You know that's not how central planning worked, right? You were told to live in a specific place, with a few (narrow) options on where to work at (unless you were (un)specialised, then there was sometimes zero choice), for meagre but sufficient compensation. You could have a place to live, food to eat. The place to live might be a room in an apartment shared with other families, the food to eat might be bread with bread, and there were little things you could buy outside of necessities, but you were compensated and it was near certain you would have a roof over your head, and baring drastic mismanagement/crisis, enough food.
If that's better than some having more money that they could possibly use, many having access to amazing amenities and luxuries, but a lot struggling to eat enough quality food and not being able to have a roof over their head is IMO a philosophical question. Do you prefer everyone (of course with some minor exceptions for higher ups) to be equally "not great, but not terrible" or do you prefer some to have amazing lives, but others to suffer?
The question of preference at the end is moot. Those with the power long ago made the decision that 'a few people should have a amazing lives while vast numbers of people suffer needlessly' is the way that society should be structured and structured it thusly. This is/was even true in countries with central planning as you've described above. There is/was always a select group of people at the top for whom the rules didn't apply and had all the luxuries that could desire.
You forgot the part where the central planners herded millions of people into Gulags, starved tens of millions more to death, then executed a few million more for good measure.
> Do you prefer everyone (of course with some minor exceptions for higher ups) to be equally "not great, but not terrible" or do you prefer some to have amazing lives, but others to suffer?
This isn't the choice. Socialism (actual socialism) repeatedly starves its populations. Capitalism repeatedly creates situations where new things are created that make everyone's lives better, and existing things get cheaper and better over time.
I.e. you can't just ignore the opportunity cost of innovation and prioritisation via a decentralised market. An innovation-focused dichotomy is: should we spend lots of effort trying to precisely spread around what we have today, while still having a privileged class based on politics, or should we encourage people to do things that raises the floor and the ceiling for everyone, and have a privileged class based on value they created?
Strangely one of those things that culturally, we can't get past. It's a false dichotomy at best, and completely ignores the costs of implementing capitalism.
I don't actually think that's a problem with capitalism (though it has many problems).
I've always seen this as the markets reflecting what we collectively actually prioritize. Sure we want to be safe and educated, but damn it if we don't really get enjoyment out of fancy new toys, vacations, and new cloths.
In this case capitalism doesn't seem to be holding down salaries of the careers you listed. Its noteworthy that most of those industries are unionized, but if the unions are worth anything at all they should be pushing salaries higher than the market would have otherwise paid.
Teaching, nursing, and policing are all either _highly_ regulated or outright organized by the government. So I don't know if it makes sense to say something like "the market chooses not to prioritize policing" or "teacher's unions allow teachers to collect above-market salaries". The voters seem more relevant than the market here.
Yep that's a fair point. Government intervention can muddy the waters similar to unions, with regards to markets deciding on prices and value.
There is still some level of market sentiment though, both in that we don't collectively prioritize politically pushing through higher wages and individuals are still willing to do the jobs for the current salary rates.
Nursing may actually get the triple whammy - unions, governments, and insurance monopolies all weigh heavily into hourly rates and salaries for medical professionals.
Yep that's a fair point. Government intervention can muddy the waters similar to unions, with regards to markets deciding on prices and value.
There is still some level of market sentiment though, both in that we don't collectively prioritize politically pushing through higher wages and individuals are still willing to do the jobs for the current salary rates.
Nursing may actually get the triple wammy - unions, governments, and insurance monopolies all weigh heavily into hourly rates and salaries for medical professionals.
No? What the fuck is this crap logic every time someone suggests we may not be living under a great politico-economic system? How did we go from "maybe we should tame inequality" to "let's resurrect Stalin"? Fucking fuck.
It still beats having a central planner from the politburo tell you to work in the mines for zero compensation.
You know that's not how central planning worked, right? You were told to live in a specific place, with a few (narrow) options on where to work at (unless you were (un)specialised, then there was sometimes zero choice), for meagre but sufficient compensation. You could have a place to live, food to eat. The place to live might be a room in an apartment shared with other families, the food to eat might be bread with bread, and there were little things you could buy outside of necessities, but you were compensated and it was near certain you would have a roof over your head, and baring drastic mismanagement/crisis, enough food.
If that's better than some having more money that they could possibly use, many having access to amazing amenities and luxuries, but a lot struggling to eat enough quality food and not being able to have a roof over their head is IMO a philosophical question. Do you prefer everyone (of course with some minor exceptions for higher ups) to be equally "not great, but not terrible" or do you prefer some to have amazing lives, but others to suffer?
The question of preference at the end is moot. Those with the power long ago made the decision that 'a few people should have a amazing lives while vast numbers of people suffer needlessly' is the way that society should be structured and structured it thusly. This is/was even true in countries with central planning as you've described above. There is/was always a select group of people at the top for whom the rules didn't apply and had all the luxuries that could desire.
You forgot the part where the central planners herded millions of people into Gulags, starved tens of millions more to death, then executed a few million more for good measure.
Other than that, spot on though.
4 replies →
> Do you prefer everyone (of course with some minor exceptions for higher ups) to be equally "not great, but not terrible" or do you prefer some to have amazing lives, but others to suffer?
This isn't the choice. Socialism (actual socialism) repeatedly starves its populations. Capitalism repeatedly creates situations where new things are created that make everyone's lives better, and existing things get cheaper and better over time.
I.e. you can't just ignore the opportunity cost of innovation and prioritisation via a decentralised market. An innovation-focused dichotomy is: should we spend lots of effort trying to precisely spread around what we have today, while still having a privileged class based on politics, or should we encourage people to do things that raises the floor and the ceiling for everyone, and have a privileged class based on value they created?
5 replies →
>Do you prefer everyone (of course with some minor exceptions for higher ups) to be equally "not great, but not terrible"
There's the argument that in a planned economy, things can be terrible for pretty much everyone, like in Venezuela or North Korea.
You also have to account for the central planners choosing to repress people for political purposes.
Maybe you can give us a specific example of a centrally planned society which worked OK according to you? Here's a compendium of case studies to get you started: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Niemietz-Socia...
1 reply →
Ah, ye olden 'capitalism, or dystopian despair!'
Strangely one of those things that culturally, we can't get past. It's a false dichotomy at best, and completely ignores the costs of implementing capitalism.
6 replies →
And by everyone you of course mean everyone that wasn't arrested because he thought maybe bread with bread and a shared appartment is kinda shitty.
1 reply →
Are you serious? No one is being FORCED to suffer in the United States. Such is the beauty of our freedom.
No thanks, I’ll take the system that allows me to move up or down generally in correlation with my effort and work ethics.
2 replies →
I don't actually think that's a problem with capitalism (though it has many problems).
I've always seen this as the markets reflecting what we collectively actually prioritize. Sure we want to be safe and educated, but damn it if we don't really get enjoyment out of fancy new toys, vacations, and new cloths.
In this case capitalism doesn't seem to be holding down salaries of the careers you listed. Its noteworthy that most of those industries are unionized, but if the unions are worth anything at all they should be pushing salaries higher than the market would have otherwise paid.
Teaching, nursing, and policing are all either _highly_ regulated or outright organized by the government. So I don't know if it makes sense to say something like "the market chooses not to prioritize policing" or "teacher's unions allow teachers to collect above-market salaries". The voters seem more relevant than the market here.
Yep that's a fair point. Government intervention can muddy the waters similar to unions, with regards to markets deciding on prices and value.
There is still some level of market sentiment though, both in that we don't collectively prioritize politically pushing through higher wages and individuals are still willing to do the jobs for the current salary rates.
Nursing may actually get the triple whammy - unions, governments, and insurance monopolies all weigh heavily into hourly rates and salaries for medical professionals.
Yep that's a fair point. Government intervention can muddy the waters similar to unions, with regards to markets deciding on prices and value.
There is still some level of market sentiment though, both in that we don't collectively prioritize politically pushing through higher wages and individuals are still willing to do the jobs for the current salary rates.
Nursing may actually get the triple wammy - unions, governments, and insurance monopolies all weigh heavily into hourly rates and salaries for medical professionals.
So the end result is that you live in a society where the average quality of education and health care slowly plummets to zero?
That is not a sustainable solution for society.
I'm not quite following - are you criticising modern late stage Captitalism or some imaginary implementation of bureaucracy?
No? What the fuck is this crap logic every time someone suggests we may not be living under a great politico-economic system? How did we go from "maybe we should tame inequality" to "let's resurrect Stalin"? Fucking fuck.