You guys don't really believe in Socialism do you?

[Akka]

Actually, fairness and justice are just concepts. Capitalist societys also have law systems that seek fairness and justice.

No. Again, capitalism is a mechanism, and as so is completely alien to fairness and justice.
Laws that seek them do not comes from capitalism, they precisely come from socialism and idea related to. Most of them were invented precisely to fight the consequences of the first large applications of capitalism in the XIXth century.

I'm sure nobody has anything wrong with capitalism. It's just such an easy system to corrupt.

As any system that is based on negative emotions.
Capitalism is the most efficient system for economy. We just have to not forget that economy must be to the service of humans, and not the opposite way. Hence we have to use capitalism, but keep it in check. That's what a socialist government aim for (contrary to a communist one, which seek to completely remove capitalism).

 

[Pongui]

"...economy must be to the service of humans, and not the opposite way."

True, true. But have you not noticed, Akka, that the capitalists never refer to themselves as "humans"?

"Capitalism is a mechanism, and as so is completely alien to fairness and justice."

Hmm...

 

[Supernaut]

Originally posted by Akka


No. Again, capitalism is a mechanism, and as so is completely alien to fairness and justice.
Laws that seek them do not comes from capitalism, they precisely come from socialism and idea related to. Most of them were invented precisely to fight the consequences of the first large applications of capitalism in the XIXth century.

No (to coin a phrase). Capitalism is not just a mechanism: it is absolutely based on the concepts of fairness and justice. Capitalism says "This man did this work. It is fair that he should be allowed to keep the fruits of that work. The most just way of deciding the value of those fruits is to allow him to sell his product on the open market" Now the product can be his ideas, his capital or his labour or what have you, but capitalism relies on there being a system of laws which protect his property and allow him to operate in an open undistorted market. There is therefore a case for a 'government' (which could be the village elders, the board of the stock exchange or a democratic bureaucracy) to pass these laws and to intervene in cases of market failure.

The concepts of fairness and justice, and the laws to promote them, are common to all societies in all of recorded history, and are not the exclusive preserve of socialism.

As I said before, socialism is not the opposite of capitalism and is not destined to replace it. Marx's ideas were one form of socialism, and a pretty illogical, nonsenseical form at that, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Akka
We can explain all day long why socialism is a good thing (and no, it's not interchangeable with communism), if people only see what they want it will do no good.

Exactly, and Greadius, I said "what they called Socialism or Communism", in fact they had neither, as they had dictatorships, which you acknowledged yourself. And as Socialism and even more Communism are per definition Democratic systems that is mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Greadius
But no thanks, I want to start at the other end: what type of people were inspired to lead the 'revolution'. Obviously, the authoritarian natures of the state were strongly held by all the elite within the system (which had just sprung up as a people's revolution). So why were the leaders so inspired to be dictators? You say its the culture, but the cultures between Cuba, China, and Russia alone are worlds appart... literally.

Again, I didn't say that. I said they lived in dictatorial system, that's what they all had in common.
Furthermore the main problem is that it were never "people's revolutions" but instead revolutions led by an intellectual minority. In the Soviet's case even a smaller minority within that (the Bolscheviki) took power.

And they're all still poor today. Coincidence, I'm sure
Must be the capitalist faults... yeah...

It was at least partially the dictators faults, combined with global influences. It certainly wasn't Socialisms fault, as there was no Socialism.
Considering the global influences, which were the major powers in the world in 1917? The USA, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and maybe Japan.
Which are it today? The same of course, neither the so-called Socialist nor the Capitalist or Fascist countries could really catch up, some a little more and some a little less, after all Russia was better off in 1980 than in 1920, too.
The system doesn't matter, power stays in power. Germany and Japan even lost major wars and it didn't matter as the structure (cultural and in terms of international connections) was already there.

So I can just repeat that it would have had to start in these major powers and not in the poorer ones. In a worldwide system that involves Capitalism overall the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, as in every Capitalist system. Small exceptions don't contest that rule.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Supernaut


No (to coin a phrase). Capitalism is not just a mechanism: it is absolutely based on the concepts of fairness and justice. Capitalism says "This man did this work. It is fair that he should be allowed to keep the fruits of that work. The most just way of deciding the value of those fruits is to allow him to sell his product on the open market" Now the product can be his ideas, his capital or his labour or what have you, but capitalism relies on there being a system of laws which protect his property and allow him to operate in an open undistorted market. There is therefore a case for a 'government' (which could be the village elders, the board of the stock exchange or a democratic bureaucracy) to pass these laws and to intervene in cases of market failure.

The concepts of fairness and justice, and the laws to promote them, are common to all societies in all of recorded history, and are not the exclusive preserve of socialism.

As I said before, socialism is not the opposite of capitalism and is not destined to replace it. Marx's ideas were one form of socialism, and a pretty illogical, nonsenseical form at that, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

Rich pay people to be good for em.Traders in the SE.Researchers for companies,they don't gotta be good,only rich.And as wealth wasn't redistributed at the beginning,the bourgeoisie had an advantage.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Narz
In response to Dr. Dr. Docktor. Your example was interesting but it did not portray Capitalism in a democratic society. And another thing, it was the demand for the pearls and not the free exchange of pearls that caused all the problems. I really don't think people care so much for pearls that they'd starve to death to get them. The northern people could always revolt and take over the better southern part of the island. Your example really doesn't explain anything, sorry

- Narz

In my model of a small-scale island economy I have willingly left out politics and the use of violence (which are usually interchangable). I could factor them into the model, but I think in both cases (i.e. political dominance and the monopolization of violence) the advantage would be with landowners.
It is true that it is the demand for pearls which is the problem. However, pearls in this model is simply money. Pretend that the ship is sailed by Captain Greenspan.
The problem with money is that they do not conform to the usual supply/demand mechanism. Rather the greater the supply of money there is in the 'market' the greater is the overall demand, by all concerned.
If you think governments shouldn't let people starve to death you are actually proposing interventionist measures which are not in accordance with the capitalist creed.

I would like if you could propose non-violent measures to the economic problems on the island. Ideally one where the 'market' and the miracle of free exchange solves the problems. I fail to see how this could be done.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I like to be valuable. I believe everyone's like me, they just don't all know it, and a capitalist environment keeps them from knowing it. One could argue I'm brainwashed and am further deluding myself.

I'd go with the latter of the two. One of the most rewarding life lessons I ever learned is that not everyone is exactly like me. And that two relatively intelligent people, given the identical information, can come to two different conclusions without either of them being objectively wrong.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Socialism, to me, is the direction I want my country to head, not as a far-off utopia but as steady progress in aquiring appliances of socialism like unemployment insurance, public-owned utilities, even taxation itself (within a democracy - authoritarian taxation is entirely different).

Its not a sustainable model. The amount of services the government supplies in ratio to its percentage of tax revenues is the minimum to keep people out of poverty. Follow that idea to its conclusion, a 100% tax rate, and people will still barely be supplied with enough to barely remain above poverty. And then the incentive systems begin to chip away at the motivation for greater achievement since the quality and quantity of rewards to those individuals has taken a nose dive... and the system begins to unravel.

Originally posted by Akka
Laws that seek them do not comes from capitalism, they precisely come from socialism and idea related to. Most of them were invented precisely to fight the consequences of the first large applications of capitalism in the XIXth century.

Laws created as a response to capitalism for application within capitalism are socialist?
Once again, this is applying that title you like to every aspect of a system you don't like.

Originally posted by Akka
We just have to not forget that economy must be to the service of humans, and not the opposite way.

I feel pretty well served.
What I find more disturbing is when humans are there to service government. In a society where government takes and 'redistributes' all, individuals become either a liability (consume more than they produce) or an asset (produce more than they consume). Your idealism won't prevent that distinction.

Originally posted by Hitro
Exactly, and Greadius, I said "what they called Socialism or Communism", in fact they had neither, as they had dictatorships, which you acknowledged yourself.

If capitalism can exist under dictatorships, why not communism?
We're talking about countries that tought those ideals, they managed by those ideals, they strived for those ideals, yet at the top level the orginization was afraid of letting their tight reigns go. Its nonsense that people can simply dismiss the claims and goals of countries economic system as being 'not really...' because they didn't like the results.

Originally posted by Hitro
Considering the global influences, which were the major powers in the world in 1917? The USA, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and maybe Japan.
Which are it today? The same of course, neither the so-called Socialist nor the Capitalist or Fascist countries could really catch up, some a little more and some a little less, after all Russia was better off in 1980 than in 1920, too.

You're not looking far enough back in history. US, Germany, and Japan had all landed on that list in the last 50 years, while several other European nations had dropped off.

Originally posted by Hitro
In a worldwide system that involves Capitalism overall the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, as in every Capitalist system. Small exceptions don't contest that rule.

The 'worldwide system' is politics much more than it is economics. And it certainly is not a 'capitalist' world system, since the market, competition, property rights, ect. aren't enforced across borders. The economic side of the 'world system' is, at best, capitalism at its most primitive form (Akka does a good job of describing it in that state).

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
In my model of a small-scale island economy I have willingly left out politics and the use of violence

If you think governments shouldn't let people starve to death you are actually proposing interventionist measures which are not in accordance with the capitalist creed.

Capitalism can't function without the right political environment, and in this case no political environment existed at all. That, and the demand for pearls made no sense. A medium of exchange needs to have value, and pearls have value TO US, but to starving people they are useless. Its the equivalent of using 'gold' as the money standard and wondering why the value is unstable. Refer to 1890's economic texts as to why that failed, and why the gold standard was abandoned. Your views of capitalism are over 100 years old.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Greadius

Capitalism can't function without the right political environment, and in this case no political environment existed at all. That, and the demand for pearls made no sense. A medium of exchange needs to have value, and pearls have value TO US, but to starving people they are useless. Its the equivalent of using 'gold' as the money standard and wondering why the value is unstable. Refer to 1890's economic texts as to why that failed, and why the gold standard was abandoned. Your views of capitalism are over 100 years old.

I agree with you that my views are over 100 years old. However no one will deny the prevelance of neo-liberal/neo-classical thought in recent economic debate, and they are over 100 years old.
I do not agree with you that there HAS to be a particular political climate in order for capitalism to flourish. Capitalism worked very well in WWII prison camps were cigarettes were used as exchange. It is true that there has to be certain rules, but any system can make rules to govern itself.
About the value of pearls it is true that to starving people they are nominally useless, except as means of exchange for food.
Note that they are given pearls in exchange for food, these pearls are then used to buy into the food supply. They could of course keep some of the food for themselves, but they do not own the produce; the landowners do.
I want my Islanders to behave according to strict economic rules as defined by neo-classical thought, so, in that, I am trying to show the limits of what Capitalism can achieve redistribution-wise.
My aim is to dismantle the principles of capitalism through using the conceptional though of capitalism.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
If capitalism can exist under dictatorships, why not communism?
We're talking about countries that tought those ideals, they managed by those ideals, they strived for those ideals, yet at the top level the orginization was afraid of letting their tight reigns go. Its nonsense that people can simply dismiss the claims and goals of countries economic system as being 'not really...' because they didn't like the results.

Let's not confuse the different ideas here. The economic aspect of Socialism, the more or less planned economy, can of course exist under dictatorships, as can a system involving a much more free market. To some dictators it may well seem as even better suited, after all it gives them means of control over the economy and not only the social sector. Others, who are more fond of the idea of "divide et impera", will acknowledge that Capitalism will give people a sense of being free while they are in a dictatorship, which can be very useful.
Democratic Socialism can of course only exist in Democracies, otherwise it would be senseless.
But Communism is designed as a Democratic system of a certain kind, a system of different levels of representation, leading from the basic communes to the top. But in those countries that called themselves Communist this was reversed, the top controlled the lower levels.

You're not looking far enough back in history. US, Germany, and Japan had all landed on that list in the last 50 years, while several other European nations had dropped off.

They were the first to industrialize, they simply had a significant tech lead (in Civ terms ) which they used to get into a leading position while the others tried to catch up.
During history power has often shifted from region to region and country to country. Since the introduction of modern style (big corporation/ mass production) Capitalism it hasn't. The Soviet Union was never as powerful overall (which is more than just militarily) as it was painted.
The rise of Capitalism coincided with the world becoming a single sphere. Before Colonialism and Imperialism power was always more or less local. The downfall of the Roman empire didn't influence China too much, and the Aztecs not at all.
Furthermore the changes in power always fell together with major violent conflicts. We all know that today this would be the end, and not just the end of the system.
So those who say that we may have reached the end of history could have a point after all.
The only thing that could bring a major change would be a revolution from within (like Marx predicted) but that is unlikely to happen, as you probably agree.

The 'worldwide system' is politics much more than it is economics. And it certainly is not a 'capitalist' world system, since the market, competition, property rights, ect. aren't enforced across borders. The economic side of the 'world system' is, at best, capitalism at its most primitive form (Akka does a good job of describing it in that state).

Politics and economics are too closely connected (in foreign affairs) to be regarded seperately. Foreign policy in the West serves almost solely economic purposes. Creating markets, ensuring markets, ensuring political stability for these market.

And Akka is right, the "worldwide system" is a wild one, following Darwinistic principles. It is what I and he obviously as well call Capitalism, which is not the same as the ideal fair market, well organzied utopia you probably follow.
When Capitalism started in the now developed countries it was at the same state as it is today on the world level.
Akka said, "capitalism is a mechanism, and as so is completely alien to fairness and justice", and that's what I mean.
Here in the west the Socialist movement and related ideas were responsible for the laws that tamed the wild form of Capitalism. Capitalists themselves wouldn't have done it, and rightfully so from their perspective, it has no advantage for them.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
About the value of pearls it is true that to starving people they are nominally useless, except as means of exchange for food.
Note that they are given pearls in exchange for food, these pearls are then used to buy into the food supply. They could of course keep some of the food for themselves, but they do not own the produce; the landowners do.

But what value do pearls have? Money is only useful as a measure of comparing the value of goods and services in a standardized form. If the only good that has any real value is food, THAT would be the 'currency'. Pearls would be worthless, nobody would want them.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
I want my Islanders to behave according to strict economic rules as defined by neo-classical thought, so, in that, I am trying to show the limits of what Capitalism can achieve redistribution-wise.

I think the weakness in the example was it tried to cover too much, too simply. Its difficult to illustrate more than one economic principle without changing many of the conditions to fit your model. In doing so, you changed variables for no particular reason.
Not to mention the simple fact as to why would 100 people stranded on an island begin trading for pearls, as compared to a ticket home? And why would 100 people even need to set up a capitalist system. The decision making difficulties are low enough and there are few enough people where they don't need to adopt a (grossly simplified) complex economic system.

Originally posted by Hitro
Others, who are more fond of the idea of "divide et impera", will acknowledge that Capitalism will give people a sense of being free while they are in a dictatorship, which can be very useful.

Just a sense? I consider it an important part of my freedom.

Originally posted by Hitro
Politics and economics are too closely connected (in foreign affairs) to be regarded seperately. Foreign policy in the West serves almost solely economic purposes. Creating markets, ensuring markets, ensuring political stability for these market.

Nigeria just suspended debt repayments. The contract isn't worth the paper it is written on. With nobody to enforce it, it is useless, hence the legal environment and property rights which are required for capitalism don't exist in the international scene, so neither can capitalism.
It is self-interest exploitation with the minimal amount of economic benefits.

Originally posted by Hitro
Capitalists themselves wouldn't have done it, and rightfully so from their perspective, it has no advantage for them.

I disagree. I think the people who had the most to gain were a true minority, and that the changes that took place were mostly instituted by people who truly believed in free market capitalism. The most edited aspect was governments role in creating and maintaining an environment that helps economic activity (free public education, and trust busting, for example). The second biggest change, which isn't as much economical as political (but necessary for the economics to work) is the public demand for goods and services that are unprofitable to supply. Nobody can make money selling private roads, or charging people to enjoy the trees planted around the city. Certain goods can't and shouldn't be exclusive, and if they can't be exclusive, you can't make money off them. As a result, there is a demand that is unmet by market economics, so it is supplied by the government (assuming the demand is great enough). The peripheral benefits of public education and interstate highways are clearly economic and public, so the cost incurred is 'repaid' many times over.
I don't think these aspects are socialist, because they were designed to enchance the effectiveness and goals of capitalism. The people who designed and implamented them weren't in pursuit of 'economic justice, equality, fairness' or any of those other utopian goals.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
Just a sense? I consider it an important part of my freedom.

Read it in context, compared with the complete loss of social freedom (the right to vote, and alot more), a bit of economic freedom gives people just a sense of it. As soon as they would become dangerous to the dictatorship, for example by becoming rich and staying non-supportive of it, they would just "disappear".
Fascism worked well (for the dictator) that way.

With nobody to enforce it, it is useless, hence the legal environment and property rights which are required for capitalism don't exist in the international scene, so neither can capitalism.

They exist effectively. Look at what happened and happens to countries who refused to let western capital into the country or even dared to nationalize it. Cuba, North Korea, Serbia, Iraq, countless African coups, the West knows how to protect the interests of its big corporations. Of course not necessarily of all of them at the same time, which ones usually depends on donations.

I disagree.

Okay, but you disagreed with things I didn't even say. I'm not talking about government investment into the infrastructure or anything like that.
I'm talking about workers rights, nationalization and, in more recent times, legislation to protect the environment.
None of these are in the interest of a real Capitalist, of course you don't necessarily have to be a Socialist to see all these problems, but a hardline Capitalist won't act in favour of it.
The Democratic party in the US for example is certainly Capitalist oriented, but also certainly not pure Capitalist.
However, historically, specifically in Europe, these laws were introduced by Socialist (or Social Democrats, etc.) or in fear of them (Bismarck etc.).

 

[Cilpot]

In Norway we have a capitalist social system... And I cant stand to see how much people take advantage of it!! Makes me mad!! Some people get jobs just to go on sick-leave for a year one week after they took the new job! And a friend of mine has been unemployed for nine (!) months, and all the time he`s making a lot more money than me, cos Im a student... Not cos he cant find jobs, but because he doesnt want it!

And also people who get on welfare to study something!!! Theyre the worst!! they make a good living from "Unckle Ole" to study, and then they just give a damn! Its incredibly frustrating for those of us who try to make it all the way by doing our best (the majority) ... But these lazy idiots ruins for the rest of us... The state`s biggest expence is to people on sick leave or on welfare...

But thankfully times are changing. New laws will make it very difficult to get welfare, but those who ACTUALLY need it (very few) will get a bit more... Thats the way it should be... And also student schollarships will be turned into loans if one doesnt pass the exam (wich i am also for)...

So... Im not a full hearted capitalist, cos i beleave we should offer some form of free help to those people who really need it... As long as we put those who take advantage of the system in jail or worse...

 

[Cilpot]

I havent read all the previous posts, so this may be out of context... I appoligise that...

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Cilpot
In Norway we have a capitalist social system... And I cant stand to see how much people take advantage of it!! Makes me mad!! Some people get jobs just to go on sick-leave for a year one week after they took the new job! And a friend of mine has been unemployed for nine (!) months, and all the time he`s making a lot more money than me, cos Im a student... Not cos he cant find jobs, but because he doesnt want it!

These people are indeed a big problem. They are the Socialist equivalent to heirs in Capitalism. People who get trough without doing anything.
Considering education I think it should be free, but of course not free forever, your studies should lead to a result sometime.

Your idea of punishing people wo abuse the system is nice, when will you open the first Gulag?

The problem is always the same, it needs only a few bad people to drag everything down. As long as that is the case (and I don't see a reason why it should change soon) we have to compromise with human nature if we are talking about pragmatic decision and not just nice Socialist ideas. But every system, no matter what you set up, has its holes, and the more free it is, the more holes it has.

 

[Pongui]

What I can best furnish to this debate is a sketch of socialism as it works today in my own country. A pretty picture! Why go plodding through developing Siberia for a past example? Why draft abstract utopian models? Socialism need not be bitter nor fantastic. The seeds and fruits of socialism are here, and they're sweet enough.

Greadius:"Its not a sustainable model. The amount of services the government supplies in ratio to its percentage of tax revenues is the minimum to keep people out of poverty. Follow that idea to its conclusion, a 100% tax rate, and people will still barely be supplied with enough to barely remain above poverty. And then the incentive systems begin to chip away at the motivation for greater achievement since the quality and quantity of rewards to those individuals has taken a nose dive... and the system begins to unravel."

I'll try to follow you backwards, Greadius. You seem to assume generous amounts of taxation are wasteful, that government is the vessel of tax revenue. This must stem from an assumption that "government" in a socialist country must be separate from "public", which must stem from a belief that socialist government equals dictatorship. In fact, the socialism we have wrought in Canada has always been at the reluctance of government. The public created these organs for the public good, and our chief concern as citizens in this democratic country is to guard them.

We have much greater taxes than most countries. We have a much greater quality of life, too. I don't see taxation sapping people's motivation. If anything, it does the opposite, though admittedly people might focus more on actual production than pure dollars. Whatever the rate, this redistribution is something done by individuals, working collectively, for the public good.

Unsustainable? On paper, perhaps. Yet here it is, alive and well.

 

[Ohkrana]

I want to immigrate to Norway!

We have similar problems with welfare & workers compensation down here. But not the extreme of those of Norway, from the content of your post.

Damian
There IS a need to improve since you get a bonus from the state if you do so.

But since in socialism or communism, as wealth is spose to be equally distributed (as I understand it). Doesn't this violate one of the basic principles?

And getting a bonus from the state, would be an incentative. But it doesn't generate the NEED.

An oversimplified example

Capitalism
If Company X & Y produce the same good (or service) and it cost $z for the consumer (where their costs a comparitively the same, very little difference). Then most consumers would differentiate on the level of service/support they received from either companies; when deciding on who to buy from.

But if company X suddenly finds a way to deliver their product (or service) at a cheaper cost to the conusmer (while maintaining the same level of service/support to the consumer). Then you would expect and it is likley that the majority of consumers, would decide to purchase from company X.

And company Y would either have to adapt and find a way to compete for their market share to remain viable. Or buy, buy business.

So the actual need (or neccessity), is what is dictating the development of a more efficient production of goods or delivery of services. So a company is able to deliver their product, and is a benefit to consumers.

But under communism or socialism
The sate is delivering goods and services (as I understand it).

So naturally you have one supplier. Now would they pay a bonus to the individual(s), responsible for finding a way to better deliver their good or product. Or do they pay it to the whole company that is responsible for that particular product or service?

And if the only incentative is a bonus from the state. I still don't see how it can create the actual need, to improve the good or service.

Myself I see the need as a neccessary factor for invention. Without the need there for a better product or service, progress would stagnate in my view.

on to a more humurous point.

In a communism or socialism state run lottery. Does this mean if one person wins, everybody wins?

Sean Lindstrom
Here's a link to one of our BC Crown Corporations, the electricity supplier BC Hydro. Note that it has no competition. We export power. Here, BC Hydro's "Powersmart" crews visit homes and businesses, to make them more energy-efficient (insulating, for example), at little or no cost. Can you imagine a private company doing that?

Thanx for the link, given time I will peruse it more.

Well I'm not sure about most other countries. But I thought all power & energy needs were delivered by the state (in the majority of countries). Although in recent times it seems some governments want to privatise this (which I disagree with)

Power/Energy was privatised in NZ; I'm sure some of the NZ forum members can comment on what a mess that became.

Here in SA we have power state run By ETSA (est 1949?). So the energy needs of the state could be guranateed as it were by the government. Although the quacks in government are trying to privatise it!

And the said company you posted sending employees out to show consumers how to economise their energy needs etc. I beleive thats a 'green' principle, as well as good sense (one I agree with). Lower energy consumption leads to less pollution, and less cost to both company and consumer.

 

[Pongui]

Gambling in BC is either run directly by government (lotteries) or may only be run by a state-approved charity (casinos). The lotto situation is pretty transparent and straight forward. While some lucky individuals win billions, a cut from the total of all ticket purchases goes directly into the public purse (government) which then spends it on highways, schools, family allowances, etc. The casinos are a bit shady, because they are operated by private casino companies which get a cut from the nightly profits. The government also gets it's cut. Then what's left goes to whatever charity officially opened the casino that night. Outwardly, the casinos work just like you'd expect them to. Every gamer loses eventually.

***

These problems with people unfairly exploiting the appliances of socialism are akin to the problems of big-business unfairly exploiting people in less regulated countries. Which would you prefer? Either could be corrected by repairing or creating laws. Such problems of socialism, in a transparent, democratic society, are more directly solved, I think.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Greadius
But what value do pearls have? Money is only useful as a measure of comparing the value of goods and services in a standardized form. If the only good that has any real value is food, THAT would be the 'currency'. Pearls would be worthless, nobody would want them.

I think the weakness in the example was it tried to cover too much, too simply. Its difficult to illustrate more than one economic principle without changing many of the conditions to fit your model. In doing so, you changed variables for no particular reason.
Not to mention the simple fact as to why would 100 people stranded on an island begin trading for pearls, as compared to a ticket home? And why would 100 people even need to set up a capitalist system. The decision making difficulties are low enough and there are few enough people where they don't need to adopt a (grossly simplified) complex economic system.

The idea that the pearls (i.e. the de facto currency) would be absolutely worthless runs counter to the fact that nothing is worthless if only the price is right, in this case low enough. The reason the price of pearls is so low is because of the massive influx through the foreign exchange. That very foreign exchange is NEEDED by the landowners to continually keep the exploitation in operation.
If by some misfortune the yearly shipping would cede then the ever increasing demand for grain which buys the pearls would settle and equilibrium would be established, as there will be fixed parity between the value of grain and pearls, excempting variations in the grain output due to weather variations.

Consider also that food is useless as a currency in that it is NOT a durable good, neither is it practicable as a means of exchange because of its bulk volume.

I do not believe I have changed too many variables which are: the demand for grain by the landowners, the demand for pearls by the landowners and the actual producers. And the supply of grain by the producers (and indirectly through this the suplly of the pearls themselves)

As to the point why the 'people' (i sense you mean the exploited ones) would't just buy a ticket home you have left the very premise of the model in that you are incorporating politics into the equation, or more likely Liberation Ideology (I'll get back to that one later if the demand is there)

 

[Toasty]

I don't like that the first post wasn't considered a "troll." Were there a post that said "you don't really believe in Capitalism, do you?", it would have been almost certainly closed at the first sight.

 

[Damien]

Ohkrana,the bonus would be for the person who found the improvment.

There would be a minimum production moreover,if people from a quarter go to the bakery of the other quarter,the minimum for the quarter's bakery wouldn't be reached and therefore there would be sanctions.

Yes,I know I'm violating socialist principles.Owenist and Fabian companies(communist companies) existed in Europe and the US in the 19th century and went bankrupt within 1 or 2 years everytime since nobody worked enough.

Native americans worked lands for nothing,it was a civil service(called mita for INCAS) and it seems that there was no need for brutality.

We tried that in the 19th century but it failed:we are used to wages and think about every possiblity:What if I wouldn't work and get the fruits anyway?