Supply and Demand

[Right_is_right]

Do communists seek to abolish supply and demand?
Im just wondering.

[redstar2000]

Yeah, under communism we will all suck rocks...we will be human moss.

:lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:32 AM
Yeah, under communism we will all suck rocks...we will be human moss.

:lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
There's your typical intelligent answer, Right.

:lol:

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:02 PM
Do communists seek to abolish supply and demand?

No, the only difference will be that capital will be abolished and labor power will be the main factor in the economy. Which would change accordingly to different sectors of output when it becomes nessecary

However, there is a interesting theory Ludwig von Mises came out with; economic caculation and how it is impossible in Socialism. Luckly, lately theorists have realized that the internet and computers could very well fix this problem.

Also the arguement only assumes that the decision would be in the centralization of decision making, and cannot nessecarily be applied to decentralized Socialist systems.

There are a few more arguements against it, it was a real grudge for us Socialists to bear, but it seems that this arguement might no longer be valid since of technology.

The Economic Calculation Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)



Oh no, what have I done? :unsure:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:14 PM






No, the only difference will be that capital will be abolished and labor power will be the main factor in the economy. Which would change accordingly to different sectors of output when it becomes nessecary

However, there is a interesting theory Ludwig von Mises came out with; economic caculation and how it is impossible in Socialism. Luckly, lately theorists have realized that the internet and computers could very well fix this problem.

How ironic, that a tool created by capitalism can fix socialism's problem.

How sad, that irony will be lost on pretty much everyone here.

:lol:

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:42 PM
How ironic, that a tool created by capitalism can fix socialism's problem.

How sad, that irony will be lost on pretty much everyone here.

:lol:
Absolutely irrelevant.

Are you implying that socialists should discard all technological innovations since the development of capitalism in order to start "fresh"?

If so, what would be the practical benefit of such an approach?

Also, "capitalism" did not develop computers. "Capitalism" was merely the economic arrangement during the development of such technology. You seem to be implying that creativity and innovation are absent under any other system.

Thus, you are correct: the irony is lost on us.

[comrade_mufasa]

Its not complicated. The people will demand it, the people will supply it, and the people will recive it.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:42 PM
How ironic, that a tool created by capitalism can fix socialism's problem.

How sad, that irony will be lost on pretty much everyone here.

:lol:
That doesn't make any difference. Even if socialism did "work" and it was "practical", it still involves the violation of individual rights.

[TheKwas]

Depending on what type of economic Anarchist/communist you ask, you wouldn't nessarly have to abolish supply and demand persay. But what is needed is stop rewarding unfair supply and demand relationships. Where there is demand, you would still need supply. That much is simple, but the problem is making your wages based on supply and demand.

Let's take for example NHL hockey players. They make millions for playing a mere game everyday, while average joe construction-worker makes peanuts for working backbreaking 12 hour shifts. How is that fair? Both work hard, yet one makes 20xs as much as the other, because there is more market demand for the one job. Shouldn't wages be handed out in proportion to how much effort you put into your work, opposed to how much market demand there is for your line of work?

In my personal vision of an Anarchist society, the NHL would act as a syndicate, and each players wage would be either divided equally or atleast decided by their fellow workers who would judge the amount of effort the player puts into his work. The entire syndicate's income would either decided and regulated by other fellow syndicates. If the NHL syndicate is making too much money out of proportion to what it produces, then the other syndicates could use numerous methods, such as boycott, either force the NHL to lower prices to decrease player wages and increase fellow syndicate members consumation spending, or to share it's profits with fellow syndicates to equal out the playing field.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 03:42 PM


How ironic, that a tool created by capitalism can fix socialism's problem.

How sad, that irony will be lost on pretty much everyone here.

:lol:
How ironic that the inventions made under feudalism made capitalism possible.

Same thing.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 07:37 PM
Its not complicated. The people will demand it, the people will supply it, and the people will recive it.
That's what we already have.

[t_wolves_fan]

Shouldn't wages be handed out in proportion to how much effort you put into your work, opposed to how much market demand there is for your line of work?

The problem is, pretty much anyone can do construction; very few can play in the NHL.


In my personal vision of an Anarchist society, the NHL would act as a syndicate, and each players wage would be either divided equally or atleast decided by their fellow workers who would judge the amount of effort the player puts into his work. The entire syndicate's income would either decided and regulated by other fellow syndicates. If the NHL syndicate is making too much money out of proportion to what it produces, then the other syndicates could use numerous methods, such as boycott, either force the NHL to lower prices to decrease player wages and increase fellow syndicate members consumation spending, or to share it's profits with fellow syndicates to equal out the playing field.

That sounds shockingly inefficient. It would require massive central government involvement. Eventually we'll all be stuck living in ugly cement high-rises.

:P

Your theory has already been proven wrong. Fans were royally pissed at major league baseball players for whining about the millions they made. Not only did they not boycott, they soon came back in record numbers.

[dakewlguy]

Its not complicated. The people will demand it, the people will supply it, and the people will recive it.
Yep, as the USSR, Cuba, China and North Korea have all proven, it is easy to gauge demand and supply the right amount of goods without any stupid free market getting in the way.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:50 AM

Its not complicated. The people will demand it, the people will supply it, and the people will recive it.
Yep, as the USSR, Cuba, China and North Korea have all proven, it is easy to gauge demand and supply the right amount of goods without any stupid free market getting in the way.
yep, as the USSR, Cuba, China, and N Korea are were never communist.

[dakewlguy]

They all removed the free market, this is the key feature of Capitalism, therefore they were not Capitalist. They did however all model themselves on Marx's theory and attempt to put it into practice, that's about as Communist as you can get. Don't agree with how they attempted it? Too bad, I don't agree with the practice of large American corporations, doesn't mean I think they're not Capitalist though.

[TheKwas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:52 PM
The problem is, pretty much anyone can do construction; very few can play in the NHL.
I know, I already explained that there is more market demand for NHL players. But that doesn't mean they work harder than average Joe, they are just born lucky and focused on developing their talents.


It would require massive central government involvement.

Perhaps some central organization between syndicates (Syndicate of syndicates) would be needed. But it would be implaced on a purely syndicate and individual level.


Your theory has already been proven wrong. Fans were royally pissed at major league baseball players for whining about the millions they made. Not only did they not boycott, they soon came back in record numbers.


Were the fans organized in a system of syndicates and lived in a society that based wages on effort instead of market demand? No.

Until people stop putting value on market demand, we aren't going to see any change in supply and demand. It's that simple. I think the difference between me and you it seems is that I just like to think that people can one day over come such thinking and put value on what should be valued


Yep, as the USSR, Cuba, China and North Korea have all proven, it is easy to gauge demand and supply the right amount of goods without any stupid free market getting in the way.

I have never and will never support central planning. I just would rather have syndicate and worker communes in charge of the economy instead of Corperations.

[dakewlguy]

I just would rather have syndicate and worker communes in charge of the economy instead of Corperations.
What about consumer based?

[TheKwas]

What about consumers?

Either they would get paid wages from their syndicate so that they can purchase items from other syndicates (Yes, I know, most anarchists are against money) or their syndicate or federation of syndicates does away with money and provides you with your means.

[t_wolves_fan]

I know, I already explained that there is more market demand for NHL players. But that doesn't mean they work harder than average Joe, they are just born lucky and focused on developing their talents.

But they put their talents to work instead of wasting them, which negates luck.



It would require massive central government involvement.

Perhaps some central organization between syndicates (Syndicate of syndicates) would be needed. But it would be implaced on a purely syndicate and individual level.


Uhhhh....can you repeat this in English? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=implace)

Wouldn't syndicates and central sydicates of syndicates be just another word for governments?

What if the NHL syndicate paid its players $7 mil a year while the construction syndicates paid its workers $40K a year?



Your theory has already been proven wrong. Fans were royally pissed at major league baseball players for whining about the millions they made. Not only did they not boycott, they soon came back in record numbers.


Were the fans organized in a system of syndicates and lived in a society that based wages on effort instead of market demand? No.

Ummm, yes. Every baseball fan knows that Major League Baseball players get paid a huge amount of money to play a game. Their number one complaint was that they couldn't possibly work hard enough to complain over that much money.


Until people stop putting value on market demand, we aren't going to see any change in supply and demand. It's that simple. I think the difference between me and you it seems is that I just like to think that people can one day over come such thinking and put value on what should be valued

And I think your last sentence indicates you think you should get to decide who gets paid what based on criteria of your own choosing. That further says to me your passion for deciding who gets paid what is all about control and power.



I have never and will never support central planning. I just would rather have syndicate and worker communes in charge of the economy instead of Corperations.

On what basis would the syndicated communes decide how much of what to produce? Because it sounds like a good idea at the time?

What if nobody wants what they produce? What if nobody produces what everybody wants?

[TheKwas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 06:02 PM

I know, I already explained that there is more market demand for NHL players. But that doesn't mean they work harder than average Joe, they are just born lucky and focused on developing their talents.

But they put their talents to work instead of wasting them, which negates luck.
They were still lucky to be born with such talents. I have been playing hockey for about 10 years now and I praticed just as much as some Tier 1 players yet play Tier 2, and on the flip side there are plenty of tier 3 players that have praticed far more than I have and yet play tier 3.


Wouldn't syndicates and central sydicates of syndicates be just another word for governments?


No. It would be a "meeting table" for the different worker communes to work out issues. And it would be purely volentary.


Ummm, yes.

Really? I must of missed all of these syndicates on my way in...


And I think your last sentence indicates you think you should get to decide who gets paid what based on criteria of your own choosing. That further says to me your passion for deciding who gets paid what is all about control and power.


I don't even know why I'm replying to this, but I have already stated that I place value on effort and need, and not on market demand or natural talents. Of course I think everyone should based on that criteria, because to me it's the only logical criteria. This isn't about me wanting power or control, I want neither, I want everyone to get what they deserve and need. Unless you wish to try and provide a logical reason why I should place value on market demand, I won't place value on market demand.


On what basis would the syndicated communes decide how much of what to produce? Because it sounds like a good idea at the time?


Same way companies decide on how much to produce. Demand. You produce in proportion to demand.

[t_wolves_fan]

They were still lucky to be born with such talents. I have been playing hockey for about 10 years now and I praticed just as much as some Tier 1 players yet play Tier 2, and on the flip side there are plenty of tier 3 players that have praticed far more than I have and yet play tier 3.

So are you saying that because you practiced just as hard as the top players, you should be allowed to join the league and get paid as much as they are?

How will that help the team win?


No. It would be a "meeting table" for the different worker communes to work out issues. And it would be purely volentary.

I see. So I my commune decides we will continue to use production methods that spew millions of tons of pollutants into the air, there is nothing that can be done to stop us?



Unless you wish to try and provide a logical reason why I should place value on market demand, I won't place value on market demand.

You answer it yourself by stating that goods will be produced based on demand.

demand + scarcity = market value on demand. A lot of people demand cheeseburgers, but they aren't scarce. A lot of people demand to see quality hockey, but that's scarce.

Or, better yet, there's quite a demand for commodities that require environmental degradation to be extracted. Would you like to estimate the environmental degredation that would take place if it was all free? It has to be rationed through the market or the government.

But you seem to favor eliminating government, as you've already eliminated the possiblity that syndicates' control over commodities would be anything but voluntary. If you also eliminate the market, then it's a free-for-all. In other words, if cooperation among syndicates were voluntary, and all resources were public, and nothing had a cost, then nothing stops me from clear-cutting the old-growth forest to produce houses that are in demand.

Right?

[TheKwas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:25 PM

So are you saying that because you practiced just as hard as the top players, you should be allowed to join the league and get paid as much as they are?

How will that help the team win?

You still don't get it.

I shouldn't be picked for the team if I'm not as good, BUT I see no reason why the hockey player should be paid more than me when I'm working my ass off in a factory.


I see. So I my commune decides we will continue to use production methods that spew millions of tons of pollutants into the air, there is nothing that can be done to stop us?

Rule 1 of (my version of) Anarchy: Control in proportion to effects. Anything less is tryanny of the minority, and is no better than Capitalism. The pollutants that you spew in the air directly harm me, and therefore it's my right to have a say in how much pollutants you can and cannot release.



demand + scarcity = market value on demand. A lot of people demand cheeseburgers, but they aren't scarce. A lot of people demand to see quality hockey, but that's scarce.


Good for you, you took economics 101 in high school. Now go back in this thread where I have already stated such facts and explained why I don't place value on market demand and with what I think it should be replaced with


Or, better yet, there's quite a demand for commodities that require environmental degradation to be extracted. Would you like to estimate the environmental degredation that would take place if it was all free? It has to be rationed through the market or the government.


*Bangs head on keyboard*

No.


But you seem to favor eliminating government, as you've already eliminated the possiblity that syndicates' control over commodities would be anything but voluntary. If you also eliminate the market, then it's a free-for-all. In other words, if cooperation among syndicates were voluntary, and all resources were public, and nothing had a cost, then nothing stops me from clear-cutting the old-growth forest to produce houses that are in demand.


First I think I didn't quite make myself clear in regards to sydicates being purely voluntary. I said that the meetings in regards to the NHL would be voluntary, because I figured that the NHL was a "border-line" issue when it comes to the collective, as I don't think that they are really hurting anyone directly and is closer to being a individual issue than a collective issue, but would succeed through collective means. However clear-cutting logging directly harms me and is a purely social issue, and thus should be decided by society and the federation of sydicates and indiviuals. You do not have the right to decide my enviroment for me.