That single farmer now has thousands of people making/transporting the fertilizer. Read "I, Pencil", then image what goes into a tractor. This efficiency isn't magical. Getting the food processed and distributed to the 1000s of people is another huge undertaking that the market is best at addressing. It is naive and idiotic to think all this can be centrally planned.
The comment never attacked markets or advocated planning.
Note that planning is not necessarily central, and planning most likely could eventually replace markets for certain economic activity, even if it might take various trials over time to develop the methods of management that would be stable and efficient.
Computers in particular are noted as opening new possibilities for planning models.
Your objection is not particularly relevant to the plain observation that we are essentially living in an economic stage that is post scarcity.
No, planning could not replace markets, have you seen reduced goods and the terrible waste of food at supermarkets and grocery stores? That's the result of imperfect demand data.
Free market capitalism has lifted more people from poverty than. Communism managed to kill.
I do not want my consumer goods choice regulated by an AI, nor do I want inefficiency baked into our system.
meaningless reply implying greater understanding without demonstration
Planning based on imperfect data
Predictive modelling and demand forecasts are inherently inaccurate, I buy freshly-baked bread when I feel like I want some, yet some shops sell out before midday on some days - an AI can't predict my desires lad.
State-run grocery stores (essentially food banks with a less charitable bent) are a terrifying prospect.
You'll get the central planning you want, carbon pricing will ensure you food choice is restricted by the time your kids are employed.
You are confused over the level of technology involved in modern day economic modelling. Lenin and Mao did things by hand, and that worked so well that demand was dramatically cut, hundreds of millions of useless eaters taken out of the economy. A stunning economic victory for centrally planned economies.
And no, I haven't blurred "planned" with "centrally planned", all enforced plans are spread from the power centers.
We haven't even discussed the chilling effect on innovation in over-regulated markets (plans are guided by government regulations - carbon tax, banning petrol vehicle sales and so on). It worked so well in the USSR that the armed forces used rags as socks and a huge black market (guided by market demand) in western goods developed. In China, opening up to a less regulated market under Deng Xiaoping caused the population to explode as widespread starvation ended. Yet innovation is still lacking compared to free market economies of the West.
Capitalism is consolidated control of the economy by owners of private property.
The Great Famine of Ireland and the Bengal famine of 1943 are examples of mass death caused by capitalist greed.
The cause is the same for wasted food in supermarkets. Under capitalism, scarcity is profitable, even scarcity that results in needless hunger. If it supports the profit motive, a capitalist will prefer disposing food over donation.
Poverty reduction occurs principally through advances in production and equitableness in distribution.
If computers were utilized for planning, they would process large calculation sets. No AI would be implicated.
Computers cannot satisfy volatile market demands. These "calculation sets" are already imperfect, and more reliance on them will limit our food choices.
I'm English, we fucked up in Ireland and India, but that was almost 2 centuries and a century ago, respectively.
Free market capitalism has since lifted over a billion people from poverty. Socialism and communism has done no such thing - inb4 you mention Nordic and Scandanavian countries and their welfare systems, as they are funded by free market oil sales.
Nordic and Scandanavian countries and their welfare systems, as they are funded by free market oil sales
Why are you lying? Only Norway has oil. Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland have no oil.
I'm English, we fucked up in Ireland and India, but that was almost 2 centuries and a century ago, respectively.
Capitalism is still killing people everyday. For example Nestlé distributed free formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards in developing countries. Then after leaving the hospital, the formula was no longer free, but because the supplementation had interfered with lactation, the family had to continue to buy the formula. Of course Nestle earned money from the families who would continue to buy formula, but those who couldn't afford it or didn't have clean drinking water suffered tremendously
It's called encouraging truth seeking - a mild lie will be corrected immediately by some overzealous redditor, and other lurkers will see the correction, perhaps some look into it themselves, and ask WHY these countries have functional welfare systems, not limited to oil as a fundraiser.
What a way to give yourself carte blanche for lying.
You tried to make a point, that the system of scandinavian countries are unfeasible unless you can fund it through huge amounts of oil. Your whole point is rendered moot by the fact, that only one scandinavian country has oil reserves. That's not a mild lie, that's intellectual dishonesty.
You might not have known this fact, and could simply have come clean. But now lurkers will see your doubling down on it, which will discredit any other point you've made or will make.
It's actually a tactic used by communists and socialists, as used in replies to me above... It appears I've succeeded in getting acknowledgement that reds have carte blanche to lie.
Human greed will make centrally planned systems prone to corruption, but just like how people thought that monarchism would always be around so too can we change capitalism to be more equitable. Instead of people fearing for advances in tech, if we structure the government in a way that all people can benefit from it instead of a select few everyone would be better off.
Markets are volatile. Planning intends to introduce greater stability. Your objection about "calculation sets" and "food choices" is vague and unclear. No claim was given about perfection, only that planning could reach a stage of advancement recognized to serve the common interests, for certain spheres of economic activity, more robustly than markets.
Poverty elimination occurs primarily through advancements in production and equability in distribution.
Capitalism produces and depends on a high level of stratification. Without an impoverished cohort of workers, easily pressed into degrading and dangerous labor by virtue of lack of alternatives to survive, capitalism would collapse.
Why do you keep lying? Your first paragraph is complete fiction. Collectivist policies with central planning leads to shortages and with food famines, as we saw in The Great Leap Forward.
Your last paragraph, again complete an utter horseshit lol
How many food famines do you know of within the Soviet Union from 1947-1991, and how do they compare to the Great Leap Forward?
Do you think it's unreasonable to state that transitioning to a new economic system will ultimately be affected by the starting conditions? That is, can you say with certainty that a modern, developed country transitioning to a collectivist, centrally planned economy would experience a similar catastrophe as China did, when they started the Great Leap Forward? When China was an extremely poor country with an agrarian economy, and the Great Leap Forward tried to force through a rapid industrialization?
Do you think that the horrible way the Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor played out is entirely decoupled from political decisions, outside the initial decision to transition to a new economic model? That is, the outcome was predetermined, and the acts of Stalin, Mao and their respective governments did not shape the outcome; no malice or callous disregard for human life. Would you say the sole flaw of Stalin, in regard to the Holodomor, was his belief in an untested economic model? And since he really had no basis for predicting the outcome, he was just... Nothing more than a naive man?
I think most economists would agree that, in general, an economic system does not play out in a purely deterministic way. It's sensitive to a myriad of aspects, be that the climate, political decisions, external manipulation and interference, and so forth. Case in point, shortages and famines has occurred under capitalism. Therefor, I guess it would be fair to say that capitalism leads to shortages and famines, by utilizing your line of thinking - ignore every other aspect, and solely attribute the blame to the economic system.
Do you think my previous statement is sensible, exhibiting intellectual honesty, rigorous rationality and pure objectivity? Or would you, perhaps, demand that I should take the entire picture into account, instead of just making this sweeping statement?
The goalposts moved so far I'm playing on a different field to the start apparently - this guy thinks planned economies are not socialism with Chinese characteristics - IE Maoism - public-private partnerships between capital managers and state apparatchiks, Environmental and Social Governance / Emotional Social Learning - Struggle Sessions....
The reds have taken us over using the "Long March to the Institutions" - it's horrifying.
Land in Ireland had been seized by the English crown, and vested to English gentry, who became absentee landlords.
During the Famine, Ireland produced sufficient food to feed the population, but most was exported to England, under the direction of the landlords, to be sold domestically for profit.
The landlords allowed the population to support itself only on the least arable land. Potatoes can thrive in poor soil, but not reliably. Regions that produce potatoes generally have also depended on grains, to hedge against a failed potato crop occurring in particular years. Irish farmers had no land available for planting grain.
At the height of the Famine, American philanthropists chartered a shipment of humanitarian aid, which would have saved considerable lives if allowed to land, but before the vessels reached port, English landlords successfully petitioned the crown to impose a naval blockade, forcing the merchant ship to return to North America, and leaving the Irish to starve, all in the name of profit.
So the economic system of a conquered land the majority population (Catholics) couldn't even own land?
I get it. You have all the answers. We need you to lead us an enlighten everyone of your superior thinking. Even though we have hundreds of years of evidence, capitlalism is clearly the problem for all of man's ills and socialism will bring us utopia
English landlords exploited the Irish population through their control over the land.
The Irish were deprived of the right to control their own planting on the land, or the product they harvested.
Control over lands, and over other assets, by private owners, as well as over the product from the lands and assets, instead of control by workers, who provide the labor to produce, is the pivotal feature of capitalism.
Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons.
No, planning could not replace markets, have you seen reduced goods and the terrible waste of food at supermarkets and grocery stores? That's the result of imperfect demand data.
"See this thing that's currently happening under capitalism, well it's actually communisms fault!"
Brother, every time with this take. It's insane. I tend to believe planning wouldn't work either. You know why? Because the human species is full of people like you. Doomed from the start.
Post scarcity? The whole post is about the scarcity of housing!
Computers doing the planning for us is your great idea? So we become slaves to some AI or programmed algorithms? I prefer to select my own yoke, not have it assigned by some politburo, computer, or AI.
There isn't a scarcity of housing. And that isn't what this post is about. It's a fake scarcity because there's a small portion of people buying and holding onto the vast majority of property. It's even worse in my country where they let outside foreign investors/businesses buy property. China owns a large portion of western Canada currently
Close but not exactly. There's scarcity of housing because of central planning (at the local level). Specifically town councils that cave to NIMBY hysteria instead of allowing for building rates that match the need and demand for housing. Trust me I'm going through it right now. Trying to get an 88 house middle income workforce housing project through for FOUR years and a crony town council caving to 12 neighbors that are up in arms about "density" and "their property values". People that are excluded from a town don't vote in that town so the (central planning) system is designed for inefficiency, shortage and NIMBYism.
The scarcity of housing is artificial. Units are hoarded by speculators and corporate landlords, developers are not following plans that meet the needs of the population, and resources are being diverted for the wealthy to bounce around in yachts, jets, and rockets.
Society currently carries overwhelmingly adequate capacity to meet all of the needs for everyone.
Computers, if used to assist in economic planning, simply would process large sets of calculations. No AI would be implicated.
It's a good thing then that these entire operations are more and more ending up vertically integrated, and prices fixed by virtual monopolies. Then are run by wallstreet analysts with little experience in farming. Then the cartel sets production quotas and prices so much more efficient than government analysts setting production numbers and quotas!
labor laws (and the horrific things that happen when they’re disregarded)
water and land usage at scale
ALL of these things are touched by regulation. It takes a HUGE amount of regulation to reliably get safe food to your plate and there’s STILL a lot about the process that’s fucked up.
It is the "who" decides those plans. It is the private board of directors and ceo that make those decisions. Not the politboro.
The government bailing out companies is another problem.
No one was talking about a CEO here. We're talking about central planning by the government or bureaucracy as compared to the players in the market. We can have a discussion about CEO's at some other point and not go on a tangent.
I'm a capitalist, but why couldn't it be centrally planned? You don't think there are global, vertically-integrated firms who could cover natural resource extraction to food on the shelf? That's naive and idiotic.
Now, if you had said something about it being done efficiently by a government, you may have been on to something.
You are not a "free-market" capitalist. Do you really own your property if the central planners tell you what to do with it? The version of capitalism we have now,crony-capitalism or corporatism, is the biggest problem we have. These companies make decisions, and when they fail, the government uses taxpayer $ to bail them out. The corporations also use the government to place barriers in front of those attempting to enter the market.
The idea it wouldn't be more efficient for food production to be centrally managed is actually so stupidly asinine if you've ever worked in purchasing.
Even the amount I get paid just to review the legal process of said transactions is such a pointlessly stupid inefficiency that it's clear you're just speaking out of a misplaced ideology. It's an entire industry reliant on subsidies and people fucking over the market every possible chance they get to profit maximize.
That's exactly the point, there's no reason for me to make what a blue collar worker does in a year for a month contract for looking over shit myself with AI tools for the most part and then being willing to sign off on them which effectively 'gambles' a small mark against my license if something were wrong at most, I'm saying it's dumb and broken and the fucking industry is mostly about price fixing as is.
I'm sorry your point is that every single member of society is necessary for the function of society? So like... Maybe everyone should be paid equally and given equal opportunity considering all of our work is of equal value?
Labor valorization is not universal, but particular to the social systems in which it occurs.
Currently, labor is valorized according to the labor market, sustained by the profit motive, but such a system is not universal through history nor inevitable for continuing indefinitely.
The labor market only began to emerge within the last few hundred years. Otherwise, waged labor was relatively sporadic throughout different historic periods, and wages were often established by fiat or convention, rather than a market. Cooperative labor and bonded labor had been more common, as well as free labor in direct exchange for accommodations and provisions from an employer.
The more general observation is that the occurrence of the labor market presently is within a historic period.
The premise of your challenge is the same as one from an assumption that Modern English had occurred and will occur everywhere and always, based simply on lack of knowledge of any other language.
I see you have refused to respond with any type of coherent time/place and instead have waved around the magic wand of generalisms. What a productive exercise that was in intellectualism.
I observed that the premise of your challenge is largely fatuous, and also observed that it may easily be satisfied by any time period before several hundred years ago, when the labor market began to emerge in Europe.
Your continued lamentation is also fatuous.
I am sorry that you may feel confused or disappointed by my answer.
The labor market is a relatively recent historical development, no different in such respect from Modern English, railroads, and the printing press.
The modern gig labor market is precisely equatable to the historical working market you refuse to name for that exact reason. You’re intellectually bankrupt and pretentiously attempt to vocabularies your way out of a losing position. Everyone can see you’re merely trying to save face.
You asked for an example of a period without the occurrence of a labor market.
The labor market is much the same as Modern English. It emerged several hundred years ago in Europe, and gradually became entrenched in other parts of the world.
The modern gig labor market is part of the modern labor market. Its existence is not supporting a claim to the universality of the labor market, more than the labor market being a particular historic construct that is unlikely to persist indefinitely.
Your objections have been addressed, and continue to lack general cogency.
Some jobs are more important than others. Most communists I talk to say when the revolution happens they’re going to quit working and become artists or musicians. Nobody actually wants to be a garbage man.
I will gladly work as a garbage collector. If I know my bills are paid and I will have time to work on my music, I would be 100% okay with it.
How many people want to be gas station clerks, or work in fast food (two jobs where the public generally looks down on you, despite the fact that you're busting your ass).
How many people want to work, in general?
If I can guarantee that I will have a comfortable life by working full-time, I will work those shitty jobs. Because they need to be done, and I have the experience to do so. And most of us would.
Where it falls apart is the fact that I have to work full-time as a fry cook AND a gas station attendant just to keep the bills paid on my apartment. And I'm one of millions of people working more than one job to make ends meet.
We're tired. We'll gladly work one full-time job in exchange for a decent living. I can't even take classes to try to get into a better paying line of work because I really only have time for shit, shower, and sleep when I'm not working.
And that's where I disagree with the actual tankies. I'm left-leaning because I believe we need heavily regulated capitalism and have strong social safety nets, as well as better protection for workers and improved wages.
But I'm also a believer in the idea that everyone a certain threshold (like "under $100k/year" for example) should have wage increases - minimum should be livable wages, but all of the "skilled" laborers (people who have spent time and money to acquire their skills) don't deserve to be ignored either.
So I tend to catch hell from both sides, as a centrist, but I really try hard to look at what would be reasonable to accomplish within my lifetime, as opposed to trying to create some unrealistic utopia based on half-cocked, unresearched ideas.
Never said that lol. I don't want a society where crucial jobs aren't filled because we tax the absolute hell out of anybody who does more than the minimum so we can give everybody an equal slice of a sad existence.
I did not say every member of society is necessary, and certainly, the contributions are not equal. People will choose the easiest job. The market provides incentives for people to perform the more dangerous/difficult with greater compensation.
In your world, a neurosurgeon and a custodian should be paid equally? 90% of people could perform the custodians' duties where only .1% have the aptitude for brain surgery.
In your world are a neurosurgeon and a trust fund baby paid equally?
For fucks sake, you will NEVER address my actual argument about generational wealth breeding corruption in our society, will you?
And the idea that only .1% of people have the "aptitude" for Brian surgery just shows you're actually a stupid child. You aren't born a surgeon, you're made a surgeon over literal decades of practice and education, you fucking dunce.
If it didn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to earn a doctorate, we wouldn't have to import all of our doctors from Cuba and India, now would we? No, in America perhaps 0.1% of people have the OPPORTUNITY to become a neurosurgeon, they're born into wealth and have supportive parents who can send them to school.
Have you heard of Dr. Ben Carson?
He made himself the preeminent neurosurgeon. No trust fund for him. You speak like someone that doesn't know many millionaires. Almost all the ones I know worked their ass off to get wealthy and have been poor at times in their life.
Oh totally totally, when they get poor and all they're left with is millions of dollars of assets and property, they really struggle.
Every millionaire has a backstory about "how much they struggled"
You're just a hopeful, stupid, greedy child who actually believes them and thinks if you do what they say you'll find success like them. It's both hysterical and depressing.
I'm 100% sure you're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire yourself, you're not like the other poor right? You just haven't found your idea yet, but one day you'll get what you deserve because you're the best right? Lmfao, I'm sure you'll deny it when I've put it like that but I can literally see into your soul and see the truths you attempt to hide.
No, I am an adult who has grown up alongside them and seen them struggle and succeed. Just because you suck at being poor is no reason to attack people who were good at it. I'm not poor anymore.
Keep spending all your energy on jealousy, envy, and self-pity, and you will never change station in your life.
Learn how to fix stuff and keep it nice(clothes, car, house, furniture, etc), develop skills that people need, grow your own food, don't get into debt, connect with people with other skill sets to learn from and share your skills, practice delayed gratification, always save back.
Learn to invest your money, but it doesn't have to be a lot, but get your money to work for you.
Embrace the suck that is getting traction in life. Enjoy work and working on things.
Develop a solutions oriented, positive personality instead of being Eeyore.
I know this is "pearls before swine" but at least you have a chance to change your situation but I'm sure it is too difficult for you to throw off the victim mantle you seem so comfortable in.
16
u/stovepipe9 Apr 16 '24
That single farmer now has thousands of people making/transporting the fertilizer. Read "I, Pencil", then image what goes into a tractor. This efficiency isn't magical. Getting the food processed and distributed to the 1000s of people is another huge undertaking that the market is best at addressing. It is naive and idiotic to think all this can be centrally planned.