> > I donÌt know why anybody would argue
> > for such a society, but so be it.
>
>Because markets are the only sensible means we know to
>arrange the production of consumer and production
>goods. I oppose markets in labor and capital.
Distribution of goods and services according to need is another sensible means we know of.
> > Justin simply believes that markets are an
>> efficient means of distribution, he doesn't grasp
>> that markets nurture exploitation and are
>> inextricably linked to production for profit.
>
>Of course they are linked to production for profit. I
>not only grasp the point, I insist on it. That's what
>markets go, give people incentives in the form of
>profits to satisfy the needs of others. And I am
>highly aware that markets pose the threat of nuturing
>exploitation. Your charming arrogance in assuming what
>I am aware of and not is amusing.
Oh well, at least its charming.
>You don't grasp that
>I have written extensively on precisely this topic --
>never published on it. Got canned before I did.
>
>But I do have a line on the risk of exploitation in a
>market socialist economy. The main point is that if
>property is publicly owned and inequalities are
>limited, so that there is no capitalist class to
>capture the lion's share of the profits, then the
>exploitation that exists is not going to be
>systematic. If you want, I can email you a talk paper
>I gave in a conference on the subject a decade or more
>ago, it's pretty good and pretty short.
Great, thanks, send it to me.
> He
>> thinks there is some way to separate markets from
>> these bad apples.
>
>Right. The "way" is called ;abolition of porivate
>property," what Marx described as the theory of the
>communists summed up in a single expression (The
>Manifesto).
I'm just not sure what the "incentive" is in this market then, if income inequalities are limited and the opportunity to accumulate property is not there. What's the point of making a profit? My tentative reaction is that this would be a very bad basis for a market and likely an inefficient market as a result. That is to say, it wouldn't work. But maybe your short paper will satisfy that concern, I look forward to finding out how.
> Oh, and of course Justin's
>> thinking is something of a prisoner of the
>> protestant work ethic, he fears that without some
>> system of coercing people to do productive work,
>> that nothing will be produced at all and we will
>> all starve.
>
>I don't know how many times I have to explain that
>this is not and has never been a rationale I have
>advanced in favor markets. I suppose with people who
>listen as carefully as you do this will not be the
>last time.
I read between the lines, done it all my life, I can't seem to help it.
>I am a Hayekian. Hayek's idea was that markets are
>information systems, not straw-bosses. The point is
>that people cannot know enough if they have to plan
>how many buttons and how much broccoli they will need
>-- but mnarkets give people who are interested in
>making profits spedcial incentives to find out without
>central coordination.
It doesn't work that way. For a start, producers neither know nor care what the needs are, only what people will pay for something. That doesn't address the question of need, it only addresses the question of what people can pay for. However, markets can't work unless there is some degree of shortage, because if goods and services are in abundance, the market will send a message to stop producing. So markets wouldn't be of any help in an economy where there was enough of things to go around.
For example, in health care, how would markets be useful? Even most capitalist economies have already abandoned markets as useless in this field. Because it is recognised that ability to pay ought not to determine if or how a person gets treated. I understand that the US is the exception amongst the advanced capitalist countries, but that just proves the rule since the US health care system is internationally regarded as a bad example of how to organise health care. That is to say, bad because it is market-driven. If a market system is no way to run a health system, why is it any way to distribute any other necessary goods and services?
> No planning board can do as well
>outside certain areas where supply and demand is
>highly predictable.
Look, its quite simple. Manufacturers manufacture to order. Distributors order according to demand. That's the mechanics of how it works now and it could work just as well without a market.
>Hayek did not believe, and neither do I, that we will
>all preish of laziness if we are not threatened with
>starvation through unemployment. Are we clear on this
>point now? I don't expect agreement, jsut
>understanding of what the point is.
I understand what you are saying. You don't accept that this is your premise. I accept that this isn't a conscious premise of your philosophy. However, your belief that people need a financial incentive to do things seems to lead back to that.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas