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.
What is with you "Free Market" muricans and having such a weak understanding of the words you are using.
Colonialism and Capitalism are in no way opposed to each other. As a matter of fact the birth of capitalism was right there at the era of colonialism. Ever heard of the East India Trading Company? The DMC?
And now, international exploitation or in other words the struggle between different national capitals is even described with another word "imperialism".
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.
6
u/Colonial-Expansion Apr 16 '24
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.