Essential Higher Learning PODCAST: 1/2017 - Post #1579

[OfTheCross]

Just depends on where that "bottom" is ...If the bottom is a two bedroom home with all your needs taken care of, is it still a bad thing?

If we gonna give housing away the bottom should be 2 ppl sharing a studio apartment with a curtain dividing their rooms.

They gotta want to do better.

 

[OsO]

If we gonna give housing away the bottom should be 2 ppl sharing a studio apartment with a curtain dividing their rooms.

They gotta want to do better.

Not even mad at that.

 

[CHL]

Just depends on where that "bottom" is ...If the bottom is a two bedroom home with all your needs taken care of, is it still a bad thing?

If that was the bottom, we wouldn't still be living in capitalism.

 

[Concerning VIolence]

Just depends on where that "bottom" is ...If the bottom is a two bedroom home with all your needs taken care of, is it still a bad thing?

I can see having 2 classes of rich and slighty-less rich just existing side by side, but can't figure out in my head how that can be achieved unless we're talking post-scarcity.

 

[OsO]

If that was the bottom, we wouldn't still be living in capitalism.

Why not? It would just be a moral version of Capitalism.

I can see having 2 classes of rich and slighty-less rich just existing side by side, but can't figure out in my head how that can be achieved unless we're talking post-scarcity.

What scarcity? We have more than enough of everything and an Earth that will produce natural resources until infinity if we take care of it.... there is no scarcity, there's only hoarding.

 

[CHL]

Why not? It would just be a moral version of Capitalism.

good joke.

That's just not how 'capitalism' fundamentally functions.

"Market capitalist economy is an economic system with private ownership of most means of production and the price mechanism or market forces of supply and demand determining resouce allocation, income distribution and the ownership of the means of production.".

With everyone supplied a two bedroom home and all their needs taken care of, that has nothing to do with capitalism. It would be a form of socialism or communism. Which I am completely for (socialism). Maybe you want all other aspects of the economy to be capitalistic in which case it would be a mixed economy, but don't get it confused and define it as some magical "moral version of capitalism" in which it is part of capitalism itself.

What scarcity? We have more than enough of everything and an Earth that will produce natural resources until infinity if we take care of it.... there is no scarcity, there's only hoarding.

resource scarcity is an indisputable fact until humans have a virtually unlimited supply of energy. Now do we have enough to fulfill basic needs of the world population right now? Yes, and I want education, healthcare, and basic food and shelter to be free. But having basic needs covered is still very far from resource scarcity not existing.

"Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs." Literally the first concept you learn in economics. Hopefully within a few centuries it has been eradicated.

 

[DEAD7]

The allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses in the name of the game, and nothing allocates more efficiently than the market

 

[OsO]

good joke.

That's just not how 'capitalism' fundamentally functions.

"Market capitalist economy is an economic system with private ownership of most means of production and the price mechanism or market forces of supply and demand determining resouce allocation, income distribution and the ownership of the means of production.".

With everyone supplied a two bedroom home and all their needs taken care of, that has nothing to do with capitalism. It would be a form of socialism or communism. Which I am completely for (socialism). Maybe you want all other aspects of the economy to be capitalistic in which case it would be a mixed economy, but don't get it confused and define it as some magical "moral version of capitalism" in which it is part of capitalism itself.

We would need to establish common definitions for all these terms but I hear your point.

And as history has shown, yes I think a "mixed" economy is best. Countries with the proper balance between government regulation and private ownership will always

resource scarcity is an indisputable fact until humans have a virtually unlimited supply of energy. Now do we have enough to fulfill basic needs of the world population right now? Yes, and I want education, healthcare, and basic food and shelter to be free. But having basic needs covered is still very far from resource scarcity not existing.

"Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs." Literally the first concept you learn in economics. Hopefully within a few centuries it has been eradicated.

Do we have scarcity? Or do we have groups of people hoarding and controlling resources?

Scarcity doesn't exist in our society. We have enough "sufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs." ...Easily, with room to spare for a few billion more.

The allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses in the name of the game, and nothing allocates more efficiently than the market

You are severely underestimating the maliciousness of corporations. In 2015 corporations use all kinds of tricks, both legal and illegal, to gain competitive advantages over each other and thus more revenue. What do you think would happen if they were left to police each other? Corporations escalate to violence to solve problems now, to what scale do you think that would increase if there were no one to check them?

It would turn real nasty real quick. This is the f*cking white man we're talking about here Dead or did you forget?!?

 

[DEAD7]

You are severely underestimating the maliciousness of corporations. In 2015 corporations use all kinds of tricks, both legal and illegal, to gain competitive advantages over each other and thus more revenue. What do you think would happen if they were left to police each other? Corporations escalate to violence to solve problems now, to what scale do you think that would increase if there were no one to check them?

It would turn real nasty real quick. This is the f*cking white man we're talking about here Dead or did you forget?!?

We're gonna talk about it.

 

[CHL]

The allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses in the name of the game, and nothing allocates more efficiently than the market

ahh ahh ahh you sure about that?

Efficiency in resource allocation occurs when productive inputs are used to produce particular types of goods and services that help to maximise the general satisfaction of society's needs and wants, and overall wellbeing. Unfortunately, however, the market sometimes fails to use these resources well. This lowers the degree to which society's wants are satisfied and its wellbeing or living standards are maximised.

Market failure exists when the price system (relative prices determined by demand and supply), profitability, self-interest and consumer soverignty are unsuccessful or inefficient in directing resources into areas that promote the public interest and society's general wellbeing or living standards.

An example of one of at least half a dozen instances of market failure that show an inefficient allocation of resources:

Externalities are a third source of market failure.
Negative externalities or costs may arise, for example, when a factory producing chemicals releases unpleasant odours that we a re forced to breath, even though we do not use that firm's products. Another example occurs in the generation of power with the release into the atmosphere of carbon dioxid emissions that lead to global warming, severe weather events and climate change that may then contribute to the flooding of island communities and wild weather events that damage the properties of others. These costs are not paid by the producers who have created the damage. The costs of the damage for them will be zero, and their profits inflated. This problem distorts the effective allocation of resources by overproducing goods and services that are socially undesirable. This misallocation of resources represents market failure and impacts badly on our society's wellbeing and general living standards.

Another:

A fourth instance of market failure relates to the supply of public goods. Some types of goods and services are seen as socially desirable or beneficial and are so important that everybody should be able to use them, even if they are poor and cannot afford to pay for them. Here we might think of services including education, health, energy, housing, transport and communications. However, these goods and services are costly to produce or run. They cannot therefore normally be sold cheaply at a lower price so that everyone can afford them, otherwise firms producing these services would be unable to make good profits ( fukk em). With low profits, inefficient resources would be allocated to these areas by the private sector and there would be underproduction and a reduced general level of wellbeing. The government has therefore been forced to take on the main responsibility for providing public goods and services such as free education, low cost housing and affordable healthcare.

**More examples I could have listed for this

Again:

The production of socially undesirable goods and services is another area of market failure. Under this heading, we might think of goods and services like alcohol and tobacco, gambling, some drugs and chemicals, carbon dioxide emissions, certain commerical activities, contract killings and firearms. In these cases, the Australian government may decide to limit or ban the allocation of resources towards socially undesirable areas of production. It does this by intefering with or restricting consumer soverignty and the free operation of the market (even though production may be profitable) because it believes that some consumers are not always sufficiently mature, discerning, fully informed or knowledgable, aware and educated about the dangers of unrestricted consumption for their own wellbeing. In addition, consumption of these goods and services can also reduce the general wellbeing and living standards of others in society (that is, it creates a negative externality).

Not to mention market power and asymmetric information.

You must have a funny definition of an efficient allocation of resources here's what I have:

Efficient allocation of resources occurs when productive inputs are used in a way that maximses the satisfaction of society's needs and wants.

 

[CHL]

We would need to establish common definitions for all these terms but I hear your point.

And as history has shown, yes I think a "mixed" economy is best. Countries with the proper balance between government regulation and private ownership will always

Thus far, sure. However, after exponential technogical growth and when we enter an era of abundance (hopefully within 200-300 yeas) a paradigm shift will occur, and I think at that point some form of socialism (perhaps a combination of market socialism and non-market socialism) will clearly be the most ideal option.

Spoiler

and no market socialism is not a mixed ecnomy

Do we have scarcity? Or do we have groups of people hoarding and controlling resources?

Scarcity doesn't exist in our society. We have enough "sufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs." ...Easily, with room to spare for a few billion more.

Again, as defined in economics, scarcity existing currently is an indisputable fact. We most certainly do not have the resources right now to fulfull "virtually unlimited human wants and needs". I think you're misinterpreting the definition. Now do we have the resources to fulfill all basic necessities and non-luxury items (education, healthcare, food, shelter), and then some luxuries? YES. Again, these are very, very different things. We will be able to fulfill the "virtually unlimited human wants and needs" at some point soon, but we are nowhere near that in 2015.

 

[OsO]

Thus far, sure. However, after exponential technogical growth and when we enter an era of abundance (hopefully within 200-300 yeas) a paradigm shift will occur, and I think at that point some form of socialism (perhaps a combination of market socialism and non-market socialism) will clearly be the most ideal option.

Spoiler

and no market socialism is not a mixed ecnomy

Define market socialism

Again, as defined in economics, scarcity...

What's more important? That it's accurate as defined by theoretical models, or it's accurate as defined by REALITY?

If we have enough food and water for every person on the planet, then there is no scarcity.

Do you believe there is a food shortage in the world?

 

[88m3]

We're gonna talk about it.

Oh?

 

[JahFocus CS]

Announce topics right before the podcast brehs

CATO7 (@DEAD7) already admitted some months ago that socialism is democratic and that capitalists are the class society analogues of slaveholders and aristocrats ... being that all three groups resort to similar arguments to support the rule of the ruling class

 

[DEAD7]

I do it for the culture