[late]

Are the skirts 'ours', or *yours*, late.

Siding with Puffball?

Didn't expect that, but perhaps I should have...

Don't suppose you have something relevant to say?

[ckaihatsu]

Siding with Puffball?

Didn't expect that, but perhaps I should have...

Don't suppose you have something relevant to say?

'My name is Puffoid and I have been programmed to grab the minute hand and keep it immobile for as long as possible.'

[late]

'My name is Puffoid and I have been programmed to grab the minute hand and keep it immobile for as long as possible.'

Goofball would be more accurate.

[Truth To Power]

@Puffer Fish seems to be arguing that neoliberals are not free market supporters.

This runs contrary to the definition I know.

Neoliberals support finance capitalism, which is all about privilege, and thus far from compatible with a free market.

[Truth To Power]

In my experience, neoliberals and other supporters of the free market are inconsistent when it comes to government support.

They abhor it on a theoretical level but are more than willing to accept economic and/or military support.

That means they are not actually supporters of the free market. Almost no one is.

[Pants-of-dog]

At this point, I will simply wait for @Puffer Fish to clarify his understanding of what "neoliberal" means.

[ckaihatsu]

That means they are not actually supporters of the free market. Almost no one is.

I know *I'm* not.

[late]

That means they are not actually supporters of the free market. Almost no one is.

Full capitalism has always been a cooperation between government and business. I seriously doubt it has ever been what you think of as a free market.

[ckaihatsu]

Full capitalism has always been a cooperation between government and business. I seriously doubt it has ever been what you think of as a free market.

Here's a recent gem:

There can never be such a thing as post-scarcity economics, because economics is the study of how people relieve scarcity through production, allocation and exchange. Allocation is associated with status, and status is one thing there can never be enough of to go around. So post-scarcity economics is just more silly, anti-economic Marxist nonsense.

---

Just out of curiosity, what would the 'free market supporters' *do* on the first day after the world-market-ending-crash, without functioning markets -- ?


= D

viewtopic.php?p=15250780#p15250780

[ckaihatsu]

allocation

I have a *treatment* of this topic, btw....


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

Spoiler: show

[Rich]

So I live in Britain, where the problem is much worse because of our much higher population density, even after taking account of the United States large areas of desert and semi desert. When we look at some of your so called ghettos, aside from the litter they look like posh middle class villages here.

The problem is there's too many people in the world and in particular there's too many people in Britain. Half a billion people would be a more reasonable figure for sustainable development. Even if you don't believe in Anthropomorphic Global Warming and I do, there's a myriad of reasons why 7 billion people living in comfort and free from poverty makes sustainable development and protection of what's left of the natural world totally unrealistic. And no I'm not suggesting we start exterminating billions of people, just that we make population reduction a major policy priority.

So narrowing in on Britain, immigration in itself would not be a problem if it was a matched by an equal emigration of people and the incoming people didn't have a higher fertility rate. In fact if the people leaving were wealthy and sold their properties on to the market as they left and the incomers were capital poor, it would actually increase the prosperity of the existing remaining residents.

So when we talk about the problem of immigration and falling living standards and rising inequality ,we're talking about net immigration and the importation of people with higher fertility rates than those that are leaving. And a further problem is that as a population gets richer they spend ever more money on property. This means even with static population levels there is a strong tendency for property prices to increase and inequality to rise. Because when property prices rise, those with large amounts property accumulate more capital, while those who own little or no poverty find it even harder to accumulate or in some case even maintain their capital.

[ckaihatsu]

no I'm not suggesting we start exterminating billions of people

Off-the-table, huh -- ?

*I* feel relieved, at least until your next post.

[Truth To Power]

So I live in Britain, where the problem is much worse because of our much higher population density,

You don't understand the problem because you have not read, "Progress and Poverty."

The problem is there's too many people in the world and in particular there's too many people in Britain.

You don't understand the problem because you have not read, "Progress and Poverty."

So narrowing in on Britain, immigration in itself would not be a problem if it was a matched by an equal emigration of people and the incoming people didn't have a higher fertility rate. In fact if the people leaving were wealthy and sold their properties on to the market as they left and the incomers were capital poor, it would actually increase the prosperity of the existing remaining residents.

You don't understand the problem because you have not read, "Progress and Poverty."

And a further problem is that as a population gets richer they spend ever more money on property.

You don't understand the problem because you have not read, "Progress and Poverty."

This means even with static population levels there is a strong tendency for property prices to increase and inequality to rise.

You don't understand the problem because you have not read, "Progress and Poverty."

Because when property prices rise, those with large amounts property accumulate more capital, while those who own little or no [land] find it even harder to accumulate or in some case even maintain their capital.

You don't understand the problem because you have not read, "Progress and Poverty."

[Truth To Power]

Full capitalism has always been a cooperation between government and business. I seriously doubt it has ever been what you think of as a free market.

Right. A free market is logically impossible under capitalism because capitalism by definition requires private ownership of the means of production: natural resources (which classical economics called, "land") and producer goods ("capital"). Private ownership of land forces everyone to subsidize the landowners, and forced subsidies are by definition prohibited in a free market. QED.

[Puffer Fish]

Private ownership of land forces everyone to subsidize the landowners, and forced subsidies are by definition prohibited in a free market. QED.

Perhaps true, but when there is an over-excessive demand relative to supply, that also pushes prices up under any market system, and increases the level of rent taken by landowners.

And why should any of you ignore that fact, just because you don't like capitalism? Face it, that market system is never going away any time soon, so for this argument, it doesn't really matter what you think things should be like.
If you increase the number of people before ever being able to achieve "change" in the system, you will sabotage yourself.

I also do not see a lot of empty homes in these high demand areas, which suggests to me that even under a communist system where homes were distributed "fairly", there would still be shortages. That is an inherent economic fact that cannot be escaped.

I think perhaps the most optimal solution is to try to move or bring economic opportunities to currently low population areas. That may likely require a big investment in infrastructure. Perhaps some incentives to get rich people to spend their money in those areas.

[ckaihatsu]

Perhaps true, but when there is an over-excessive demand relative to supply, that also pushes prices up under any market system, and increases the level of rent taken by landowners.

And why should any of you ignore that fact, just because you don't like capitalism? Face it, that market system is never going away any time soon, so for this argument, it doesn't really matter what you think things should be like.
If you increase the number of people before ever being able to achieve "change" in the system, you will sabotage yourself.

I also do not see a lot of empty homes in these high demand areas, which suggests to me that even under a communist system where homes were distributed "fairly", there would still be shortages. That is an inherent economic fact that cannot be escaped.

I think perhaps the most optimal solution is to try to move or bring economic opportunities to currently low population areas. That may likely require a big investment in infrastructure. Perhaps some incentives to get rich people to spend their money in those areas.

TTP only hates land, and thinks that, beyond land (rentier capital), all equity capital is *meritocratic* by default. Like one could exchange a dollar bill for real sweat.

The economy *has* to constantly increase, to match the population size / growth. Otherwise who is the economy *for* -- ? (And then it's a relative *contraction*.)

Is *that* the only thing to critique about communism -- that it may need some *tweaking* / updates, like any everyday software package release.

Liz Truss just got booted on that overcooked supply-side / trickle-down bullshit, all over again.

[Truth To Power]

Perhaps true, but when there is an over-excessive demand relative to supply,

The supply of land is fixed, so price depends only on demand, which is equal to the expected net subsidy to the landowner.

that also pushes prices up under any market system, and increases the level of rent taken by landowners.

More accurately, the increase in expected after-tax discounted rents taken by landowners pushes up prices.

And why should any of you ignore that fact, just because you don't like capitalism?

You have it backwards: the forced subsidy to idle landowning is the main reason not to like capitalism.

Face it, that market system is never going away any time soon, so for this argument, it doesn't really matter what you think things should be like.

As I have shown, it is an error to think that capitalism is the same as the market system.

If you increase the number of people before ever being able to achieve "change" in the system, you will sabotage yourself.

Non sequitur.

I also do not see a lot of empty homes in these high demand areas,

I do. Also a lot of vacant land.

which suggests to me that even under a communist system where homes were distributed "fairly", there would still be shortages. That is an inherent economic fact that cannot be escaped.

Right: post-scarcity is a fantasy.

I think perhaps the most optimal solution is to try to move or bring economic opportunities to currently low population areas. That may likely require a big investment in infrastructure. Perhaps some incentives to get rich people to spend their money in those areas.

The optimal solution is justice. But of course, they will try anything else before they will try that.

[Truth To Power]

TTP only hates land,

That is a false, absurd, and disingenuous mischaracterization of my views.

and thinks that, beyond land (rentier capital),

Landowning is not the only rent collection privilege, just the most important one.

all equity capital is *meritocratic* by default.

I am merely, unlike you, willing to know the fact that contributing producer goods to the production process increases production, and thereby earns a return.

Like one could exchange a dollar bill for real sweat.

One certainly could if both parties agreed to the exchange.

The economy *has* to constantly increase, to match the population size / growth. Otherwise who is the economy *for* -- ? (And then it's a relative *contraction*.)

It doesn't have to increase, and has not always done so. Foolish and evil policies like socialism certainly cause it to contract: when socialists steal factories, the number of factories available for production decreases; but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same.

Is *that* the only thing to critique about communism -- that it may need some *tweaking* / updates, like any everyday software package release.

Communism is absurd, anti-economic nonsense that no amount of tweaking can possibly render anything but evil and toxic. It is based on the Big Lie that there is no essential difference between owning the physical products of one's own decisions and initiative and owning others' rights to liberty -- i.e., the same Big Lie capitalism is based on.

[ckaihatsu]

TTP only hates land,

That is a false, absurd, and disingenuous mischaracterization of my views.

You may want to *clarify* instead of being typically defensive and cryptic.

and thinks that, beyond land (rentier capital),

Landowning is not the only rent collection privilege, just the most important one.

'Natural monopolies', right -- ? Would you like to address that?

all equity capital is *meritocratic* by default.

I am merely, unlike you, willing to know the fact that contributing producer goods to the production process increases production, and thereby earns a return.

Like one could exchange a dollar bill for real sweat.

One certainly could if both parties agreed to the exchange.

Let me put it *this* way -- since (officially issued) debt-money is allowed into regular circulation as currency, any given dollar (or whatever) can't be definitively said to represent *real labor*. It *may* happen to be a full debt-dollar itself, so-to-speak, or it may represent a *fractional* debt amount, etc.

You pride your political economy on being so 'top-heavy' organizationally with value, but you -- like all capitalist defenders -- can't manage to explain why wage labor is even *hired on* in the first place. Are employees the spoils of corporate warfare? Just for decoration? Bragging rights? How does wage labor fit into the business' business plan, exactly -- ?

The economy *has* to constantly increase, to match the population size / growth. Otherwise who is the economy *for* -- ? (And then it's a relative *contraction*.)

It doesn't have to increase, and has not always done so. Foolish and evil policies like socialism certainly cause it to contract: when socialists steal factories, the number of factories available for production decreases; but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same.

I'd *shake your hand* here if I could, because I *don't* defend Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism of any kind.

Is *that* the only thing to critique about communism -- that it may need some *tweaking* / updates, like any everyday software package release.

Communism is absurd, anti-economic nonsense that no amount of tweaking can possibly render anything but evil and toxic. It is based on the Big Lie that there is no essential difference between owning the physical products of one's own decisions and initiative and owning others' rights to liberty -- i.e., the same Big Lie capitalism is based on.

Nooooo... You're thinking of *fascism*:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

[ckaihatsu]

Right: post-scarcity is a fantasy.

Okay, I'm going to have to *spell-it-out*, then.

What the 'Multi-Tiered' illustration (previously in the thread) shows is that 'post-scarcity' is entirely dependent on *collective production*, and distribution -- which can be done in various formats, depending on actual prevailing material conditions, as for liberated labor:

(from the image)

It's about distribution systems. Communism (socialism with communal distribution) is usually conceived as a gift economy, but I think a democratic-community model of distribution is a much more accurate depiction of what the intent is. Hypothetically you could have various cities democratically deciding to have different distribution models for different product groups. That seems the most workable model to me.

- Market
- Labor vouchers
- Communal-Democratic
- Gift

This is an excellent point, one I'm surprised we haven't seen earlier. You're placing these various, differentiated methods of distribution on a sliding scale according to the relative *abundance* of the component goods and services produced within.

Perhaps, then, one of the major tasks of a mass collectivized political economy administrating all of this would be to simply categorize *all* goods and services according to their abundant production, radiating its production outward, with gift distribution closest to the center (indicating abundance), then a bulk-pooled communal-democratic method outside of that, followed by a ratio-based labor voucher system outside of that, with a market-type system (of floating exchange rates) on the outlying peripheral area for least-common and more-specialized items.