New standard of payment unit security... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15111205
Without viewing the video, I'll say that this looks like the 'Energy Accounting' proposal of the 'technocracy' politics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the technocracy (the professional hierarchy of technical types, like engineers, etc.) would disburse a standard 'block grant' unit of energy to every household for personal consumption.

Given this premise, my concern is about how the potential *underconsumption* of this unit of energy would be handled by any given household. Would they have to *forfeit* the extra energy, just for being frugal? Could they *sell* the unused portion to others?

Also, more fundamentally, what would hold the 'technocracy' to consistently providing this subsidy to everyone free of charge? The politics of technocracy is *pro-markets*, so the whole line immediately sounds like a right-wing *bullshit campaign promise* more than anything else because of this inconsistency in principle between state-like *subsidy disbursements*, and the regular acquisitive-minded functioning of the capitalist markets.
#15111212
@ckaihatsu @Andrew Jüterbog

The idea is stupid because the whole reason we moved away from gold is because it has a limited quantity and will never be able to cover the monetary supply as needed. Same goes for any x alternative. Some good based currency is not workable in the modern world on a large scale. There is simply not enough of X good to cover the monetary value of all money if we talk about largest economies. It might be doable in smaller nations. But once again, it will eventually run in to the limitation of their just not being x amount of good at some point.
#15111218
JohnRawls wrote:
@ckaihatsu @Andrew Jüterbog

The idea is stupid because the whole reason we moved away from gold is because it has a limited quantity and will never be able to cover the monetary supply as needed. Same goes for any x alternative. Some good based currency is not workable in the modern world on a large scale. There is simply not enough of X good to cover the monetary value of all money if we talk about largest economies. It might be doable in smaller nations. But once again, it will eventually run in to the limitation of their just not being x amount of good at some point.



---


These are *contradictory* statements, though:


JohnRawls wrote:
[Gold] has a limited quantity and will never be able to cover the monetary supply as needed. Same goes for any x alternative.



JohnRawls wrote:
There is simply not enough of X good to cover the monetary value of all money if we talk about largest economies.



In the first you're talking about gold / x-alternative as being too *deflationary* and inflexible to cover the growing size of the economy. I *agree* on this point and this argument can be used against *Bitcoin* (etc.), since the size of its monetary supply is *capped*, and thus deflationary, ultimately.

However, in the *second* statement you're arguing the *inverse* of your *first* statement, and so this second argument is *not* a valid objective / empirical economic concern -- the money supply is far more flexible that the cumulative pool of goods and services that it represents, as we've seen in successive U.S. presidential administrations that have all increased the money supply through deficit spending, with Keynesian hopes.

The status-quo capitalist concern is that the ratio between the money supply and the goods and services that it represents doesn't *fluctuate* too much, because that then causes havoc with existing *financial* agreements.

But, the 'x' goods variable ultimately *doesn't matter* because the *pricing* / valuations of the empirical money supply can always *change*, up or down, to roughly match the goods (or services) themselves.
#15111257
ckaihatsu wrote:---


These are *contradictory* statements, though:








In the first you're talking about gold / x-alternative as being too *deflationary* and inflexible to cover the growing size of the economy. I *agree* on this point and this argument can be used against *Bitcoin* (etc.), since the size of its monetary supply is *capped*, and thus deflationary, ultimately.

However, in the *second* statement you're arguing the *inverse* of your *first* statement, and so this second argument is *not* a valid objective / empirical economic concern -- the money supply is far more flexible that the cumulative pool of goods and services that it represents, as we've seen in successive U.S. presidential administrations that have all increased the money supply through deficit spending, with Keynesian hopes.

The status-quo capitalist concern is that the ratio between the money supply and the goods and services that it represents doesn't *fluctuate* too much, because that then causes havoc with existing *financial* agreements.

But, the 'x' goods variable ultimately *doesn't matter* because the *pricing* / valuations of the empirical money supply can always *change*, up or down, to roughly match the goods (or services) themselves.


No, i am talking about there being not enough gold or any good x to cover the world wide or at least major economies monetary supply. That is it. I am not sure where your other ideas came from.
#15111259
JohnRawls wrote:
No, i am talking about there being not enough gold or any good x to cover the world wide or at least major economies monetary supply. That is it. I am not sure where your other ideas came from.



Right -- I already *addressed* this by noting that such monetary instruments are *deflationary*.

You're not adding anything new here.
#15111270
ckaihatsu wrote:Right -- I already *addressed* this by noting that such monetary instruments are *deflationary*.

You're not adding anything new here.


As a communist you have warped understanding of economics. Resources are limited so supply and demand applies. It is not a good way to manage your monetary policy.
#15111275
JohnRawls wrote:
As a communist you have warped understanding of economics. Resources are limited so supply and demand applies. It is not a good way to manage your monetary policy.



"My" monetary policy -- ?

You're confusing me with a Stalinist / state capitalist. Capitalist exchange-values / currencies do *not* apply whatsoever in a post-revolution, post-capitalist context, since communism can provide for the common good on a free-access, direct-distribution basis, with *no money* and *no exchanges* whatsoever. (Post-revolution communism would have all liberated-work inputs as fully voluntary and uncoerced -- the communist 'gift economy' -- and there would be *no state* anyway, so no separatist elitist power structure with authority and its own class-like interests.)

My understanding of economics, as I've delineated, is correct, otherwise you'd have some counterargument by now.

I'm fully cognizant of *material quantities* -- I created a model several years ago that *explicitly* addresses the objective / empirical material dynamics of 'supply' and 'demand', for a *post-capitalist* context:


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


Also:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



And:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image
#15112904
ckaihatsu wrote:since communism can provide for the common good on a free-access, direct-distribution basis, with *no money* and *no exchanges* whatsoever.


Unless you know the preferences of all of your subjects, that won't work. Exchange reveals preferences.
#15112906
ckaihatsu wrote:"My" monetary policy -- ?

You're confusing me with a Stalinist / state capitalist. Capitalist exchange-values / currencies do *not* apply whatsoever in a post-revolution, post-capitalist context, since communism can provide for the common good on a free-access, direct-distribution basis, with *no money* and *no exchanges* whatsoever. (Post-revolution communism would have all liberated-work inputs as fully voluntary and uncoerced -- the communist 'gift economy' -- and there would be *no state* anyway, so no separatist elitist power structure with authority and its own class-like interests.)

What's the incentive to work? When working, what is the incentive for working hard, or working more efficiently? What's the incentive to innovate if there's no competition between companies?
#15112936
Rugoz wrote:
Unless you know the preferences of all of your subjects, that won't work. Exchange reveals preferences.



Heh! 'Subjects.'

The whole *point* of communism is to *eliminate* any and all standing pyramids / social hierarchies, in favor of what I call liberated-workers co-administration over all social production.

Exchanges favor those who can access the *most* exchanges, as with greater wealth ownership, so you're basically arguing for further capitalist elitism.

Here's a *treatment* of this dynamic, from another thread:



True workers-of-the-world socialism would just be an *expansion* of this basic corporate-like / Stalinist-state-like bureaucratic functioning, but it would better correspond to actual realities / facts, because the overall 'pyramid' (of relative individual social prestige, or reputation) would be much *flatter* than we're used to seeing, historically, due to historical *caste*-like bureaucratic *elitism*, or *top-down* administration of the workers themselves.

In the absence of caste / class / careerism / heredity / elitism, the 'base' of the 'pyramid' would be much, much *broader*, to enable a broad-based *bottom-up* dynamic of dynamic social planning, with far less institutional *rigidity*, if at all.



viewtopic.php?p=15095654#p15095654



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
What's the incentive to work? When working, what is the incentive for working hard, or working more efficiently? What's the incentive to innovate if there's no competition between companies?



Exactly -- all of that so-called 'incentive' for workers is really economic *blackmail* and *extortion* of the labor-commodity, under capitalism, for the worker's life-necessary *wages*, for the necessities of life and living.

The rest of what you describe could simply be done *cooperatively*, given the mass worker collectivization of all means of mass industrial production. With such collectivization all liberated workers would have an objective collective interest in *automating* all mechanical productive processes, so as to better-leverage whatever uncoerced voluntary liberated-labor is available -- the communist-type *gift economy*.

The realization of collectivist *full automation*, ultimately, would enable everyone to do *no* work and to get the fruits of automated mechanical mass production *anytime*.
#15112959
ckaihatsu wrote:Exactly -- all of that so-called 'incentive' for workers is really economic *blackmail* and *extortion* of the labor-commodity, under capitalism, for the worker's life-necessary *wages*, for the necessities of life and living.

The rest of what you describe could simply be done *cooperatively*, given the mass worker collectivization of all means of mass industrial production. With such collectivization all liberated workers would have an objective collective interest in *automating* all mechanical productive processes, so as to better-leverage whatever uncoerced voluntary liberated-labor is available -- the communist-type *gift economy*.

The realization of collectivist *full automation*, ultimately, would enable everyone to do *no* work and to get the fruits of automated mechanical mass production *anytime*.

What are the social and psychological implications of no jobs? Of people having less reason to get up in the morning?

What's the incentive to cooperate? Why can't I just work, but do a crappy half-assed job and let someone else do most of the work? Why can't I just lay on my ass and watch TV all day? What's the psychological and social implications of this? The real question is, why do you want these objectives?

You're on the farthest left possible. You are what Nietzsche called "the last man". I really think your ideas, though well-meaning, are horrific to the human spirit and human psychology. In modern society, we now have many adults living with their parents into their 30's, never having to grow up, living in the basement playing video games and jerking off to porn while living off the teet of their parent's bank account, instead of going out and making something of their lives, and *gasp* asking someone out on a date. You're just replacing the teet of the parents with the teet of the mob (Leninism would be the teet of the state).

200 years ago, the average person was out of the house by 18 or younger, soon met a spouse, settled down, had your own small plot of land to farm, worked hard everyday, knew how to survive the elements, hunt or grow your own food, and were fully independent. A cop or a hospital wasn't 5 minutes away, you survived on your own or had to ride days or weeks on a horse. Now young people need safe spaces to protect their feelings.

Never having to work a day in your life or support yourself is not a utopia, it's a dystopian hell-hole. A life dedicated to comfort and leisure is a sure way to weaken human society.
#15113032
Unthinking Majority wrote:
What are the social and psychological implications of no jobs? Of people having less reason to get up in the morning?

What's the incentive to cooperate? Why can't I just work, but do a crappy half-assed job and let someone else do most of the work? Why can't I just lay on my ass and watch TV all day? What's the psychological and social implications of this? The real question is, why do you want these objectives?

You're on the farthest left possible. You are what Nietzsche called "the last man". I really think your ideas, though well-meaning, are horrific to the human spirit and human psychology. In modern society, we now have many adults living with their parents into their 30's, never having to grow up, living in the basement playing video games and jerking off to porn while living off the teet of their parent's bank account, instead of going out and making something of their lives, and *gasp* asking someone out on a date. You're just replacing the teet of the parents with the teet of the mob (Leninism would be the teet of the state).

200 years ago, the average person was out of the house by 18 or younger, soon met a spouse, settled down, had your own small plot of land to farm, worked hard everyday, knew how to survive the elements, hunt or grow your own food, and were fully independent. A cop or a hospital wasn't 5 minutes away, you survived on your own or had to ride days or weeks on a horse. Now young people need safe spaces to protect their feelings.

Never having to work a day in your life or support yourself is not a utopia, it's a dystopian hell-hole. A life dedicated to comfort and leisure is a sure way to weaken human society.



Nice rant. Enjoyable.

Your assumption of a Stalinist state leads you to absurd conclusions, that of a hyper-nanny-state / society, basically.

Communism is *stateless* as well as classless, so no state.

So, contrary to your assumption, people wouldn't be compelled to *not-work*, rather everyone would be liberated to do what they think is best with their time, on socialized-collectivized implements of mass industrial production, or anything smaller.

The stunted socio-economic conditions of today that you describe *wouldnt* be the situation of a post-capitalist social economics, because the *collectivist* ethos, by default, would be for liberated-labor contributions to building *infrastructure* that would benefit the most people at once.

In other words if a group knew that they would always have access to food and housing (perhaps from automated agriculture and automated construction practices) that would free them up to collaborate on a project to convert large abandoned factory buildings into 'sheltered indoor neighborhoods', perhaps, for the sake of housing *others*, without having to fulfill the profit-making goals of private interests. All machinery and resources would be available to all, for the sake of the common good, so there'd be no impediments to collective-type planning and implementation for people's *personal* needs.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image
#15113660
ckaihatsu wrote:Heh! 'Subjects.'

The whole *point* of communism is to *eliminate* any and all standing pyramids / social hierarchies, in favor of what I call liberated-workers co-administration over all social production.

Exchanges favor those who can access the *most* exchanges, as with greater wealth ownership, so you're basically arguing for further capitalist elitism.


:roll:

No money means no exchange and that implies central planning. Hence a central authority will distribute goods according to some criteria.
#15113665
Rugoz wrote:
:roll:

No money means no exchange and that implies central planning. Hence a central authority will distribute goods according to some criteria.



No, you're thinking of historical Stalinist-type state planning, circumscribed to one nation-state, and done by separatist specialized bureaucratic elitist administrators.

It's problematic mostly because it has to resolve material inputs and outputs in a linear way, with input-output tables, over a wide expanse of geographic productive and consumptive entities, upfront, in a 'blueprint'-like way, before any gears start turning -- very complex.

I posit an *alternative* -- a landscape-of-piles-of-stuff. Society would have to collectively determine how stuff is to be taken from the various piles of stuff, and for what reasons, and once any pile of stuff is diminshed in quantity, the local liberated-workers of that associated workplace would do uncoerced voluntary labor to *replenish* the quantity of stuff, to bring that local pile-of-stuff back to its original size. (This would be the communist 'gift economy'.)

In this *nonlinear* way there would not have to be any 'blueprint'-type centralized planning upfront, as from a Stalinist-type bureaucratic elite, for a state.

Relative centralization, as over two or more localities in common, could take place in a 'bottom-up', *emergent*, kind of way, for efficiencies of scale. In the following model I have all social production being relatively centralized, all the way up to a *global* scale, potentially, on a *per-item* basis:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



Also:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


And:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image
#15114874
ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're thinking of historical Stalinist-type state planning, circumscribed to one nation-state, and done by separatist specialized bureaucratic elitist administrators.

It's problematic mostly because it has to resolve material inputs and outputs in a linear way, with input-output tables, over a wide expanse of geographic productive and consumptive entities, upfront, in a 'blueprint'-like way, before any gears start turning -- very complex.

I posit an *alternative*...


No offense but your "alternative" is all gibberish and devoid of substance. If you don't realize that yourself it's frankly hopeless.
#15114942
ckaihatsu wrote:
I posit an *alternative* -- a landscape-of-piles-of-stuff. Society would have to collectively determine how stuff is to be taken from the various piles of stuff, and for what reasons, and once any pile of stuff is diminshed in quantity, the local liberated-workers of that associated workplace would do uncoerced voluntary labor to *replenish* the quantity of stuff, to bring that local pile-of-stuff back to its original size. (This would be the communist 'gift economy'.)

In this *nonlinear* way there would not have to be any 'blueprint'-type centralized planning upfront, as from a Stalinist-type bureaucratic elite, for a state.

Relative centralization, as over two or more localities in common, could take place in a 'bottom-up', *emergent*, kind of way, for efficiencies of scale. In the following model I have all social production being relatively centralized, all the way up to a *global* scale, potentially, on a *per-item* basis:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



Also:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


And:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



Rugoz wrote:
No offense but your "alternative" is all gibberish and devoid of substance. If you don't realize that yourself it's frankly hopeless.



Hmmmm, you'll excuse me if I don't just take your word for it at face-value, especially since you haven't *addressed* any of its substance, or detail.

We've all been conditioned to seeing *capitalism* as the norm -- and even as *inevitable* -- for a political economy, but it's far from being 'eternal'.

If one can wrap their head around a whole-istic 'collective' kind of societal interest, for all in common, instead of segmented, individualistic 'private' concerns for endless private accumulations, then one has a chance of grasping what the communist gift economy is all about.

The *main* collective interest that would be present would be a collective interest for *full automation*, so that ultimately *no one* would have to work, because we're increasingly getting our productivity from *industrial machines*, which is what socialism / communism is able to address, anyway.

If everything could be more-or-less *3D printed*, for example, then we would all turn into consumerist button-pushers, because that's all we'd *have* to do -- machines would do all of the actual 'labor', or 'logistics', for our needs and desires.

Here's from my favorite political essay:



The State is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful. And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.

And I have no doubt that it will be so. Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/
#15115652
ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmm, you'll excuse me if I don't just take your word for it at face-value, especially since you haven't *addressed* any of its substance, or detail.


Because there is none. Look at Leontief intput-output models, static and dynamic, then you can add substitutability, and you arrive at modern computable general equilibrium models, respectively dynamic versions of it. Once you got that, come up with your own thing.

ckaihatsu wrote:Here's from my favorite political essay:


"unintellectual, monotonous and dull labor" has already largely disappeared. That doesn't change the planning problem however, apart from making labor even more difficult to quantify.
#15115748
Rugoz wrote:
Because there is none.



Incorrect. You're not even looking.


Rugoz wrote:
Look at Leontief intput-output models, static and dynamic, then you can add substitutability, and you arrive at modern computable general equilibrium models, respectively dynamic versions of it. Once you got that, come up with your own thing.



We're *backsliding*, to this earlier point:


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're thinking of historical Stalinist-type state planning, circumscribed to one nation-state, and done by separatist specialized bureaucratic elitist administrators.

It's problematic mostly because it has to resolve material inputs and outputs in a linear way, with input-output tables, over a wide expanse of geographic productive and consumptive entities, upfront, in a 'blueprint'-like way, before any gears start turning -- very complex.


ckaihatsu wrote:
I posit an *alternative* -- a landscape-of-piles-of-stuff. Society would have to collectively determine how stuff is to be taken from the various piles of stuff, and for what reasons, and once any pile of stuff is diminshed in quantity, the local liberated-workers of that associated workplace would do uncoerced voluntary labor to *replenish* the quantity of stuff, to bring that local pile-of-stuff back to its original size. (This would be the communist 'gift economy'.)

In this *nonlinear* way there would not have to be any 'blueprint'-type centralized planning upfront, as from a Stalinist-type bureaucratic elite, for a state.



So, to summarize, it's *linear* (input-output tables), versus *nonlinear*, a landscape of piles of stuff.


Rugoz wrote:
"unintellectual, monotonous and dull labor" has already largely disappeared. That doesn't change the planning problem however, apart from making labor even more difficult to quantify.



Again, you're stuck with your traditional, *linear* assumptions. You may want to at least *take a look* at what I'm proposing with my (nonlinear) (piles-of-stuff) model, so that you can at least realize that there's an *alternative* to a Stalinist-type nationalist linear central planning -- which I *don't* advocate.

Doesn't @Drlee have VHA? If he works for the V[…]

A short while back, I posted an OP noting that Pr[…]

There's no universal 100% agreed upon definition […]

The News organisations are only doing their job. T[…]