How should an economy be structured?

[onejayhawk]

In the 19th century, where you seem to be coming from, the producers of a product have the right to share it. Not the owners of the means of production, mind you, but the workers who produce products. Of course in that same century, the farmers were some of the ones most exploited.

And no, life is not a benefit, it's a right, which you concede. You don't have to work for your rights.

You do not work for life. You work for food, shelter and health care if necessary. Both sides provide value in the exchange. It's a process older than history, still used because it works.

I don't know why you bring up the 19th century, but you seem to be trashing it. Why is that?

J

 

[inthesomeday]

You do not work for life. You work for food, shelter and health care if necessary.

You can't have life without food, shelter, and health care. Working for the latter three is working for the former. It is literally impossible to live without food, shelter, or health care, so a right to life fundamentally includes food, shelter, and health care.

Both sides provide value in the exchange.

If I farm some land, and eat the food made on that land, I owe no additional work to the "owner" of the land. Of course today this point is arbitrary, but in a 19th century discussion it's the basis of socialism. You seem to agree?

It's a process older than history, still used because it works.

It's not much older than history (property and writing developed about the same time), and it doesn't work. More than 800 million people go hungry every year, millions of children die from starvation, millions more from preventable diseases and exposure. If you assert that those children have a right to live, you must also surely recognize that they need rights to food, shelter, and healthcare as well.

I don't know why you bring up the 19th century, but you seem to be trashing it. Why is that?

J

I can tell where this is going, you'll try and criticize modern post-scarcity anarchism for contradicting the principles of industrial socialism from the 19th century. I'm tired of it and pre-empting it.

(And why shouldn't someone trash the 19th century? It sucked.)

 

[Karpius]

No one provides for themselves entirely. Did you pay to have the roads which take you to work each day constructed?

My taxes contribute to the building and maintenance of roads that I can use as I please regardless of socio-economic status. How I get to that road, how I traverse it and where I go is entirely up to me and not funded by the government.

 

[stinkubus]

Governments heavily subsidize crude oil exploration and gasoline production, so taxes are involved even in the basic operation of your car. This is especially true if you are an American and enjoy some of the least expensive gasoline in the first world as a result.

 

[inthesomeday]

The production of a car, any car, sees government regulation of pretty much every step, from the extraction of the natural resources-- rubber, metal, oil-- to the design of their assembly, to the actual assembly in a plant, to their shipment into the market you purchase them from. Your ability to drive your car, probably, requires you to have at some point participated in a government test and to use a government-issued license, with government registration and legal regulation. Then when you drive there are probably police, stop lights, red light cameras, and speed limits, all of which work together to make sure you follow the government's rules of the road. If you fail to do so the government can arrest you and convict you and make you perform slave labor for some corporations in prison. Or it can fine you.

 

[Hygro]

Then they have a right to purchase life, meaning a right to live in slavery. A right to be enslaved, is what that boils down to.

What about peoples rights to not be the ones to provide the other people their rights to food?

What if no one wants to farm without being compensated at a level that not everyone else is going to reach? How do you decide who must provide free labor for someone else’s right?

 

[stinkubus]

To answer the general question posed by the OP: the sum total of human history has demonstrated, thus far, that mixed economies which blend policy ideas from both the Classical, or "free market", and Keynesian, or "socialist", schools of thought achieve the best results. The Scandinavian countries consistently rank highest in what I would consider the most meaningful measures of quality of life, so they are the current model for best practices, imo.

On a macro level the government plays a vital role in stabilizing the regular downturns that are inevitable in any market economy. Without a lender, buyer, and employer of last resort each recession runs the risk of sinking the economy into a liquidity trap from which it cannot escape on its own.

On the mirco level there are many, many vital services which are better provided by the public sector such as national defense, policing and firefighting, education (to ensure ubiquitous access), etc. The concept of a "public good" in economics is over a hundred years old and not the least bit controversial.

"Free" markets are fine for providing most products and services for which the following both hold:

1.) There are many buyers and sellers, so no one participant in the market exerts any meaningful market power.

2.) There is no meaningful consequence to the broader economy, either regionally or nationally, resulting from the failure of a seller in the market.

In all other cases stringent government regulations are needed as to how these businesses may operate and the risks they may take to ensure there is moral hazard in play.

 

[inthesomeday]

What about peoples rights to not be the ones to provide the other people their rights to food?

What if no one wants to farm without being compensated at a level that not everyone else is going to reach? How do you decide who must provide free labor for someone else’s right?

This is the 19th century thing I was talking about. Barely anyone really has to work agriculturally today, we have significantly improved agro tech and technique. Hygro, I've seen you to have a pretty open mind. You should read Post Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin.

To answer the general question posed by the OP: the sum total of human history has demonstrated, thus far, that mixed economies which blend policy ideas from both the Classical, or "free market", and Keynesian, or "socialist",

Keynesian REALLY =/= socialist.

schools of thought achieve the best results.

Socialism and capitalism are literally opposites and could never be combined. Keynesian liberalism, social democracy-- "the Nordic Model"-- are all forms of capitalism with a governmental safety net, and have nothing to do with socialism. Instead they try and preserve an intranational working class and suffer most of the same problems as garden variety capitalism-- exploitation of workers, global imperialism, environmental degradation, nationalism, government, etc.

The Scandinavian countries consistently rank highest in what I would consider the most meaningful measures of quality of life,

Irrelevant in the global market. Somalia reports some of the lowest in these same qualities, and they all are part of the same economy-- which extends past borders and has a lot more going on than "liberal government fiscal policy".

so they are the current model for best practices, imo.

What about Cuba? Their quality of life is about comparable to a lot of the Nordic countries in most important aspects, AND they've shown themselves to be roundly able to thrive in adverse conditions, like decades of sanctions and bullying, and more recently natural disaster recovery.

On a macro level the government plays a vital role in stabilizing the regular downturns that are inevitable in any market economy. Without a lender, buyer, and employer of last resort each recession runs the risk of sinking the economy into a liquidity trap from which it cannot escape on its own.

Fiscal policy nonsense. Economy exists before and independent of government fiscal policy, or capitalist problems like inflation and unemployment.

I will mostly condense the rest of you say to this: in a question of how to economically organize a society, answering with a bunch of different ideas on how to use the government and markets is really limited, especially when there are already discussions about whether or not to even have government or markets. Keynesianism vs Classicalism is the bane of serious economic discussion. It's like debating whether acupuncture or aroma therapy is the best form of medicine.

 

[stinkubus]

What about peoples rights to not be the ones to provide the other people their rights to food?

What if no one wants to farm without being compensated at a level that not everyone else is going to reach? How do you decide who must provide free labor for someone else’s right?

You can get around this conundrum by simply nationalizing the industry in question.

 

[Mise]

Less work?

For the people who invest capital you mean? Yeah, makes sense, that's definitely a benefit. And it's probably more equitable if humans as a whole have less ability to use capital to control people and things.

But in terms of outcomes I don't think it makes much difference.

 

[Hygro]

For the people who invest capital you mean? Yeah, makes sense, that's definitely a benefit. And it's probably more equitable if humans as a whole have less ability to use capital to control people and things.

But in terms of outcomes I don't think it makes much difference.

Me neither.

 

[Traitorfish]

At the risk of sounding like a cleverdick, I'm not convinced there is any "should", so far as it comes to the structure of the economy, at least not one that can be imposed from above. Economies are moving, changing things, there's no perfect order, not even a distant future into which the economy might grow. I'm more concerned with who gets to structure the economy, who is allowed to shape the movement and the change.

The root problem of capitalism is not simply that it is inefficient or acquisitive or even inhumane (and it is all of those things), but that it excludes the great majority of people from any really significant role in decision-making. The great majority of people are no longer producers, they are a factor in production, like a wrench or a barrel of oil. Any movement towards a human-centred economy is going to have to begin at that level.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That is such a fascinating question, one I am very interested in, But I am a bit overwhelmed by the task, it is so momentous, that I feel I could only do it justice by intense study and intellectual preparation, Since I want to post now, however, my thoughts are a bit murky, But here they are.

I don't think it should be free market or communist. It rather needs be a very clever and intelligent design - and within this design different bubbles with varying levels of free-market, socialist, anarchistic, communal or communist influences.
So basically, I think an economy should be partialed out. Communal and socialistic structures to ensure a healthy and humane basis. Anarchistic structures to give that base room to breath and get some fresh air, communist structures to guarantee a strong collective stake in the economy, free-market structures to have a hive of innovation and efficiency.
Something like that.

We actually have already gone in that direction. But without ever daring to fundamentally question the primacy of free-market private property, That is, of the capitalistic class. I think, the next ideal step would be to maintain capitalism, but integrating it as one gear among many, rather than making it the whole machine.

Naturally, such an economy is far removed from the "natural" order of things. So it would require a very strong state to be implemented.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What about peoples rights to not be the ones to provide the other people their rights to food?

What if no one wants to farm without being compensated at a level that not everyone else is going to reach? How do you decide who must provide free labor for someone else’s right?

Yeah I've yet to see a good explanation of how we can force people to do work they don't want to do because compensation has limits - especially when the side with the capital is doing everything they can to artificially limit compensation.

And herein is a main problem that I see with communism (and I admit I am ill-informed on it):

Fundamentally, for now, work has to be done. To compel people to work at it robs them of choice. If the only incentive that you have is to increase compensation, then what happens when not enough people want to work certain jobs at any compensation level?

At the risk of sounding like a cleverdick, I'm not convinced there is any "should", so far as it comes to the structure of the economy, at least not one that can be imposed from above. Economies are moving, changing things, there's no perfect order, not even a distant future into which the economy might grow. I'm more concerned with who gets to structure the economy, who is allowed to shape the movement and the change.

The root problem of capitalism is not simply that it is inefficient or acquisitive or even inhumane (and it is all of those things), but that it excludes the great majority of people from any really significant role in decision-making. The great majority of people are no longer producers, they are a factor in production, like a wrench or a barrel of oil. Any movement towards a human-centred economy is going to have to begin at that level.

I mean sure, on the first paragraph.

But on the second paragraph, I see no solutions on offer. How do we get to a point where people play a role in the decision making and what does that look like?

 

[stinkubus]

Fundamentally, for now, work has to be done. To compel people to work at it robs them of choice. If the only incentive that you have is to increase compensation, then what happens when not enough people want to work certain jobs at any compensation level?

Slavery or indentured servitude is typically what happens in these instances. This is literally the history of the Americas. Free Englishmen weren't voluntarily coming over to the US to live and work in an undrained swamp, so slaves and indentured servants were used to meet the need.

 

[caketastydelish]

It should be structured around me. Why not?

 

[inthesomeday]

It should be structured around me. Why not?

Cuz

 

[Lexicus]

This is the 19th century thing I was talking about. Barely anyone really has to work agriculturally today, we have significantly improved agro tech and technique.

This misses the point by rather a lot.

Socialism and capitalism are literally opposites and could never be combined.

On the contrary in all actually-existing economies they coexist.

What about Cuba? Their quality of life is about comparable to a lot of the Nordic countries in most important aspects,

Er, such as?

 

[inthesomeday]

On the contrary in all actually-existing economies they coexist.

Show me one example of collective ownership that exists today.

Er, such as?

Healthcare, education, minority rights, income equality, um... water and air conditions? Idk, quality of life-type stuff

 

[Robo-Star]

Show me one example of collective ownership that exists today.

List of cooperatives - Wikipedia