Economics

[andy17]

I am posting in this forum in hopes of getting a multitude of perspectives.

I have recently become a bit disillusioned from council planned economics from reading about Parecon, which seemed overly complicated and not very efficient for getting the job done. This is not to say that I think a free market economy is the best option, nor a state command economy. Although state economies could become bureaucracies, I see very clearly that the nature of corporate capitalism is essentially having multiple bureaucracies. In this sense, a state economy will have the advantage in providing necessities to those who could not otherwise obtain them, and it is semi-democratic, rather than having an "autocratic" corporate entity. I dislike profit motive in many different areas, but I am unsure how some aspects of society would function without it.

Am I wrong in my disillusionment? Can economic councils be efficient? I have most likely not been exposed to enough economic theories, and I definitely do not have an expert grasp on any.

In addition, I am curious about non-capitalist free markets. I can see many of the disadvantages to our current system. Are these disadvantages primarily due to free markets, or capitalism? What are some specific disadvantages of free markets? Advantages? What would a council planned economy offer for efficiency? How would an "anarcho free market" offer the security of hierarchies not developing? How would it be able to provide the necessities of all people, even if they were not in line with market trends?

[Nwoye]

welcome to the forum, i just have one point to make


In addition, I am curious about non-capitalist free markets. I can see many of the disadvantages to our current system. Are these disadvantages primarily due to free markets, or capitalism? What are some specific disadvantages of free markets? Advantages?
keep in mind, an anti-capitalist free market most likely does not have financial markets, and derivatives and CD's and real estate and commodity speculation and insurance companies and banks and all that other bullshit that makes capitalist markets horrible inefficient and bloated. most prominent free market anti-caps believe in mutual banking and reject private property (meaning they reject speculation), so when you hear "free markets" all they really mean is people being able to exchange goods without any state imposed restrictions whatsoever.

[Dimentio]

I am posting in this forum in hopes of getting a multitude of perspectives.

I have recently become a bit disillusioned from council planned economics from reading about Parecon, which seemed overly complicated and not very efficient for getting the job done. This is not to say that I think a free market economy is the best option, nor a state command economy. Although state economies could become bureaucracies, I see very clearly that the nature of corporate capitalism is essentially having multiple bureaucracies. In this sense, a state economy will have the advantage in providing necessities to those who could not otherwise obtain them, and it is semi-democratic, rather than having an "autocratic" corporate entity. I dislike profit motive in many different areas, but I am unsure how some aspects of society would function without it.

Am I wrong in my disillusionment? Can economic councils be efficient? I have most likely not been exposed to enough economic theories, and I definitely do not have an expert grasp on any.

In addition, I am curious about non-capitalist free markets. I can see many of the disadvantages to our current system. Are these disadvantages primarily due to free markets, or capitalism? What are some specific disadvantages of free markets? Advantages? What would a council planned economy offer for efficiency? How would an "anarcho free market" offer the security of hierarchies not developing? How would it be able to provide the necessities of all people, even if they were not in line with market trends?

Test to look into Energy Accounting.

[IcarusAngel]

A free-market isn't "free" in the capitalist sense because of the problems you mentioned: corporations. But, even theoretically, free-markets don't exist in capitalist theory. There are dozens of rules and regulations in their "theoretical paradise," such as property and stock markets, etc.

It is using language incorrectly to say that there is this discrepency "regulated market" vs. "free-market," all "markets" that are purposed are regulated to some degree.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff_p2.shtml

http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Theory/Famous/noam_chomsky_on_the_free_market.htm


Given that that is the case, it's probably best to avoid using language like "free-market" altogether.

What people should be advocating is a system in which workers, producers, etc., control the means of production, not capitalist landlords protected by the government. As I understand it, Socialists who do not believe in "central planning" believe in something like this, where people do trade freely but no one is allowed an overbearing upper-hand.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, before I make any arguments, I have to learn what it is that you're looking for in an economic system, andy17. You say council planning is "not very efficient for getting the job done" - but what is the job that you wish to see done? Economic production and efficiency is not good for its own sake. It is only good as long as it benefits people, and it can be sacrificed for the sake of other, more important goals.

I advocate a state planned economy. What are your objections to this type of economic system? You mentioned bureaucracy, but bureaucracy is not bad in and of itself - it's only bad when it gathers too much power, and that usually only happens when it is unaccountable.