Welcome to Gaia! ::

Je Nique vos Merdiers
N3bu
While admittedly I was unable to visualise your method of resource allocation, I find myself on the whole unable to conceptualise a human society where by we are even able to divide resources on anything other then price voluntarily. That is of course assuming we don't experience a fundamental shift in the psychology of human society.

Well, you've already started with the assumption that resources should be rigidly divided at all. We already have models that do not begin with this premise, such as the library model. Do you think libraries have any more trouble keeping track of their stock than book stores? They are certainly more efficient, with their lack of need to constantly replenish their inventory because someone bought a book that they read once and keep forever. What is the issue with applying the same premise to everything? Why can't I walk to the "home depot", grab a shovel, dig some trenches in my back yard, and then put it back for others to use? I only need the shovel for that one thing, after that I don't need to have a shovel lying around my house until I die or get rid of it.

There are relatively few things that need to be owned; in fact, I think all possessions could be reduced to a data profile that is carried on a flash disk or encoded in RF and embedded on or under the skin.

Quote:
I mean in most situations where society is of sufficient mass, any form of non-price distribution has to almost be forced upon people through some form of "greater good" benevolence by a central authority during a time of war.

Uh, price distribution is forced upon us. Can you think of any country where it would be possible to completely avoid the price system? Almost all countries levy taxes, which is enforcement of the price system.

What about Food, Water, Medicine and other consumables that don't follow a rent model system because of the need to actually consume them?

Price is a voluntarily evolved system out of barter. It not forced because most of society accepts it's presence due to the fact that it's existed for a few thousand years.
N3bu
What about Food, Water, Medicine and other consumables that don't follow a rent model system because of the need to actually consume them?

Food, water, and medicine are not scarce. It is the need to recover the research investment that makes medicine high-priced, not the production. More food is wasted than there is demand for food by starving people, and water is the most abundant resource on earth next to silica. Energy is also abundant, we are showered by it day and night, and require only a (relatively) small investment in high-quality (i.e. without consideration to monetary cost efficiency, but material and energy efficiency), low-maintenance renewable generators to make energy no problem for 50+ years.

Quote:
Price is a voluntarily evolved system out of barter. It not forced because most of society accepts it's presence due to the fact that it's existed for a few thousand years.

The minority that does not accept it still does not have much of a choice. There is also a big group of people that don't accept the way the system works, and they are called "criminals".
Heimdalr
Je Nique vos Merdiers
There are relatively few things that need to be owned; in fact, I think all possessions could be reduced to a data profile that is carried on a flash disk or encoded in RF and embedded on or under the skin.

Then you plug it into your personal virtual reality machine to enjoy your possessions.. You wouldn't have to work, because work is done by robots. You can also "voluntarily" share the electrical energy generated by your body.

You're the Huxley to Orwell's Matrix.

I just mean that it would store your ID and software preferences and stuff.

I like working when it's voluntary, so I would keep working when the robots do all the menial tasks.
Complex Systems
You know, given the fact that you've never taken an econ 101 class, I really care less and less for your diatribes about the field.


It's true that I've never taken Econ 101. The again, I've never taken Political Science 101, Philosophy 101, Religious Studies 101, American History 101, or Any Arbitrarily Selected Hard Science 101, nevertheless I'm equally immodest in expressing an opinion on any of those. I leave it to all and sundry as to how well I've done in discussing those departments.

So let's make it perfectly clear that you bothering to point that little point out is well, an ad hominem. And even taking Econ 101 is pointless if it causes one to say in a thread (for instance) that the minimum wage should not be raised because it would increase unemployment. All I would have to do then is point out that the actual empirical data reveals no statistically significant effect. Taking Econ 101 is also more pointless if your name is Greg Mankiw, who seems to be to the Romney campaign what Ben Bova was to The Starlost - i.e. to be the guy who was there simply so the producers could say "We have a science advisor".

As to my "diatribe" I find it strange indeed that you would ascribe such a label considering that I neither expressed anything in any tone that could reasonably construed as hystrionic, nor was what I said addressed against you.

Quote:
Anyone who talks about the "calculation problem,"* admits that individual firms face the same issue that governments face in failing to make proper allocation decisions....So, you mentioned how this is trivially true to both central authorities and firms- no one will disagree.


It's not only trivially true for central authorities and firms, it's true period - from the smallest biological cell to the economic system as a whole. I spoke of stronger and weaker versions of the argument. A strong version might begin "Economies must optimise" and conclude that the market actually "solves" the calculation problem. Both the initial premise and the conclusion are false ex hypothesi.

What's objectional about it is basically its employment in a false dilemma (Free Market or Central Planning, no other alternatives). And the subsequent bogus modus ponens argument (Free Market or Central Planning. Not Central Planning. Therefore, Free Market) when any system necessarily fails by the same standard. Then again to the extent that the "free market" "works" I don't put much credence to the Austrian economists to give us the correct explanation as to why.

Quote:
However, as we've seen that the prevalence for firms to fail and be replaced far exceeds the ability of firms. At the time of the US's creation, first past the post was pretty much one of the most representative firms of government to come across for a nation- today it seems (to me at least) relatively outdated and unrepresentative. However, I doubt it'll change anytime soon. Firms have far more incentives to respond to market activities than governments do, and that is what tends to make them on many issues relatively more efficient.


Yes, efficient at surplus-value extraction, as the Soviet leadership eventually realised. A great pity however that a fanatical pursuit of efficiency at the micro level doesn't necessarily lead to macro-level efficiency. If only the capitalists would have the intellgence to at least set up an alert system to warn them of the shrinking consumer demand resulting from their own firings. But they'll never learn will they?

Quote:
Input-output models suck, and linear programming as a whole has largely been shed by the profession as a result. You can find input output models freely available on most government's websites. I think the BEA publishes one for the US here is a 400 industry one for the US, and here is an inter-provincal one for Canada. But the idea of using any of these for actually valid macroeconomic predictions is laughable. Yes, let us assume supply is perfectly elastic.


Well, I personally prefer not to assume supply curves at all, since I have an allegy to domain assumptions.

I'm not talking about using them for modelling as such, but merely to calculate underlying labour-values. Interestingly enough, Stafford Beer objected to the i/o approach as being insufficiently dynamic. The input-output tables I'm talking about are a bit different, they're the unaggregated tables of every good in the entire economy and they would really be input-output tables. The tables you're more familiar with should more rightly be called "sale-purchase" tables.


N3bu
Although for arguments sake, I would like to see a direct-democracy distribution of resources on a large scale for the good of the group by the collective will of the group.


Well, that would be communism for real wouldn't it. Well, except for the "good of the group" bullshit.

Quote:
At the very least it would provide good insights into nature of human societal co-operation with regards to resources and the extent to which individualism can and will exist given a lack of coercive entities.


I don't know anyone who would want to set such a thing up simply for the social science spin-off. And what's a "coercive entity"? I assume you mean "specialized coercive bodies". In primitive hunter-gatherers, there is no such thing, and the coercive function is exercised by the whole, on behalf of the whole. As long as part =/= whole (which is really the whole issue), most likely we're always going to need some measure of coercion to bind people to essential social commitments.

Quote:
Price is a voluntarily evolved system out of barter. It not forced because most of society accepts it's presence due to the fact that it's existed for a few thousand years.


"Price" (i.e. the value-relation) neither evolved out of barter (which never really existed as a system in the first place), nor evolved voluntarily (which implies the process was in some sense conscious). And it is forced, in the same way that you must use the same language as your fellow citizens, on pain of unintelligibilty.
azulmagia
Complex Systems
You know, given the fact that you've never taken an econ 101 class, I really care less and less for your diatribes about the field.


It's true that I've never taken Econ 101. The again, I've never taken Political Science 101, Philosophy 101, Religious Studies 101, American History 101, or Any Arbitrarily Selected Hard Science 101, nevertheless I'm equally immodest in expressing an opinion on any of those. I leave it to all and sundry as to how well I've done in discussing those departments.

So let's make it perfectly clear that you bothering to point that little point out is well, an ad hominem. And even taking Econ 101 is pointless if it causes one to say in a thread (for instance) that the minimum wage should not be raised because it would increase unemployment. All I would have to do then is point out that the actual empirical data reveals no statistically significant effect. Taking Econ 101 is also more pointless if your name is Greg Mankiw, who seems to be to the Romney campaign what Ben Bova was to The Starlost - i.e. to be the guy who was there simply so the producers could say "We have a science advisor".

As to my "diatribe" I find it strange indeed that you would ascribe such a label considering that I neither expressed anything in any tone that could reasonably construed as hystrionic, nor was what I said addressed against you.

Quote:
Anyone who talks about the "calculation problem,"* admits that individual firms face the same issue that governments face in failing to make proper allocation decisions....So, you mentioned how this is trivially true to both central authorities and firms- no one will disagree.


It's not only trivially true for central authorities and firms, it's true period - from the smallest biological cell to the economic system as a whole. I spoke of stronger and weaker versions of the argument. A strong version might begin "Economies must optimise" and conclude that the market actually "solves" the calculation problem. Both the initial premise and the conclusion are false ex hypothesi.

What's objectional about it is basically its employment in a false dilemma (Free Market or Central Planning, no other alternatives). And the subsequent bogus modus ponens argument (Free Market or Central Planning. Not Central Planning. Therefore, Free Market) when any system necessarily fails by the same standard. Then again to the extent that the "free market" "works" I don't put much credence to the Austrian economists to give us the correct explanation as to why.

Quote:
However, as we've seen that the prevalence for firms to fail and be replaced far exceeds the ability of firms. At the time of the US's creation, first past the post was pretty much one of the most representative firms of government to come across for a nation- today it seems (to me at least) relatively outdated and unrepresentative. However, I doubt it'll change anytime soon. Firms have far more incentives to respond to market activities than governments do, and that is what tends to make them on many issues relatively more efficient.


Yes, efficient at surplus-value extraction, as the Soviet leadership eventually realised. A great pity however that a fanatical pursuit of efficiency at the micro level doesn't necessarily lead to macro-level efficiency. If only the capitalists would have the intellgence to at least set up an alert system to warn them of the shrinking consumer demand resulting from their own firings. But they'll never learn will they?

Quote:
Input-output models suck, and linear programming as a whole has largely been shed by the profession as a result. You can find input output models freely available on most government's websites. I think the BEA publishes one for the US here is a 400 industry one for the US, and here is an inter-provincal one for Canada. But the idea of using any of these for actually valid macroeconomic predictions is laughable. Yes, let us assume supply is perfectly elastic.


Well, I personally prefer not to assume supply curves at all, since I have an allegy to domain assumptions.

I'm not talking about using them for modelling as such, but merely to calculate underlying labour-values. Interestingly enough, Stafford Beer objected to the i/o approach as being insufficiently dynamic. The input-output tables I'm talking about are a bit different, they're the unaggregated tables of every good in the entire economy and they would really be input-output tables. The tables you're more familiar with should more rightly be called "sale-purchase" tables.


N3bu
Although for arguments sake, I would like to see a direct-democracy distribution of resources on a large scale for the good of the group by the collective will of the group.


Well, that would be communism for real wouldn't it. Well, except for the "good of the group" bullshit.

Quote:
At the very least it would provide good insights into nature of human societal co-operation with regards to resources and the extent to which individualism can and will exist given a lack of coercive entities.


I don't know anyone who would want to set such a thing up simply for the social science spin-off. And what's a "coercive entity"? I assume you mean "specialized coercive bodies". In primitive nunter-gatherers, there is no such thing, and the coercive function is exercised by the whole, on behalf of the whole. As long as part =/= whole (which is really the whole issue), most likely we're always going to need some measure of coercion to bind people to essential social commitments.

Quote:
Price is a voluntarily evolved system out of barter. It not forced because most of society accepts it's presence due to the fact that it's existed for a few thousand years.


"Price" (i.e. the value-relation) neither evolved out of barter (which never really existed as a system in the first place), nor evolved voluntarily (which implies the process was in some sense conscious). And it is forced, in the same way that you must use the same language as your fellow citizens, on pain of unintelligibilty.
yawn! what babble

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games