paying out, some of the extra value produced by the worker goes into reinvesting into the company like you said - but that capital accumulates in the name of the owner. When he sells the company, all of the value of the work the labourers produced and accumulated in capital assets are channelled to the pockets of the owner. Time theft, pure and simple.

[Michaeluj]

Quote:
So, with literally no costs going in, how can you calculate when the benefits break even? According to the opportunity costs, the teacher could be doing something immediately useful RIGHT now and the student could be working productively RIGHT now.
Are you suggesting that the teacher and student automatically gravitate towards the most productive paths in the free market whereas they'd be less likely to under this planned system? That in a free market system, teachers and students are dropping in and out constantly to maximise productivity, guided by the green and red lights you spoke of? And on a bigger level, are you suggesting that the current planning of the economy which is done by the economic heavyweights, solely for self-interest, leads to the most effecient outcome? You're really grasping at straws here.

Nope....
I'm positing that choices are important. Anyone can see that doing something for the future is a choice which also involves considering doing any one thing alternatively or any thousands of things. However, debating the options involves putting together costs vs benefits and seeing which method is theoretically the best. If you just throw rewards at every single step, in basically equal increments, from a person's birth to death, then there's no real way to tell when a decision is worse or better than the other choices. Someone would actually have to say, "Yeah, I didn't do any work," for any punishment to occur.

The fact that WalMart can run a centrally planned economy the size of a country and not fall prey to the inefficiencies that you speak of is proof enough for me. Show me how a business calculates what to put into R&D versus what to put into production and I will tell you that the same model can be applied to your teacher-student scenario.

Well, Wal-mart doesn't use its own factories...and they literally price everything...and so both production methods and distribution methods can be compiled in terms of input vs output by directly comparing to the costs of other enterprises...so, no, Wal-mart can quantify everything based on the costs of everything and the rewards provided.

In any case, again, your argument for productivity and breaking even rings hollow here. We don't care for optimum efficiency and growth; the preferred outcome is a 0 growth economy. We want the economy to expand or contract only based on the population size. When profit is not the driving motive (a concept completely alien to you) none of your critiques apply.

So, since you don't want efficiency and only want 0 growth, the perfect economy is one where the stages of production can be no higher than smashing 2 rocks together to make stone tools, as long as it never gets larger or smaller than this? If efficiency doesn't matter, then the result of this is that output doesn't matter; efficiency leads to greater output, so efficiency being bad means that the gains that each person makes relative to their work should remain forever arbitrarily constant. You're basically telling people that they should have less entertainment, food, comfort, shelter, and medicine for the sake of ... well ... the sake of not having "efficiency". You really need to elucidate the matter. I mean, growth doesn't matter here: people can do more with the same materials as long as they're being more efficient; you just want people to have less than their potential.

They advocate making just enough adjustments to promote efficiency and punish inefficiency.

Are you strictly referring to the deportation/coerced job replacement? I'll get to that momentarily.

I see them as making 10 hours worth of produced goods, no matter how much you try to tell me one kind of job has more value than the other. If we didn't have food producers and box carriers, the job of the architect would become irrelevant as we wouldn't be building skyscrapers. Everything necessary to society has equal value in relation to how much work went into producing it. Current distortions to our interpretation of value, necessary to promote the culture of exploitation, is what makes you unable to grasp this.

None of those sentences fit together to make a coherent argument. Here's your sentences in simplified form:
"10 hours=10 hours of goods.
Losing 1 hour suddenly causes another hour to be lost.
Therefore, each hour is equally important.
Also, this is not the case now because exploitation."
You're trying to see value as how you want it to be seen and not how others, in their vastly differing opinions based on relative need and the need to distribute things that really can't be given to everyone, view it.
Why is all labor equal? Because I'm playing the holistic card, you say. Dude, I already know of that concept, so you must try more realistically here.

Anecdotally, I will mention 3 jobs I have held over the past year: shawarma chef, UPS truck maintenance/then UPS driver, and finally, software developer (how efficient for the system to be employing an engineer in the kitchen of a foreign fast food store!). I can say with certainty that the difficulty or the amount of effort I put in decreases from left to right. The fact that, inversely, pay increases from left to right tells you these are positions of privilege rather than fair compensation for the work. As a developer, I can say that I did may be 10 concerted hours of work in a 40 hour work week - and I was still more productive than my peers. At UPS, 35 out of 40 hours. As a shawarma cook, 28 out of 28 hours, with not even a moment of rest. In your Architect/Boxboy example, the architect may have a seemingly more "difficult" job than the box carrier while getting equal compensation, but I can guarantee that the architect in return receives the benefit of a very lax work environment that adapts to his schedule, and he is certainly not fully engaged in work even 20 out of the 40 hours per week.

So, in comparison to brute effort of unrelated jobs, a half-hearted architect will get the same amount of money as a hard-working boxboy? If so, how does that show the reasonable nature of a system that gives the former the same amount of resources as the latter and, thus, deprives the potential gain that the latter could produce with those extra resources?

As per the question of what to do with a severe underperformer - these severe underperformers exist even now, this is not a unique problem to a socialist economy. The current remedy is that they get fired and take a less desirable job, and failing that, go on social assistance or to psychiatric care facilities. The same sort of demotions can apply anywhere.

I honestly wasn't bothering about the severe underperformers.

No, 10 trillion is the actual US money supply in chequing and savings type accounts. There is 2 trillion fully liquid and in chequings alone. If we consider wealth in the form of land, factories, intellectual property and other holdings, this figure would soar to well over 100 trillion.

Well, now you're going to have to provide proof regarding this in terms of distribution, with evidence that clearly defines money distribution. I had, long ago, posted my argument and got no negative feedback from the predominantly leftist population here, and House, one of the most intellectually honest posters here, has made a point of this argument numerous times. I don't know where my thread is, but you're going to have to explain yourself.

The factory owned by the people is run for the people. No capitalist is going to operate one factory at a relative loss and operate the other at a relative profit. He'd just close the one operating below his standards, even if society wants the product. Socialism makes it possible to make use of all productive resources available and putting every person to work. So yes, a factory not being run for the benefit of the people is depriving them of goods.

Each type of produced item has relative benefits to the population, based on the scope of the desire. Surely it is clear that supplying for 50 million people is better than for 4, especially if the effort spent in running the machinery is not compensated by the rewards provided by the value of the work produced by the buyers, right? Therefore, it is better for a factory to run to produce a certain amount in relation to another; but it can't do both at once, so your argument is bs for not realizing that people aren't omnipotent.

Google: 38 billion revenue, 12 billion profit. That is 13:19 ratio of costs vs total income. Consider that much of this goes into paying inordinately high wages for management, paying for R&D and intellectual property rights. Cutting out only the hierarchical pay system, we can easily see this becoming 1:2 ratio.

Oh, I thought you meant factory work, because clearly the intellectual efforts of Google are so far beyond the realm of production that the amount of pleasure they produce for millions of people is significant despite not being strictly physical. Tell me, why should the people of Google be paid far less?

but that capital accumulates in the name of the owner. When he sells the company, all of the value of the work the labourers produced and accumulated in capital assets are channelled to the pockets of the owner. Time theft, pure and simple.

That's if you assume that he did no real benefit to the company, and also if you assume that literally most or all of it will be spent immediately on goods, which, if not the case, would lead to others having opportunity to invest and do more productive work.

[naked_turk]

Someone would actually have to say, "Yeah, I didn't do any work," for any punishment to occur.

Why do you keep selectively missing my references to the glaringly obvious need for objective measures of productivity?

Well, Wal-mart doesn't use its own factories...and they literally price everything...and so both production methods and distribution methods can be compiled in terms of input vs output by directly comparing to the costs of other enterprises...so, no, Wal-mart can quantify everything based on the costs of everything and the rewards provided.

You have zero argument against this. You're dismissing this because WalMart doesn't run the factory directly and sets the final sale prices? Well of course! I used this example because it is precisely the role that the state would take in a socialist economy! You've been doing a pretty good job of avoiding clear relations simply in order to not have to deal with an argument. WalMart, a massive economy in its own right, and countless other multinationals, have not fallen prey to the supposed inefficiencies and dangers inherent in central planning. A state can do likewise and even better. When you've no response to this, you dismiss the argument as invalid. You're clearly in this for your ego rather than participate in a discussion.

I mean, growth doesn't matter here: people can do more with the same materials as long as they're being more efficient; you just want people to have less than their potential.

Do I? Thanks for putting words into my mouth. I am specifically against the notion that "efficiency" is a good thing when it comes to profit. We have no concern for efficiency as it relates to making a profit. Take Canada's provincial ministries of health for instance. They intentionally run at a loss to provide a necessary service and have the deficit covered by taxes. This system eliminates direct hospital profits but doesn't eliminate the disgustingly large profits the equipment manufacturers make from the taxpayer. Despite this, the result is that on average, the system is twice as efficient as the US health system for each dollar put into it... while running at a loss. Crazy idea, I know. And your interpretation of this is that I want people to have less than their potential!

Are you strictly referring to the deportation/coerced job replacement? I'll get to that momentarily.

No, I mean that wage adjustment should not be directly relational to the productivity, only that there should be a relation.

Also, this is not the case now because exploitation."

Not at all what I said. I said your interpretation of value is distorted by the reigning paradigm of economics which is necessary to support the culture of exploitation. Yet, you distort the argument to try and make a point against the false argument you've created.

So, in comparison to brute effort of unrelated jobs, a half-hearted architect will get the same amount of money as a hard-working boxboy?

Half-hearted Architect? I never said this. I simply responded to your concern about why the architect should get paid the same as the boxboy:
1)Any training of the architect was undertaken by the state, so he has no claim to his skills
2)The boxboy is also necessary for the proper function of society, so his labour is not to be dismissed as any less worthy
3)The architect gets the advantage of the prestige of his work. He is also not required to be engaged 100% of the time due to the nature of his work.
From my point of view, the day-to-day work of the architect is arguably easier than the boxboy's. The boxboy has the opposite view, and therefore he's taken a job as a boxboy.

Well, now you're going to have to provide proof regarding this in terms of distribution, with evidence that clearly defines money distribution. I had, long ago, posted my argument and got no negative feedback from the predominantly leftist population here, and House, one of the most intellectually honest posters here, has made a point of this argument numerous times. I don't know where my thread is, but you're going to have to explain yourself.

Here you go, courtesy of the federal reserve. Enjoy:
2.2 trillion M1 supply, paper money and chequings
9.7 trillion M2 supply, M1 + savings accounts
They don't even publish the M3 anymore but that includes less-than-fully liquid money so you might have a problem with that. That would be probably around 15 trillion right now.

Property, assets, and other forms of wealth:
There is 60 trillion in simply in publicly traded stocks alone.
There is 60 trillion of financial assets owned by the finance sector (banks, for example). The Fed doesn't publish their tangible assets though so as not to show their full worth.
There is 60 trillion in financial assets and 50 trillion in tangible assets held by households and businesses.

We are already at at least 200 trillion, and we've not even covered the tangible assets of farms and the financial sector, and none of the assets in other key areas.

Each type of produced item has relative benefits to the population, based on the scope of the desire...

I'm not at all sure how you get the idea that you've proven your point here. Your point was that factories are neither wealth nor they deprive wealth. I say the fact that they are even built for the purpose of profit without the utility of the majority in mind is already wealth-deprivation from the general populace.

Tell me, why should the people of Google be paid far less?

I did not suggest that at all. Here you go again arguing against a point I didn't make.
Google was an example I used because the numbers were easy to find. I said if we eliminate the hierarchical wage system of management and uppermanagement, their costs vs output would fall down to at least a 1:2 ratio, and I haven't even eliminated massive R&D costs, reinvestment costs, and intellectual property costs. A clear proof of the theory that a business expects to compensate a worker only half of the value of his work or less.

That's if you assume that he did no real benefit to the company, and also if you assume that literally most or all of it will be spent immediately on goods, which, if not the case, would lead to others having opportunity to invest and do more productive work.

That he is to invest it in something else is no consolation for those who have worked and had half of their productivity stolen from them for private profit.

Again, I've come to the conclusion that you're in this not to discuss, but to "win" as is evident by your own claim, and by your repetitive selective attention to the details of the points I've presented. I said well before debating you that I am not interested in arguing for the model, but rather putting it out there for consideration. That you can find holes or even create holes in my short summary of a 250-page book (which I'm sure has holes of its own as well) does not subtract from a model which admits that it requires orders of magnitude more research for an actual implementation. So, I'm bowing out of this before I become irritated. Congratulations, you've won your victory

[Michaeluj]

Why do you keep selectively missing my references to the glaringly obvious need for objective measures of productivity?

Every time you respond, you seem to change the argument to something more convenient, you repeat exactly what I said, or you make notions about the propriety of wages in place of crucial points that could have otherwise been made. You also seem to easily lose track of the arguments after even a single post.

You have zero argument against this. You're dismissing this because WalMart doesn't run the factory directly and sets the final sale prices? Well of course! I used this example because it is precisely the role that the state would take in a socialist economy!

Nope. Everything is monetized, there is legitimate calculation going throughout the production lines, and more, compared to a monopolistic government that tries to ma

ke things with an arbitrary universal foundation.

Quote:
I mean, growth doesn't matter here: people can do more with the same materials as long as they're being more efficient; you just want people to have less than their potential.
Do I? Thanks for putting words into my mouth. I am specifically against the notion that "efficiency" is a good thing when it comes to profit. We have no concern for efficiency as it relates to making a profit. Take Canada's provincial ministries of health for instance. They intentionally run at a loss to provide a necessary service and have the deficit covered by taxes. This system eliminates direct hospital profits but doesn't eliminate the disgustingly large profits the equipment manufacturers make from the taxpayer. Despite this, the result is that on average, the system is twice as efficient as the US health system for each dollar put into it... while running at a loss. Crazy idea, I know. And your interpretation of this is that I want people to have less than their potential!

See, this is you changing the argument by applying a strawman that you can rant about. I never mentioned EFFICIENCY FOR PROFIT, but just efficiency. I spoke of effeciciency in general, and you just had to say that there's more than one type of efficiency other than your strawman. However, your new argument is both false for creating an ARBITRARY definition of efficiency ('a hospital running at a loss is supposedly efficient, because I like the concept' is NOT 'here is why it is clearly better than every other option) and for ignoring MY concept of efficiency (As in, 'with this current choice, can the future provide more benefits than if I did the other options?')!

Quote:
Also, this is not the case now because exploitation."
Not at all what I said. I said your interpretation of value is distorted by the reigning paradigm of economics which is necessary to support the culture of exploitation. Yet, you distort the argument to try and make a point against the false argument you've created.

Here, you both repeat what I said and also ignore everything else I wrote at that point. I showed you why your argument, as shown in its entirety by the short sentences, is broken, and all you do is say, 'Well, I disagree that you said what I said even though you really did say it.' That's a pathetic strawman. Own up to your empty argument.

Quote:
So, in comparison to brute effort of unrelated jobs, a half-hearted architect will get the same amount of money as a hard-working boxboy?
Half-hearted Architect? I never said this. I simply responded to your concern about why the architect should get paid the same as the boxboy:
1)Any training of the architect was undertaken by the state, so he has no claim to his skills
2)The boxboy is also necessary for the proper function of society, so his labour is not to be dismissed as any less worthy
3)The architect gets the advantage of the prestige of his work. He is also not required to be engaged 100% of the time due to the nature of his work.
From my point of view, the day-to-day work of the architect is arguably easier than the boxboy's. The boxboy has the opposite view, and therefore he's taken a job as a boxboy.

I asked why should they be paid the same.
You then ranted about how one works harder or proportionally harder, to no clear point.
Then you said that they should be paid the same if they both work at the same effort (if not, SAY WHEN THEY SHOULD BE PAID THE SAME DAMMIT!).

Again, again, again, WHY should they be PAID the same if one has the potential to use his resources BETTER?

Here you go, courtesy of the federal reserve. Enjoy:

(facepalm)
You do realize that I also explicitly told you to also post data which CLEARLY defines monetary distribution? Total money supply, obvious as it is, means NOTHING for your argument.

I say the fact that they are even built for the purpose of profit without the utility of the majority in mind is already wealth-deprivation from the general populace.

Let's see, I explained how one factory can't provide everything so one choice of the majority has to be replaced by a higher prioity choice of the same majority or larger one, and all you did was throw the word "profit" and expect that to suddenly illuminate. Dude, profit is not a magic word. You've got to provide at least a theoretical example!

Everything else is just socialist lameness, and I'm exhausted. Tomorrow.

[naked_turk]

We've been over and over your questions, Michael. This is over already. The only thing that wasn't covered is your insistence on money distribution figures. Easy enough: 85% owned by the top 20%. Good enough for you? If we divide the $8.5 trillion in the hands of the top 20% by 300 million people, does it equal to the $2000/person figure you keep throwing around as fact? Fuck no. It amounts to $30,000/person. Recall that we're only taking into account paper money and savings accounts!
Here's another gem: The top 1% alone make an average of $1 million each every year - that alone is over $3 trillion per year total. That's $10,000 per person per year, year after year, and we've only done the top 1% rather than the top 20% which would be even more staggering. This is nowhere near your total $2000 figure - and your empty, oft-repeated figure was supposed to be 200 years' worth of accumulation. You didn't even take 5 minutes to validate the honesty of your argument, or rather, you likely did, and chose to ignore it. Ridiculous.

Here is a copy of TANS online. You can read it and come back and tell me how much you hate it.

[Michaeluj]

85% owned by the top 20%. Good enough for you?

Nope, I want that source to be explicit.

e top 1% alone make an average of $1 million each every yea

Interesting, but how does this *data* you clearly pulled out of your ass, with the greatest clarity of veracity, apply to total current holdings? You are not being intellectually honest. If you can't even post data, how can you expect to formulate reason?

[naked_turk]

Michael, this is just pathetic now. You know that exact data on the distribution of liquid assets cannot be found in the first place, and this is precisely why you're asking for it. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago estimated that the top 1% of Americans owned 33% of the wealth, and the top 10% owned 70% of the wealth in 2001. Data suggests that the concentration is becoming more uneven. Add in the consideration that the wealthy are damn good at hiding their assets and you get the impression that these are underestimates of their actual wealth.

As per the second case, it's most certainly not out of my ass. You're calling me dishonest because I showed you that you're wrong? I'll leave you to http://google.com and 2 minutes of your precious time to confirm the $1m/annum (EACH YEAR) figure for the top 1% of Americans. With a little simple arithmetic you can arrive at that being equivalent to $3 trillion per year, which amounts to $10,000 of extra income per American, per year just from the 1%. I'm seriously done with this crap now.

[Michaeluj]

Michael, this is just pathetic now. You know that exact data on the distribution of liquid assets cannot be found in the first place, and this is precisely why you're asking for it.

Yet, both House and I managed to find a way. Now if only I can root through the depths of my saved resources, going further and further back into the nadir, to find this precious info.
What, do you really think that I'm a dishonest person? Or, why don't you trust the scrutiny of a hundred other leftists, who have far more experience with reason and debate, to have been defeated by my thesis?

As per the second case, it's most certainly not out of my ass.

Nope, I'm calling the reason you posted that statement the "argument" that you pulled out of your ass. You used it to try to prove a point, but it doesn't; again, there's still the blatantly obvious matter that a proportion of this money would be spent, or reinvested if you prefer that term. We've already been over the plausibility of that factor, but you seemed to forget it or ignore it in the hopes that sheer numbers will protect you from the need to provide evidence or reason.

[TheRedBaron]

@ Wolfman

So, these are somethings I see brought up every now and then, which seem to be either ignored or brushed aside like nothing happened:

Your questions fascinate me as well. A good starting point for answering them is to study the choices made by the former Leninist states in Europe. I am lucky to be German-speaking, which gives me access to the literature of the German Democratic Republic. You may object that these states suffered from their rigid bureaucracies. However, at least in the GDR the political elite was quite idealistic, and driven by their ideology. Moreover, they had at their disposal the whole scientific community of the state. So if they do not have the answer, then it is unlikely that you or I will know better.

Will "currency" be based on labor expelled, and if so how will that be figured? ... I've also see some references to basing currency on labor-hours required to make the item, yes, no?

With regard to the influence of labour-hours: the ideologists of the GDR adhere to the idea that in principle goods exchange according to their labour value. However, already in capitalism the commodity price is modified by the influence of the uniform profit rate. In Leninism (socialism as perceived by the Leninist party) the goods are distributed in compliance with the social needs, which also requires a price modification. Thus the prices are a result of policy. Of course prices must assist in the clearance of the markets, but this is not their primary aim. In practice the markets equilibrate by means of waiting-lists and -rows.

How would the "price" of an item be determined at "market" (I say "price" for lack of a better term)

Since the prices are not indicators of scarcity, they are unsuited for central planning. Instead the plans are based on the physical quantities. Still the aim is to exchange goods not by means of barter, but through money exchanges. So the planning agency (the state, and consequently the Leninist party) has to reconcile the price system with the physical planning. This is a gargantuan task. One of the consequences is that the prices were kept more or less constant during a medium-term planning period (typically five years). This stabilizes the planning process, but it als implies that the prices tend to become less realistic at the end of the planning period. Sometimes a rigorous price reform is attempted, for instance in 1967 in the Soviet Union. But this disrupts the whole planning process.

The price also has the purpose to promote socially desirable consumption. For instance, theatre and other forms of culture were cheap or for free. Luxury products and products from the west were expensive. This was unavoidable, since the Leninist export was not a success story. Besides, planning requires an almost autarkical economy. The planners realized that upward deviations of prices from those at the global markets indicated the inefficiency of their own production system. So they tried to keep the deviations within the bounds of decency, albeit with limited success. The short-term fluctuations of the world market prices were a curse for the planners.

In fact the planners use at least two price systems. The end user pays a higher price than the enterprises. This is so, because a margin is needed in order to pay for collective provisions. This is a kind of consumer tax. All kinds of social funds must be served. In reality the prices paid by the enterprises were always a compromise. Note that the enterprises were state-owned, and could not become bankrupt. Besides, they were needed in order to guarantee the employment. Incidentally the planning process allowed for some democracy. For the enterprises could comment on the initial central plan. For the management the performance of their enterprise was less important than their policital connections.

The planning agency benefits from the fact that the banks are owned by the state. So the state has a complete control over the quantity of money. The interest rate is simply the price of money, and is not meant to equilibrate the capital markets. The central planning agency steers all investments. There was a debate among the Leninist economists, whether the interest rate should be uniform or not. The advantage of a uniform interest rate is that it sets a standard for the production efficiency. In practise, the interest rate varied according to the branch. The problem is obviously that an average interest rate results in losses for the worst enterprises. Then these must be supported by additional state subsidies.

Innovations and new products tend to destabilize the planning process, because the production process must be changed, and the costs are yet uncertain. In general the prices of new products were linked to comparable existing products. The extra quality of the innovation was valued by a price markup. Sometimes their prics was related to different products with similar functions (for instance, take oil, gas and coal).

How will the central planners know how much of an item to make, and where in the society to put it?

The quantity of production is basically determined by the previous years. The planners decide on investments, that is to say on the economic growth, and thus on the future welfare. Their plans allow for the growth of the population, and of the number of workers. Moreover, statistics are collected about the consumption patterns of the various groups within society, and their future growth is assessed. Of course the planners know where these groups live, so that the regional distribution is not a problem. The consumption of luxury products was discouraged, which is naturally an old socialist ideal.

The prediction of the consumer demand also uses studies of the price elasticities of the products. Of course this method only allows for crude estimations. An excess of products can be cleared by a falling price, or by advertisements. New products can be promoted by means of advertisements. But obviously such methods were less intense than in capitalism.

On a related note, how will employees get paid (ie, will all burger king fry-cooks get paid the same?)

In principe the wage level is balanced by the production level. However, in the final years of Leninism there was a tendency to increase the wages, which caused obligatory savings and foreign debts. Note though, that inflation can be eliminated in a planned price system. The individual wage level is determined by function classification schemes. The wages in the GDR were very competitive, and based on bonuses. So only a part of the wage was fixed. At least in the GDR the personnel was divided into working collectives (brigades, teams, groups of approximately ten workers). The performance of the collective determined the height of their collective bonus. Sometimes the reward was physical: extra social facilities within the enterprise.

It may be surprising, but the Leninist regimes tolerated jokes about their economic system. Perhaps in the perspective of the Leninist elite the jokes are in fact a criticism of the mentality of the people. For instance, a man working in the complaints department says: "Everything is fine with us. Recently our department has expanded". Or, a man says: "I always buy two of those goods. That solves the problem of the spare parts". Or, the director of a textiles factory complains: "Our planning process is frustrated by those ridiculous fashions". Or, a man asks his friend: "How many people work in your department?" The friend replies: "About two-thirds". Or a man complains about his colleague: "He is always working, and shuns our meetings. How can a person act so irresponsible?" There is again a variation: a worker tries to convince his colleague to enter a bar: "You can not take your bonus home. It is important to make the step from the I to the WE". Or: a bar is filled with drunks. The bar tenders declares with pride: "We outdo our plan!" Or take this variation on the theme: a dairy factory jubilates: "We outdo the plan! We have reduced the use of milk with 100%!" Or, a customer in a butchery complains: "You only have one type of sausages?" The butcher sneers: "You do not expect that we make 99 types for your convenience, do you?"

If you can seduce me to react, I promise to tell more jokes.

[TheRedBaron]

@ The Immortal Goon

We can use what we know about a capitalist economy - the same kind of economic base and superstructure in which we all grew up - to try and come up with answers. However, they're always going to be incomplete because we're products of the time in which we live. The transition to a communist society will be difficult, and there will be errors.

The reason it will happen has to do with organized defiance and advancement, sure. But underpinning that - and more important - is the fact that no system, least of all capitalism, is perfect. These imperfections will continue to make contradictions that will become increasingly obvious and troublesome as time goes on. Eventually, we know because this has been true for all class-based societies, it will transition into something that will make the contradictions irrelevant.

How exactly things will be after that is difficult to say and depends a lot on how the transition takes place. No Marxist claims to know for sure because, at that point, Marxist theory is kind of irrelevant as it itself was based on contradictions in capitalism.

Although perhaps this subject is a bit off-topic, I still like to reply. Since communism does not exist in reality, it is ill defined. Therefore it is unknown whether it will outperform capitalism. Even worse, it is possible that communism will lead to objectionable results. And history has shown that the road back to capitalism can be blocked. Besides, since the the transformation process will undermine the capitalist society, it will certainly begin with a decrease in welfare.

So we can see that a turn to socialism is inevitable. We know to fight for it will be easier for everyone.

We know that change is inevitable. But change should preserve the achievements of the past. Unless you define socialism, it can not qualify as an improvement. Incidentally, I seem to repeat previous arguments in the thread:

The problem is that in socialism, you don't have boundaries, so it's impossible to control your own experiments. It's also impossible to prevent yourself from being involved in experiments you don't approve of.

This is what I am trying to say. At least the Leninist states have given the beginning of an answer. As I tried to outline in my previous contribution, they have defined a starting point for further experiments. But to be fair, their results are not encouraging.

[TheRedBaron]

@ daft punk

Trial and error just means as Marx said that truth can only be what is proven in practice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.All science is trial and error. Every theory must be tested. All practical life is the testing of theories. In practice, capitalism gives us world wars and world hunger, in a world where there is enough food and too many weapons.

Again this is a bit off-topic, but indeed relevant. Imho humans give us world wars and world hunger. Humans are simply rather irrational and sometimes awful beings. Evidently the culture plays a role in their preferences, but a rigorous system change will not eliminate them. In this respect I agree with Daktoria. Shall we now go back to discussing prices?