> I don't know if Gates has a controlling
> interest in Microsoft, but if he did he doesn't have to listen to his
> customers. He does if he wants to make money, but he could run the company
> into the ground if he really wanted to, and nobody could stop him.
Gates has 22% of Microsoft's stock, I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong). And he does indeed have to listen to his customers -- because they buy Microsoft products every single day. CEOs don't sit around in offices smoking cigars and cackling over their latest plan to screw the proletariat, they're in meetings, conferences, events, get-togethers, luncheons, gatherings, trade shows, etc. If Big Bill decided to freak out and produce worthless programs which didn't function at all, the Fortune 500 would boycott him and turn to Corel in half a millisecond. And then his stock options would crumble to nothing in an instant. He's worth $50 billion in *stock value*, not cash -- and guess who owns stocks? The rich and giant institutions -- Bill's customers.
> I don't understand this objection. Albert and Hahnel are fairly explicit
> about the fact that engineers, scientists, technicians, managers, etc.,
> what they call the coordinator class, should also be eliminated. As for
> reorganizing an entire mode of production, if you don't do that you are
> essentially maintaining the status quo (which is fine, I suppose, if that's
> what you favor). But if you want to eliminate class divisions and organize
> a society around the principles they laid out (solidarity, equality, etc.),
> then you have no choice but to drastically reorganize production relations.
Ye Gods. We're going to *eliminate* engineers and scientists as a class? What's horrible about capitalism is NOT the division of labor, it's the exploitation of that labor (and of Nature). My point is that if we're serious about changing the mode of production, we have to be serious about the people who already work in the current mode of production: this means organizing unions, fighting for a big welfare state, demilitarizing the USA, etc. Isn't the welfare state itself a perfect model of what ParEcon is trying to do -- the creation of a decommodified zone, where the laws of the market have been (temporarily) abrogated?
> My understanding of ParEcons proposed iterative method for determining
> prices goes something like this: consumers have a budget, and they write
> down what they want for the next period. Producers will do the same
> (propose output levels). These initial requests/plans are then compared
> and prices for each commodity are determined. This could conceivably be
> done in a completely mechanical fashion (i.e., a computer could do it -
> presumably the algorithm for arriving at the resulting prices would be
> subject to popular approval).
> The facilitation board is really only needed to ensure final convergence of
> the iterative process to a practical plan. That is, without outside
> interference, you might get oscillation between two plans which exhibit
> excess demand and excess supply, for example.
So if my salary is currently $9000 a year, and I want $18000 worth of goods next year, how would the system handle this? *Everyone* is going to want a bigger piece of the pie, right? (Including -- and especially -- firms). ParEcon assumes that we all have this relatively unmediated relationship to production and consumption, and can limit ourselves to a relatively stable consumption basket. That may be true for peripheral, agrarian economies, but even the smallest business in the First World uses money to mediate these things. Which is maybe why the European social democrats, for all their problems, are on to something when they insist that economic democracy is not incompatible with money or entrepreneurial spirit -- it's just that *everyone* would have money and be able to express their talents to the utmost, and not just the rich.
-- Dennis
P.S. Incidentally, that Obsidian 3D card is a visual droolfest. Quake 2 on 800 x 600 looks like sheets of glass, sharp as razors. May the Taiwanese chip designers who built the thing live long and prosper!