patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Government, businesses, and workers are all necessary. The owner class is not necessary.

LOL. What would be "businesses" if there were no owners. Dan, sorry to hear you missed the boat on becoming an owner, but this viscera hatred of owners, even inventing a "class" or them, is quite unnecessary. Someone has to take on the entrepreneurial risks of ownership. If you are too chicken little to buy your own house or start your own business, you pass on that ownership along with associated benefits (and risk) to someone else by default.

Dan8267 says

China and Japan aren't relevant to the big picture. Even 50, 100, and 150 years ago wages were determined entirely by bargaining power, not productivity. And that is the problem.

Another unsubstantiated assertion. So you are saying unions existed 150 years ago?

Dan8267 says

There are an infinite number of possible economic models to use.

Then name a few.

Dan8267 says

Also, socialism isn't the same thing as communism.

Splain the diff

Dan8267 says

I have explained in detail why the Tragedy of the Commons is very relevant to economics and wages. I have also shown a great example of how breaking the wage suppression and wealth grip of the owner class got Europe out of the stagnation of the Dark Ages and into a productive new era that made our modern life possible. You have said nothing to address this historic lesson.

Damn you are fucked up, regale me again on why this is relevant.

Dan8267 says

Read the thread in which I stated that. I gave all the numbers and cited every reference needed. I showed all the math leaving out no detail.

Where?

Dan8267 says

Nor is it the primary mechanism.

Paying workers a tiny fraction of the wealth they produce is the primary way in which the owner class acquires great wealth while doing no work and producing nothing. It is the primary reason for the grotesque inequality in our society as well as unjust legislation, war, and violent crime.

Sure it is the primary cause. The wealth is from investment which involves risk. Just the other day the bankers would have been on their ass if the taxpayers did not bail them out.

Dan8267 says

That's exactly like justifying slavery by stating that the slave is better off than someone starving because the master feeds the slave just enough to keep the slave alive.

If you cannot discern the difference then you are not qualified to talk about this.

Dan8267 says

The reason why standards of living rise is because of technological advancement, social progress, and the ability of those who actually work for a living

Comparative advantage is the cause of this.

Dan8267 says

As for the first reason, you have us STEM workers to thank for the fact that you are not living in the Stone Age like the vast majority of your human ancestors.

Stem workers have been around for thousands of years?

Dan8267 says

As for the second reason, you have us liberals to thank for the fact that you don't live in the Dark Ages being ruled over by corrupt monks and kings.

Actually it was the likes of the first Queen Elisabeth, Voltaire, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Thomas Paine and many others, they were classic liberals you are right. Not to be confused with mutts like you.

Dan8267 says

As for the third reason, you have us progressives to thank for the 40-hour work week

No dumb ass that was because of technology. What, you think that people worked 100 hours a week because they had a good work ethic? NO it was because technology allowed them to survive while working fewer hours.

Dan8267 says

safe working conditions,

This was also because of technology, this trend started and continued long before OSHA existed, even though these parasites will take credit for it.

Dan8267 says

unions that allowed the America middle class to exist and to build a strong economy

Bullshit, they drove GM out of business, if not for the taxpayer saving them at the expense of the bond holders I might add. I don't have a problem with unions unless they are in the public sector at which point collective bargaining drives the cost up and the quality down. Calif e.g. has the highest paid teachers in the US and the 47 worst test scores. The longshoremen cost commerce billions over some bullshit complaints about arbitration.

Toyota operates without unions and seem to be quite successful.

The reason for the middle class was because the other industrialized nations were destroyed in WW 2, the increase in production and technology and less meddling by government after FDR had the courtesy to die.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Slavery, with food, housing, education and medicine all provided by the slave master, is exactly what would happen if you get the government officials to decide what the workers get paid, instead of letting individual workers and individual employers exercise their respective bargaining power against each other.

That was not my proposed solution. What I proposed does not require government to decide distribution of the revenue. A computer does that.

LOL. The Computer God! Dan, you are almost half a century too late. The soviets thought they could rely on mainframe computers to set price and distribution of everything as early as the the 1960's and 70's. You may even be able to find some documentaries on that subject on YouTube.

Here's a hint why that would not work: value is subjective. The computer's preferences do not reflect the living individual human beings.

Dan8267 says

You seriously need to read up on the history of slavery in America and how it relates to the sugar industry. Business was most certainly the primary cause of slavery, not government. Business largely controls government. That was true in the 18th and 19th centuries and it is true today.

bullshit

Dan8267 says

The child laborers in the early 20th century were prevented from attending schools, learning how to read or even the alphabet, and could not possibly hope to get a better life because the factory took all their time an energy. Go on and click on the site I just reference and watch the videos. Only a heartless bastard like you wouldn't be enraged at the exploitation of those children.

IIRC by the time the child labor laws were instituted the problem was already over, which is typical regarding law. The thing to notice about this is that it corrected itself, not the government.

As to the video who the fuck do you think kicked the farmer off of their land? An eminent domain abuse...

Dan8267 says

This exploitation was done using government, but the puppet-masters were business owners.

Like all Libbys you have an aversion to the term crony capitalism.

Dan8267 says

The fact is that the absence of government, anarchy, is impossible to achieve. Therefore, it is irrelevant how lovely you think anarchy might be. It's not going to happen. A power vacuum is always filled, whether by waring power structures or a single winner. The question is how to make government do good rather than evil. The answer, in part, is to remove the power of the owner from controlling the distribution of revenue. The very corruption of government by the owner-class is made possible solely because of the vast wealth the owner-class siphons off of the working class, which it then uses to buy politicians and legislation.

They did it in Somalia, and things improved nicely since, I think N Koreans should do the same.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

In American history, company towns were common and the business owners treated the workers like indentured servants.

Not for long they didn't, unless of course they colluded with government, other wise the workers would simply leave.

Again, you are merely demonstrating your ignorance of American history.

Give me the nutshell version of how long this went on how government collusion was not a part of it, I'm not going sit though some PBS blather.

Dan8267 says

A little context is in order, back then the avg life expectancy was about 40, disease was rampant, you had to work at least 12 hr to survive, you had to work to work a full day for 50 cents as a laborer and a candle cost 28 cents. So your complaints are absurd.

And these things were caused by owner-class greed just like the stagnation of the Dark Age.

WTF are you talking about Willis?

Dan8267 says

Why is determining wages based on bargaining power rather than productivity a problem?

You are essentially asking the question, why can't the government fix a "fair" price for everything.

A person's productivity is highly subjective because the output product/service value is subjective.

As for your long list, most of the poor on welfare do not work, therefore have no productivity to speak of. Their entire income (welfare, food stamps and subsidized housing) is the result of political bargaining power because they vote. If you believe that should be taken away, there might be a valid point in that 40+ years of welfare program has only proven that perpetuating multi-generational poverty in household headed up by single mothers is a terrible idea, with severe social consequences in terms of both economic and criminality.

Dan8267 says

As for the third reason, you have us progressives to thank for the 40-hour work week, safe working conditions, and the unions that allowed the America middle class to exist and to build a strong economy. Without those unions, the middle class would have never existed and the powerhouse economy of the 20th century would not have existed either.

Utter nonsense. Labor Union was an imported ideology from Europe in the late 19th century. Labor Union was far more active in Europe than it was in the US; the result was catastrophic for the various European nations.

indigenous says

Another unsubstantiated assertion.

Historical fact is, by definition, not unsubstantiated assertion.

indigenous says

So you are saying unions existed 150 years ago?

No. Your reading comprehension also needs work.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

There are an infinite number of possible economic models to use.

Then name a few.

x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, etc. Things not yet invented tend to not have names yet. However, you can name them whatever you want.

The bottom line is that there is no limit on how economic systems can be built. We are certainly not limited to the three, essentially identical, economic systems used in history. And they are all identical in that an owner class has controlled them all.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Also, socialism isn't the same thing as communism.

Splain the diff

Well, at least you're admitting you don't know the difference. Of course with all the right-wing propaganda to equate the two completely different things it's no wonder you don't.

Communism is an economic system in which the government owns all economic resources and centrally manages all economic activity. The most important principle of communism is that no private ownership of property should be allowed.

Socialism is not an economic system or an economic philosophy. Socialism is an economic tactic in which the costs of something is distributed among a group. For example, the benefits of a lighthouse is enjoyed by all boaters, so the cost of a lighthouse is socialized (spread) over all boaters in the form of a boat tax. The benefits of a military are enjoyed by the entire population, so the cost of the military is socialized over the entire population. Everyone enjoys the reduced risk of poverty by a welfare system that provides a minimal level of existence and is paid for by all of society.

It is utterly impossible to run any society or any economy without some socialism. In America, the military, the highway system, the public sewer systems, the electric grid, the police, and the fire fighters are all examples of socialism. Which of these do you want to ban?

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

I have explained in detail why the Tragedy of the Commons is very relevant to economics and wages. I have also shown a great example of how breaking the wage suppression and wealth grip of the owner class got Europe out of the stagnation of the Dark Ages and into a productive new era that made our modern life possible. You have said nothing to address this historic lesson.

Damn you are fucked up, regale me again on why this is relevant.

From About European History

In the middle of the fourteenth century the Black Death swept across Europe, killing perhaps a third of the population. While devastating, some of the survivors found themselves better off financially and socially, with the same wealth spread among fewer people, and better potential for climbing the social ladder. This was especially true in Italy, where social mobility was much greater. While some areas saw struggles between the more competitively positioned workers and their bosses, this ‘new’ wealth was often was spent on display items to reinforce prestige, much like the rulers above them. This also allowed people to patronize Renaissance artists.

In addition, the merchant classes of a region like Italy also saw a great increase in their wealth from their role in trade, from the same trade routes which spread the Black Death so quickly. This trade income was further developed, some might say revolutionized, by Renaissance developments in commerce, giving the merchants further wealth to patronize with.

In more detail,
http://www.youtube.com/embed/HcEllXY76W4

If you spent more time reading educational material and watching historic documentaries than watching Fox News, you would be more informed and this material wouldn't be so surprising to you.

indigenous says

Where

Look for it. I'm not spending the time doing your research. Plus you can educate yourself by reading all my posts again.

indigenous says

The wealth is from investment which involves risk.

Wrong. Wealth comes from production. That is, from building, planting, growing, inventing, developing, writing, researching, and doing all other kinds of productive work. It does not come from owning things. Yes, capitalism revolves are capital, hence its name, but that does not mean an economic system has to. Revolving around the petty desires of a small, lazy, nonproductive owner class is not the optimal way to run an economy. The owner class only looks out for its own selfish interests, which more often than not are in conflict with everybody else's interests.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

But the bottom line is that the minimum wage earners have a better standard of living than most of the rest of the world.

That's exactly like justifying slavery by stating that the slave is better off than someone starving because the master feeds the slave just enough to keep the slave alive.

If you cannot discern the difference then you are not qualified to talk about this.

I must have hit a nerve. You are now running away with your hands covering your ears.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

The reason why standards of living rise is because of technological advancement, social progress, and the ability of those who actually work for a living

Comparative advantage is the cause of this.

Bullshit. The great advancements of our time rarely yields riches to the inventors. Edgar Codd did not get rich for inventing the relational database. Larry Ellison, who invented nothing, did. Tim Berners-Lee did not get rich inventing the World Wide Web. John Bardeen and Walter Brattain, who invented the transistor that makes all modern electronics work, did not get rich off their invention although many others did.

If we believe that money motivates people to produce, then those who produce should get first dibs on their productivity, not some owner.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

As for the first reason, you have us STEM workers to thank for the fact that you are not living in the Stone Age like the vast majority of your human ancestors.

Stem workers have been around for thousands of years?

In one form or another, yes. Every thinker who tinkered with mathematics, stone, metal, pulleys, or any other technology was a STEM worker. The blacksmiths, the librarians, the sea-charters were all working essentially in STEM. Even before science in the modern sense of the word, there was technology, engineering, and math. There were people shaping the world into a better place with hard work and productivity, and their were fat parasites doing nothing but siphoning wealth from others. The later needs the former, but the former does not need the later.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

As for the second reason, you have us liberals to thank for the fact that you don't live in the Dark Ages being ruled over by corrupt monks and kings.

Actually it was the likes of the first Queen Elisabeth, Voltaire, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Thomas Paine and many others, they were classic liberals you are right. Not to be confused with mutts like you.

So you want to discredit every social and political reform that happened in the 20th century? Women's suffrage is worthless crap to you? You want to go back to segregation? Repeal all safety measures in the workplace? Re-institute "turns" in which a factory worker works for 36 hours straight? Does that sound like a good idea to you?

How about preventing interracial marriages? Re-instituting the draft? Force women into back-alley abortions. Repeal the Freedom of Information Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act? Maybe we should just disassemble the Internet because it has too much free-speech-y stuff.

Go back to the 18th century where you belong. Even your insults reveal too much about you. You call everyone else mutts because you believe that anyone not in the owner class is subhuman. It's a revolting ideology.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

As for the third reason, you have us progressives to thank for the 40-hour work week

No dumb ass that was because of technology. What, you think that people worked 100 hours a week because they had a good work ethic? NO it was because technology allowed them to survive while working fewer hours.

You're ignorance of American history never ceases to amaze me. It's like you haven't even heard of the progressive movement.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/MT046YLK78I

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

safe working conditions,

This was also because of technology, this trend started and continued long before OSHA existed, even though these parasites will take credit for it.

Business owners will glad risk the lives of their workers if there are no legal repercussions. This has been empirically proven time and time again. It required labor laws to institute safety measures at work just like it requires environmental regulations to keep business from polluting.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

unions that allowed the America middle class to exist and to build a strong economy

Bullshit, they drove GM out of business

The American middle class was created by New Deal and the unions back in 1938 to 1945. GM is still in existence. You can buy their stock. You can't even get basic facts correct.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/yfGZJDPWCzM

Dan8267 says

Why is determining wages based on bargaining power rather than productivity a problem?

Because productivity is dependent on the value of output products and/or services, both of which have subjective value, it is not possible to determine productivity objectively without the market-driven two-way negotiation process. The worker putting in 8 hours at the Lada factory making cars of 30+ years old design has different productivity from the worker putting in the same 8 hours at the Lexus/Acura/Mercedes/BMW/Audi factory making the latest design cars. Only a two-way bargaining process between the consumer vs. carmaker, and carmaker vs. worker can the value of the goods and services be ascertained.

Your basic assumption is based on Marxian Labor Theory of Value, which has been proven wrong for well over a century!

1. Multitudes of people are impoverished even though they are producing $50,000/yr to $100,000/yr of wealth. They still barely make ends meet and if anything bad happens like a health problem then they become homeless and hungry.

2. These people then depend upon the very social services (welfare, food stamps, assisted housing) that the owner class bitches about.

Most people on welfare, food stamps and assisted housing have no jobs, therefore have zero productivity. Their entire legal income comes from their bargaining power at the ballot box. You might be able to make a case that such power of extortion from the rest of the society should be removed and replaced by private charity.

3. The poverty and inequality causes violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery, and gang-related drug dealing.

Welfare, food stamps and housing subsidy combined to give a single-mother household on average $40-$70k a year. That is not poverty by any stretch of imagination, except for the result of poor money management. Rate of criminality is high among children raised in such household not due to poverty or inequality per se, but due to the lack of father figure to instill discipline and lack of any adult role model to teach the kids how to make a living legally. That's how you get the current ghetto environment where being hard studying and good at school is considered "acting white"! whereas acting like a gangster is considered "alpha" and "cool"! Morons like you have been forcing taxpayers to subsidize such nonsense for the past half century!

4. Women in systemic poverty live life hard-and-fast having many children at a young age and are unable to care for them. Women in financially secured environments have fewer children, have those children at an older age (not teens), and are able to care, nurture, and educate those children.

Abortion is accessible to most women living in systemic poverty, as is contraception and long-term/permanent contraceptive solutions. The real reason why the adverse artificial selection (the selection of bad genes and bad child raising environment) is going on in the society is because the opportunity cost for having children is negative for women in poverty: they are paid by Uncle Sam to give births to children, any children. Any wonder, why we now have nearly half new births taking place in such utterly unsuitable households? It's the moronic subsidies you guys have been advocating for the past half century that's resulting in the literal breeding of welfare dependency, broken families and criminality!

5. People who are barely making ends meet do not have the free time and resources to become entrepreneurs. They cannot make scientific discoveries. They cannot advance technologies. They cannot implement new ideas even if the idea they have is great. They are stuck simply working long hours to make some lazy asshole rich.

People on welfare, food stamps and subsidized housing typically do not work legally because any legal income would reduce their government subsidy. The most motivated people in that population resort to drug dealing as entrepreneurial activity. Their mental energy is spent on becoming practical chemists and unlicensed pharmacist experimenting with new drug concoctions. That's why meth cooking has become so popular in recent years.

6. Because they aren't paid according to what they produce, the working class families cannot pay for their own health care or send their children to college.

They get free medical insurance and free college education for their kids, at the expense of middle class families, both through taxation and through artificially jacked up prices for medicine and education.

7. Poor young men enter lives of crime and violence, join gangs, and create an environment that prevents other young people from escaping poverty and violence.

That's an argument for removing welfare incentive for women to have children in that environment. It's just like when San Francisco gave out salaries to the homeless, more homeless came! "Liberals" like you are essentially elitist idiots who do not recognize the poor people's ability to think and game the system.

Dan8267 says

Communism is an economic system in which the government owns all economic resources and centrally manages all economic activity. The most important principle of communism is that no private ownership of property should be allowed.

In other words, a dictator like Stalin and the Kims of North Korea owns everything in the country / world. When you concentrate ownership, only the scums of humanity rises to the top.

Dan8267 says

Socialism is not an economic system or an economic philosophy. Socialism is an economic tactic in which the costs of something is distributed among a group. For example, the benefits of a lighthouse is enjoyed by all boaters, so the cost of a lighthouse is socialized (spread) over all boaters in the form of a boat tax. The benefits of a military are enjoyed by the entire population, so the cost of the military is socialized over the entire population. Everyone enjoys the reduced risk of poverty by a welfare system that provides a minimal level of existence and is paid for by all of society.

That is not how light houses typically came about. Historically light houses were typically built by the major shippers or an association of major shippers in the area. The donors' own benefit from the light house out-weighed the cost of the light house; everyone else just derived fringe benefit. Likewise, military for a long time was the private possession of the "lord"; that seems to be a more fair system than our current system of the "lords" derive benefit from foreign military adventures while the taxpayers get to "socialize" the cost. Welfare is an even more wasteful system where 70-80% of the total budget is spent on staffing the bureaucrats, while the whole system promotes dependency, sloth and criminalty; the bureaucrats work hard to preserve their jobs instead of helping people out of poverty. It's a classic case of monopoly instead of letting donors choose which charity to give money to.

Dan8267 says

It is utterly impossible to run any society or any economy without some socialism. In America, the military, the highway system, the public sewer systems, the electric grid, the police, and the fire fighters are all examples of socialism. Which of these do you want to ban?

Most towns in the US still have volunteer fire fighters. The electric grid of course started off as a private enterprise, by Edison. Private developers build sewer systems all the time. Highways were also privately built before government took over as monopoly. Military, well, that being monopolized by the government has more to do with monopoly on the use of violence than anything else: in 1776, you could have said the "socialized military" was the Red Coats; all they wanted to do was to provide safety and security to the colonists from Indians and French while having their cost "socialized"; why couldn't the colonists understand? LOL.

Your "progressivism" is little more than elitist "Divine Right" belief dressed up in the garbs of a new religion and new king.

The American middle class was created by New Deal and the unions back in 1938 to 1945. GM is still in existence. You can buy their stock. You can't even get basic facts correct.

Utter nonsense. The American middle class was in existence at the Revolutionary War of 1776. Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively about the middle class farmers, to which most Americans belonged for most of the 18th and 19th century.

During the WWII, 1941-45, the labor union was obstructionist to the war effort. After the 1950's reconciliation between the carmakers and labor union, every labor union gain came at the expense of the much greater middle class consumers: union rules became designed to keep out new competition to the Big-3.

Reality says

You are essentially asking the question, why can't the government fix a "fair" price for everything.

Not at all. I'm saying determine distribution of revenue based on productivity, not bargaining power. This has nothing to do with government or price fixing.

Reality says

Dan8267 says

Why is determining wages based on bargaining power rather than productivity a problem?

Because productivity is dependent on the value of output products and/or services, both of which have subjective value, it is not possible to determine productivity objectively without the market-driven two-way negotiation process.

I'm not saying that the prices of products aren't determined by markets. I'm saying the distribution of the revenue from those sales should be determine by means other than bargaining power. You are confusing two separate things.

Reality says

Your basic assumption is based on Marxian Labor Theory of Value, which has been proven wrong for well over a century!

You are drawing the connection to Marxian Labor Theory of Value, not me. The basis of my analysis is rooted in game theory and biology, specifically the reference I sited to Evolutionarily stable stalk to spore ratio in cellular slime molds and the law of equalization in net incomes
.

You don't get to replace the basis of my argument with another, irrelevant idea.
Reality says

Most people on welfare, food stamps and assisted housing have no jobs, therefore have zero productivity.

41% of households receiving food stamps have working people

And more importantly, those who don't can't get a job because of monetary policy.

Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2 percent (Extra!, 9-10/94). In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."

When the entire economy is controlled by the owner class and the owner class wants at least 6.2% unemployment to keep wages down, there will always be at least 6.2% unemployment.

Reality says

Abortion is accessible to most women living in systemic poverty

So much for conservative "family values" and a pro-life stance. Republicans have been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for 40 years. You want abortion by the mother's choice to be illegal, but abortion to be mandatory even against the mother's will if she's poor. What a dystopia you are proposing.

In fact every social ill that you are bitching and moaning about is directly created by impoverishing people for the sole purpose of redirecting all wealth produced by the working people to the owners. And you still haven't addressed why the a few people who produce nothing should be the ones deciding how to distribute the wealth produced by others.

Reality says

Utter nonsense. Labor Union was an imported ideology from Europe in the late 19th century. Labor Union was far more active in Europe than it was in the US; the result was catastrophic for the various European nations.

Folks, expelling hot coffee out your nose hurts like a bitch. I got to get a paper towel.

Reality says

Yet, Bretton Wood System designed by him clearly anchored the USD to gold, and all other major currencies of the world to the USD.

Bullcrap. Keynes was only one participant in Bretton Woods, the British delegation only got some of what they wanted, and it wasn't Keynes major priority. Keynes had a long record of being against gold backed currency that stretches at least to the aftermath of WW1, when he wrote a book about it (and it was that book that first made him famous)

Dan8267 says

That's unrestrained capitalism in a nutshell. The Edgars of the world have no problem killing hundreds of thousands of people so that they can afford some obscene luxury. Their yacht is worth far more than your life and the lives of your children.

YUP.

The British also fought the Opium War when they ran out of "Real Precious Metal Currency" - Silver - to pay for the tea. Since the British were running low on silver and starting to run a deficit, they went around desperately searching for an alternative import, and so got millions of Chinese addicted to Opium grown in British Controlled India (Malwa region). When the Chinese emperor tried to restrict the import of Opium, the British cried "This Tyranny Will Not Stand! Let the Free Market Decide! There must be a free flow of goods and services, to arms against such injustice!" and sent ships and marines to wage war against the Chinese.

Americans also imported Opium from the Western Hemisphere to China.

Today, the US and UK bomb countries just for growing cocaine and opium, and feel it is no longer Tyranny against the Free Market to ban Cocaine and Heroin.

Meanwhile, Guatemalan girls are beaten and raped while weaving clothes for US Markets; US companies are wise now, they no longer run the factories themselves, but outsource it to subcontractors, so the beatings can continue while they proclaim innocence. Chocolate, Diamonds, Rugs, etc. are just a few places where US firms know damn well what is happening, but don't give a shit.

Saipan, a US Territory, was also a den of inequity, created by special laws enacted by the last Republican Congress. Instead of hiring locals, they brought over Chinese and Indonesian girls to work as slaves in textile factories.

Dan8267 says

Technology requires time to be developed

No it requires free trade to develop, this is a VERY organic process, IOW no government needed other than a rule of law.

Dan8267 says

To argue that we shouldn't develop new technologies -- and economic systems are technologies -- because they haven't been developed already is utterly ridiculous especially in an era that has seen the rise of personal computers, the Internet, and damn sophisticated mobile computing devices. Should the smart phone had not been developed because rotary phones were used for a long time?

WTF are you talkin about Willis, you are conflating technology and economics, they are two different things.

I try so hard to hep ya, but alas you are the living embodiment of the dangerous meme, look they are in your favorite flavor of median and everything:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes?language=en

Or in realizing that you are wrong:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

Dan8267 says

Are you really going to argue that all the historians are wrong? Please feel free to further demonstrate your ignorance. Every time you do, you let the world know that your economic agenda is that of an idiot.

I am not an idiot, history is really just an agreement on what history was, E.G. history says Lincoln was an American hero when in fact he was a subversive who got 1 million Americans killed, and used his political position to bilk Americans out of a lot of money, ignored habeas corpus to protect himself from the press, instigated the Civil War, etc. etc.

Dan8267 says

So, you're basically saying that you want to revoke the right of women to vote. Noted.

Ain't gunna happen but it is an interesting idea, good thinking on your part.

Dan8267 says

Allowing wealth to go to people who "better game the system" rather than produce better results is bad for an economy. It's wasteful, and it decreases growth.

Couldn't have said it better than myself...

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

The American middle class was created by New Deal and the unions back in 1938 to 1945. GM is still in existence. You can buy their stock. You can't even get basic facts correct.

You think that laws being passed defies physics? It don't, if longer hours are required because of a lack of labor saving devices such as tractors or forklifts, then workers had to work longer hours in order to bring in the harvest or unload the ship before spoilage.

You falsely stated that unions drove GM out of business back in the mid-20th century. GM is still in business and doing well in the 21st century. What the fuck does physics have to do with the empirically false statement you made?

You can pass a law that gravity is going to have 1/2 the effect it does now so that we can get better gas mileage in our vehicles and other benefits. But that does not mean it is going to happen.

Dan8267 says

OMFG! You are actually making the case that the relationship between slave owners and their slaves was a symbiotic one? You do realize that the slave owners raped and killed slaves both for fun -- yes, slavers are psychopaths -- and to keep the other slaves in fear. And that raping and killing included children, who weren't yet productive in the fields.

You obliviously think that a few irrational slave owners represent the majority who were rational?

The slaves depended on their owners as much as the owners depended on them.

Dan8267 says

I think you've thoroughly demonstrated the lack of morality, ethics, and grasp on reality of the people who take your position. Yes, the Edgars of the world want to be slave owners and think of everyone else as slaves.

You think like a woman.

At least Dan doesn't think like the evil Rothbard:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such ‘neglect’ down to a minimum.)”

Evil Statism forces parents to feed their children, and prevents them from exercising their right of ownership to starve them! Freedom! Liberty! End Tyranny!

Anybody still wondering why Austrians can't get a job in Academia? If the press got a whiff of what Austrian Professors taught College Students...

I'm guessing that is a thought experiment. But you use whatever transgression you can find to alleviate fully grasping what the author espouses.

I have heard it said that Rothbard was the greatest American economist ever, yet you want to glibly throw out the baby with the bathwater.

thunderlips11 says

At least Dan doesn't think like the evil Rothbard:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

indigenous says

I have heard it said that Rothbard was the greatest American economist ever, yet you want to glibly throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

You act as though workers and business owners or even slaves and owners don't have a symbiotic relationship. Apparently you think that slave owners would injure slaves for fun? Slaves were expensive, the owners did not have any motivation to hurt them, nor business owners and workers.

Dan8267 says

OMFG! You are actually making the case that the relationship between slave owners and their slaves was a symbiotic one? You do realize that the slave owners raped and killed slaves both for fun -- yes, slavers are psychopaths -- and to keep the other slaves in fear. And that raping and killing included children, who weren't yet productive in the fields.

I think you've thoroughly demonstrated the lack of morality, ethics, and grasp on reality of the people who take your position. Yes, the Edgars of the world want to be slave owners and think of everyone else as slaves.

indigenous says

You think like a woman.

All women do not think identically. So basically, you are a sexist who doesn't want women to vote, a racist who considers slavery a symbiotic relationship, and you have no respect for human life even the lives of children. Yeah, I'm sure the sane 99% of America will really back an economic system advocated by a psychopath like you.

You certainly do represent the conservative movement. Everybody for himself and it doesn't matter how much you harm others getting what you want. Slavery, child labor, and work camps that kill hundreds of thousands are all fair game. And you wonder why we want a different economic system.

You should change your avatar to

and yours to:

Well, if by feminist you mean I believe in equality under law for all and universal voting rights, then yes. The alternative is being an asshole.

I guess being a programmer you have to think in binary? that is not how life works...

indigenous says

I guess being a programmer you have to think in binary? that is not how life works...

That's a load of crap. There is nothing binary about the statement it's assholic to want to deny women the right to vote or equality under law. Obviously a sexist, racist asshole like you disagrees, but that doesn't make the statement based on a black-n-white view of the world.

Dan8267 says

That's a load of crap. There is nothing binary about the statement it's assholic to want to deny women the right to vote or equality under law. Obviously a sexist, racist asshole like you disagrees, but that doesn't make the statement based on a black-n-white view of the world.

I did not say I wanted to deny women the vote. That was Anne Coulter, but the fact that they vote using emotional reasoning is problematic, which is why people like you are problematic, in that you use emotion reasoning instead of logic.

Reality says

That is an irrelevant point even if it is true. At the rate the FED payroll for research Economists is growing, it may well soon hire all PhD economists than all other institutions combined, if not already. It is already by far the top employer of Economics PhD's.

Citation, please.

Reality says

The most recently retire FED chairman, Bernanke, had previously been a professor at Princeton before taking the FED job;

The current real power wielder at the FED, Fischer, was professor at MIT, and thesis advisor to Bernanke.

The current ECB head, Mario Draghi, was also a student of Fischer's.

That's great, but it doesn't prove the Federal Reserve is the #1 employer of economist PhDs in the USA.

indigenous says

you use emotion reasoning instead of logic.

You still haven't addressed the fundamental issue that distributing the revenue of a business based on ownership instead of productivity is bad for the economy. I've used evidence and reasoning to demonstrate this and every response you made has been to distract from that truth. Accusing me of being emotional instead of logical is also a direct contradiction of your other accusation that I think too much like a computer. Pick one faulty assertion.

Dan8267 says

OMFG! You are actually making the case that the relationship between slave owners and their slaves was a symbiotic one? You do realize that the slave owners raped and killed slaves both for fun -- yes, slavers are psychopaths -- and to keep the other slaves in fear. And that raping and killing included children, who weren't yet productive in the fields.

Here's another example of unregulated exploitation:

More than 45 foreign maids are facing execution on death row in Saudi Arabia, the Observer has learned, amid growing international outrage at the treatment of migrant workers.

The startling figure emerged after Saudi Arabia beheaded a 24-year-old Sri Lankan domestic worker, Rizana Nafeek, in the face of appeals for clemency from around the world.

The exact number of maids on death row is almost certainly higher, but Saudi authorities do not publish official figures. Indonesians are believed to account for the majority of those facing a death sentence. Human rights groups say 45 Indonesian women are on death row, and five have exhausted the legal process.

Figures for other nationalities are harder to come by. Rights groups say they believe there are also Sri Lankan, Filipina, Indian and Ethiopian maids facing the death penalty.

Gulf State treatment of maids and workers from abroad is legendary. Raped by Men, Beaten by jealous wives, sleeping on the kitchen floor, 24-7-365 work weeks (Wake up bitch and make me a midnight snack, heretical idiot whore, daughter of lies!). Living out in 110F heat, working 18 hour days on skyscrapers, passports illegally stolen in violation of all international law by employers so they are stuck, go unpaid for months...

Reality says

On the contrary, the big government advocates like yourself are the creationists: Intelligent Design by bureaucrats. Whereas the free marketeers believe in the free market competition fostering the evolution of businesses.

Right. Whereas Cars, 747s, Smartphones are simply "poofed" into existence by the unmoved mover or a singular entrepreneur, and not the result of 100s of engineers, metallurgists, computer scientists, jet propulsion experts, etc. etc. coordinated by a team of another few hundred, and built by thousands or tens of thousands.

That's central planning, baby. So was the Hoover Dam, the Apollo Mission, WW2, the Interstate Highway System, the Fiber Optic Cable infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.

What is the difference between 1000 bureaucrats managing the broad financial aspects of the economy and 1000 top banksters? The former are indirectly elected; the latter are unaccountable.

You'll notice that between 1936-1980, there was not a single catastrophic failure of the banking system or a nationwide real estate crisis, etc. under the direction of evil bureaucrats. In the 90s, when we began finalizing the transfer of financial control to solely private, for-profit actors, all of sudden we had Blackstone, Dot Com Bust, Real Estate Bubble and Collapse, ridiculously huge loans given to corrupt officials (from Alabama to Greece) and massive Bailouts for banks worldwide. Hell, California even had brown-outs and power outages - not because of government failure, but because the state government was prevented from regulating Enron's manipulation of energy by neoliberals in the Bush Administration.

This is nothing new - everytime the government takes their boot off the neck of banksters, this happens, and not just in the US. The reason Canada had the least fallout from the crisis was precisely because Canada kept Great Depression-era bank rules in effect.

NoDan8267 says

You are essentially asking the question, why can't the government fix a "fair" price for everything.

Not at all. I'm saying determine distribution of revenue based on productivity, not bargaining power. This has nothing to do with government or price fixing.

How would you calculate productivity in your scheme? Since you want something that displaces the two-way negotiation (bargaining) between the two parties directly involved in the transaction, wouldn't you then have to have an all-knowing government or "board" to make up some kind of formulae?

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Dan8267 says

Why is determining wages based on bargaining power rather than productivity a problem?

Because productivity is dependent on the value of output products and/or services, both of which have subjective value, it is not possible to determine productivity objectively without the market-driven two-way negotiation process.

I'm not saying that the prices of products aren't determined by markets. I'm saying the distribution of the revenue from those sales should be determine by means other than bargaining power. You are confusing two separate things.

What means do you have in mind? Interesting to note that you are retreating from your earlier position about basing on "productivity," which is indeterminant and ever changing based on the ever changing value of the output products. Two way negotiations / bargaining by the two parties directly involved in the transaction is the most effective way of price discovery, for both end products/services and for intermediate inputs, including labor.

Dan8267 says

Abortion is accessible to most women living in systemic poverty

So much for conservative "family values" and a pro-life stance. Republicans have been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for 40 years. You want abortion by the mother's choice to be illegal, but abortion to be mandatory even against the mother's will if she's poor. What a dystopia you are proposing.

You must have me confused with someone else. I'm not against abortion, nor am I advocating mandatory abortion. However, women in poverty should not have the right to loot from taxpayers; otherwise, you create the real dystopia we have right now: adverse selection resulting in over-representation of children being born to parents with sub-par genes and being raised in sub-par environment. In other words, what your retarded system has produced is reinforcement of failures, turning the gene pool and society backwards towards atavism.

In fact every social ill that you are bitching and moaning about is directly created by impoverishing people for the sole purpose of redirecting all wealth produced by the working people to the owners.

Utter nonsense. The welfare queens that you keep talking about are not workers at all. Your artificial division of "working people" vs. "owners" is utterly non-sensical. Most owners work and/or have ben working. The strongest argument for private ownership is actually promoting work through letting people keep the ownership of their own labor output. Political redistribution is actually a process that set up the real working people against owners (the political parasites: the welfare class, corporate welfare recipients and the bureaucratic enablers.)

And you still haven't addressed why the a few people who produce nothing should be the ones deciding how to distribute the wealth produced by others.

You mean those in the government?

thunderlips11 says

Evil Statism forces parents to feed their children, and prevents them from exercising their right of ownership to starve them! Freedom! Liberty! End Tyranny!

Anybody still wondering why Austrians can't get a job in Academia? If the press got a whiff of what Austrian Professors taught College Students...

So, when did you adopt any starving children? Of course you did not. Instead, you want other people's income to be confiscated to pay for starving children, while you pilfer from that money flow. You are just a liar and a fraud.

thunderlips11 says

That is an irrelevant point even if it is true. At the rate the FED payroll for research Economists is growing, it may well soon hire all PhD economists than all other institutions combined, if not already. It is already by far the top employer of Economics PhD's.

Citation, please.

.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/careers/economist.htm

The FED board alone employes over 300 Economics Ph.D's! That's not including any of the regional FED's.

thunderlips11 says

The most recently retire FED chairman, Bernanke, had previously been a professor at Princeton before taking the FED job;


The current real power wielder at the FED, Fischer, was professor at MIT, and thesis advisor to Bernanke.


The current ECB head, Mario Draghi, was also a student of Fischer's.

That's great, but it doesn't prove the Federal Reserve is the #1 employer of economist PhDs in the USA.

That was in response to a different question, namely, evidence that academia and FED/government are revolving doors. As for "that's great," only to those dumb enough not to see their own enslavement.

thunderlips11 says

On the contrary, the big government advocates like yourself are the creationists: Intelligent Design by bureaucrats. Whereas the free marketeers believe in the free market competition fostering the evolution of businesses.

Right. Whereas Cars, 747s, Smartphones are simply "poofed" into existence by the unmoved mover or a singular entrepreneur, and not the result of 100s of engineers, metallurgists, computer scientists, jet propulsion experts, etc. etc. coordinated by a team of another few hundred, and built by thousands or tens of thousands.

That's central planning, baby.

Are you kidding? Are you that clueless? Central Planning is not a reference to free people individually choosing to play a role in a bigger project that each can quit at any time after fulfilling contractual obligations. Central planning refers to coercive planning by government bureaucrats that all other members of the society have to comply due to threat of violence. Let's take the list you put forth:

For cars, Central Planning meant the soviet style production of Lada's into the 1980's based on the 1950's design, because the factories were told what to produce, and consumers did not get to choose but assigned cars by the government based on their rankings in the soviet society. In the free market, teams of designers and factory workers and bean counters in various different car manufacturers put forth hundreds of different models in those same 30+ years, and consumer choice decided what was to be produced.

For 747, Boeing took the risk to design and manufacture the plane. If it did not work out well, the company would have gone bankrupt, and its hold on resources would be taken over by competitors . . . just like what happened to Boeing's competitor MD.

Smart phones, free market and consumer choice have driven smart phones through multiple generations of evolution to result in what we have today. In a Central Planning economy, like Cuba and North Korea, the cell phone was banned because it's potentially subversive to the regime!

thunderlips11 says

So was the Hoover Dam, the Apollo Mission, WW2, the Interstate Highway System, the Fiber Optic Cable infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.

Hoover Dam and Apollo Mission were huge wastes. That's why huge dam projects have no been attempted again in the US after Hoover Dam. Apollo's politically driven moon shot is a big reason why space industry has been so slow for those decades. Fiber Optic Cable infrastructure was largely laid by private corporations. Private funds built highways too before the federal government took over as monopoly. Waging wars, well, that is indeed the specialty of the big government monopoly. LOL.

thunderlips11 says

What is the difference between 1000 bureaucrats managing the broad financial aspects of the economy and 1000 top banksters? The former are indirectly elected; the latter are unaccountable.

Nope, neither is elected, neither are accountable. Banksters in a fiat money central banking system are bureaucrats. In case you did not realize, the head banksters are appointed by the President! and approved in Senate hearings.

You'll notice that between 1936-1980, there was not a single catastrophic failure of the banking system or a nationwide real estate crisis, etc. under the direction of evil bureaucrats.

There were quite a few actually:

1. the founding of Fanny Mae in 1938 was actually the result of nationwide real estate crisis due to FDR's inflationary policies making low interest 30yr mortgage unavailable from portfolio lenders;

2. Some 30 years later, LBJ had to take Fanny Mae off the government balance sheet and turn them into GSE's with ambiguous "guarantee" from the government because those mortgage liabilities would sink the US government balance sheet under the then prevailing Bretton Wood system;

3. The US government default on the Bretton Wood guarantee on the value of USD promise after western European countries ran on the "bank." What followed after the second bankruptcy of the US (1st being the FDR delinking domestically) was massive inflation in the 70's, as reflected by the two "oil shocks."

In the 90s, when we began finalizing the transfer of financial control to solely private, for-profit actors, all of sudden we had Blackstone, Dot Com Bust, Real Estate Bubble and Collapse, ridiculously huge loans given to corrupt officials (from Alabama to Greece) and massive Bailouts for banks worldwide. Hell, California even had brown-outs and power outages - not because of government failure, but because the state government was prevented from regulating Enron's manipulation of energy by neoliberals in the Bush Administration.

The Electricty Utility Restructuring Act was passed in 1996, in the middle of Clinton Administration. The first brownouts took place in 2000, when Clinton was still in office. Likewise, the repeal of Glass-Steegal also took place during Clinton administration. It's silly to blame "neoliberals" in the Bush Administration for things that had taken place before they even took office.

Reality says

Are you that clueless?

Yes he has, been drinking the Kool aid too long

Reality says

How would you calculate productivity in your scheme?

There are many ways to calculate the productivity, almost all of which are better than letting the owner set a ratio based on bargaining power. Hell, the owner already has to have a damn good idea of what the employee is worth in order to make a hiring decision in the first place. The problem is that he'll always lie and say the workers are less productive so that he can keep a larger share of the profits.

Wage transparency will reveal the true worth of work done across businesses and yes, there are formulas and mathematical laws that have already been developed to address this problem. The Law of Equalization of Net Income is one example. Here's another...

Set the revenue that the owner gets to the median wage of his workers. The only way the owner can increase his personal wealth is to increase the wealth of the workers. The owner's financial incentives are now in line with the wealth producing workers. The owner or business manager will do what it takes to increase that median wage, which is ultimately a function of the productivity of the workers. It also has the advantage of incentivizing businesses to stay small and productive rather than large an unproductive like in the current system.

There are many other solutions that will come about with refinement of ideas.

Reality says

Two way negotiations / bargaining by the two parties directly involved in the transaction is the most effective way of price discovery, for both end products/services and for intermediate inputs, including labor.

Feel free to justify that statement with proof or evidence. Two way negotiation between two parties of equal bargaining power might be the most effective way of price discovery for end products and services, but even so, it is clearly not the most effective way of price discovery when bargaining power is unequal. Nor is there any reason to believe that if it's true for end products it's also true for the internals of product and service development. In fact, I can easily show it's not by giving a single example that contradicts this belief. Just one counter-example is enough to disprove a law.

Counterexample: Ownership of a mineral mine

Let's say there is a potential quarry site full of gold. Society wants that gold. Who owns the gold? The only sensible answer is everyone in the society as it is a natural resource that wasn't created by any person. However, society needs people to did up the gold and to smelt it in order for the gold to be useful.

Under our current system, Edgar, being a member of the owner class, has some political connections that he uses to secure "mineral rights" to the site. He pays men, who are desperate for employment because they are not in the owner class, a meager amount to do the dangerous work of mining and smelting the ore. These men do all the work and are the only persons being productive or producing wealth. They also endure all the adverse health effects.

The wealth in this system is the natural wealth, that is the value of the creation of the gold ore by nature, and the production wealth, that is the value of mining and smelting the gold. The first part of the wealth was created by nature and should be assigned to society as a whole. The second part of the wealth is due to the labor of the worker, not the fact that Edgar "owns" the mine because government says he gets to for a miniscule contribution to the government or to individual politicians.

Does Edgar contribute anything? Perhaps. Some Edgars do contribute a little, others contribute nothing depending on the situation. Let's say Edgar does contribute by funding the mining tools. OK, that has value, but it's value that's easily measured. And it's fair that some of the miner's wealth production goes to Edgar for his contribution of funding the mining tools. What's not fair is that on average 90% of each miner's production goes to Edgar and 10% goes to miner, which is what's historically typical. Miners make a poor living while the owners get rich essentially doing nothing after wrangling some underhanded deal with a corrupt politician.

Under the system I propose, one solution would be to set Edgar's income to the mean income of the miners. Edgar has motive to fire unproductive miners and replace them with productive ones that mine more efficiently. He's also motivated to use efficient tools. So the economic goal of efficient resource allocation is met. But Edgar does not have motive to exploit his workers because his income is the same as theirs.

The value of the gold end-product is still determined by supply and demand. However, the distribution of the revenue of the mining business is handled not by the bargaining power of the miners, but by their productivity. Clearly the value of a miner's productivity does not diminish if another potential miner comes to the town and is willing to do the exact same work for less money because he's desperate. The value of mining ten pounds of goal is independent of who does the mining and how desperate for a job that person is.

Bargaining power, or two-way negotiation as you call it, is NOT an effective mechanism for discovering the value of the work done. Furthermore, price and value are not the same concept, but in an efficient economy where resources are optimally allocated prices will almost exactly reflect value. The Edgars of the world mess up the system and diminish effeciency and growth by making the price of labor have nothing to do with the value of labor.

Make no mistake, even the Edgars of the world will be better off if all Edgars are forced to give up this perverted power. The Virtuous Cycle has more effect on the quality of life of even the Edgars than their ability to exploit workers do.

The particular way in which value is measure is specific to the value being measured (what industry we're talking about), but there is always a way to accurate measure value even if the value is "subjective". If slime mold can come up with a solution that's better than letting Edgar dictate how the revenue is distributed, then we humans with our god-like apprehension should also be able to.

Reality says

Central Planning is not a reference to free people individually choosing to play a role in a bigger project that each can quit at any time after fulfilling contractual obligations. Central planning refers to coercive planning by government bureaucrats that all other members of the society have to comply due to threat of violence.

Actually, central planning means planning that is centralized. It's a self-defining term like automobile.

Central planning is whenever a single entity, even if it's some loose federation of sub-entities, plans something with a common goal, vision, or mission statement. It does not matter if the entity planning is a government, a corporation, or an oligopoly. What large corporations do is, by definition, central planning. In America oligopolies rule our economy and do massive amounts of central planning including price setting, deciding the direction of technology, and standardizing contracts in the interest of the large corporations rather than the customers.

The opposite of central planning IS NOT a larger bunch of entities centrally planning against each other. The real opposite of central planning is distributed decision making, which is not possible with hierarchical decision making entities like corporations or government. For distributed decision making, you need to use relational sets and graphs.

It would be possible to implement a distributed economic system, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. Here's how it would work. The entire economic system would be a graph. Each node in the graph is an exchange point. A person opens up one or nodes for the purpose of exchanging work, either requesting or offering to produce some intermediate good. An entrepreneur who wants to make a new product issues a work request to the network. The smart network creates a node path that is capable of executing all work necessary to fulfill the work request. If there are no paths, that means the work cannot be done with the skills, technology, and capabilities of the economy at this time. For example, you cannot create a perpetual motion machine.

Typically, there will be a multitude of paths. The network chooses one path based upon some criteria. The actual criteria can change based on the needs of the economy. The work order is fulfilled by the path and the good(s) produced. The revenue from the sales of the goods is distributed amongst the path, which includes the entrepreneur's node, based on a criteria executed by the smart network. In this way, anyone can be an entrepreneur and not have to worry about being screwed out of his fair share of the profits because the network, which is automated and has no vested interests of its own other than running an efficient economy, determines distribution of the wealth produce.

Capitalism, communism, and feudalism are all essentially the same central-planning economic system. The only real difference is nomenclature. What do you call the people in charge: business owners, party members, or royalty. A rose by any name smells the same, as does a turd by any other name.

Dan8267 says

Actually, central planning means planning that is centralized. It's a self-defining term like automobile.

No. Central Planning means coercive planning, as opposed to market diversified decision making.

It's just like Central Banking does not mean a bank physically located at the center of the city, but means fiat money that everyone in the economy is forced to accept as money (that's how Central Bank can "bailout" banks; it's not like the central bankers are reaching into their own pockets to pay for the bailout, but they are able to reach into the pockets of everyone else because of the coercive power of fiat money).

Dan8267 says

It would be possible to implement a distributed economic system, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. Here's how it would work. The entire economic system would be a graph. Each node in the graph is an exchange point. A person opens up one or nodes for the purpose of exchanging work, either requesting or offering to produce some intermediate good. An entrepreneur who wants to make a new product issues a work request to the network. The smart network creates a node path that is capable of executing all work necessary to fulfill the work request. If there are no paths, that means the work cannot be done with the skills, technology, and capabilities of the economy at this time. For example, you cannot create a perpetual motion machine.

LOL. Why re-invent the wheel? You already live in a distributed economic system. You are the node! You can advertise on Craigslist for a "gig" to have your house cleaned, meal cooked, or a fridge delivered. Heck, you might even be able to advertise to have your dick sucked for a few hours before the host removes your post. Dan, you need to get laid and live the real life for a while.

The crucial difference among the various systems is the degree of coercion on the individual. Free market system minimizes coercion, whereas socialism and communism attempts to dress up coercion in various fantasies.

Reality says

No. Central Planning means coercive planning, as opposed to market diversified decision making.

Well, by that definition, unregulated capitalism IS central planning.

Even if we let you choose the definition of a term, you don't get to choose the consequences of that definition. You can't change reality by changing the association of words to definitions. Nomenclature does not determine how a system operations.

Reality says

LOL. Why re-invent the wheel? You already live in a distributed economic system. You are the node! You can advertise on Craigslist for a "gig" to have your house cleaned, meal cooked, or a fridge delivered

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote if you think Craigslist is an example of it.

You are an analog node in a digital world. You'll never understand the future that digital-minded people are building right now.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

No. Central Planning means coercive planning, as opposed to market diversified decision making.

Well, by that definition, unregulated capitalism IS central planning.

How? Do you just go around in circles and redefine various well accepted terms?

Even if we let you choose the definition of a term, you don't get to choose the consequences of that definition. You can't change reality by changing the association of words to definitions. Nomenclature does not determine how a system operations.

What are you talking about? Central banking is not a feature of Capitalism. Central Banking is one of the 10 Planks in the original Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx in 1848.