>>12754>That is still crossing a line into something else. Shitting in the soup is always an option, that doesn't mean that all soup has shit in it or that I'm a fool for wanting to engineer a system where we just have soup with no shit in it.
I guess i don't know what you want then. You talk about a market without any political interference. Some people create mercenary units, guns for hire in colloquial vernacular
, and they will sell murder and destruction as a service to anybody who pays them. Do you consider that a type of activity part voluntary market interactions ? I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and assume that you are opposed to this type of terror, and ask you how you propose to prevent this ?
>It is peaceful by definition. Once you add violence it is not a voluntary interaction anymore.
A very considerable section of the people that proclaim to want free markets, do include a "freedom to buy violence as a services
" of sorts. So maybe you should consider rebranding your ideology to Voluntary markets
to distinguish your self from that.
And you have to explain how you plan to frustrate all the usual coercion methods that exist in market economies. Not just the problems with direct violence for hire. Like all the other mechanisms of coercion. Large corporations or "people of super-wealth" have a thousand ways to bully people with more indirect forms of violence. Lets go for a concrete example. Bill Gates funded a organization that did medical testing in Africa, in a location that barely had any regulations constraining what they could do. They ended up killing and crippling a lot of people. The marketing said "philanthropist brings medical care to people in need"
, but the reality was more like billionaire found a loop-hole to conduct fatal human-experimentation
My advice would be if you want Voluntary markets
' you need to pre-empt power-consolidation. Put in a automatic wealth-cap and automatic mechanisms that breaks up companies that grow too large. That would greatly diminish the capacity for coercion. This doesn't fix everything, but it'd be a good start. A automatic wealth-cap can be had by changing how money works (that's a very technical topic, ask if you want details). To prevent consolidation into large mega-corps you only need to grant the ability of sections of a company to split off from the parent company.
>The technical definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. What you're talking about is price inflation. I stand by my original statement that the USSR destroyed the value of their fiat currency just as well as any "capitalist" country.
The real definition for inflation is a rationing mechanism that prioritizes purchasing power of affluent customers over poor customers
Inflation is not possible in an economy that has fixed prices. In the Soviet case the economic error led to prioritization of the quickest customer, not the richest. This was a economic failure that ought to be avoided but it was not inflation. The Soviets did not have too few goods either, the specific instance where this happened (people emptying out the shops) was in Poland and it concerned meat production. During that time the Soviets could have more meat in their diet any any other country in the world except for the US, so the shortage theory can be ruled out.
>My point is that the fiat money banking system (i.e. bankers literally printing money and giving it to themselves) is what drives the wealth gap and causes inflation which is responsible for most of the suffering felt by the poor and working class.
Here we agree, you are describing one of the major mechanisms used to squeeze people. I guess technically inflation is a form of expropriation. >But marxists have been trained to never attack the banking system because your thought leaders regard it as something to be captured not destroyed.
What most Marxists are saying is that the banks are part of the state, and if you privatize part of the state, ie. turn it into a form of capital that capitalists can own, then why are you surprised that capitalists who own banks would try to use it to make money with it, in what ever way they can, which apparently includes printing lots of fiat currency. If a capitalist manages to get a public road privatized they put a toll-booth on it and then they squeeze you that way, you're getting screwed just the same, but in a different form.
You appear to have this persistent illusion that the archetypal capitalist is some kind of clever innovator who tries to produce nice products that people want. That certainly is A possibility to make a profit, but doing right by the customer is not the most profitable path. Some producers are honest, but they are doing this despite of capitalism not because of it. The most profitable business-models in capitalism are very predatory. I don't understand why you uphold capitalism when it clearly is not promoting the stuff you value. Capitalism put the big banks on the throne, and the small producers making stuff they're just tolerated.
Also you could not be more wrong about marxist intentions. One of the primary goals, is to create a money-less society, which means banks go away. The intention behind capturing the banks is to convert money-based accounting into material accounting. The intention is to measure physical quantities of stuff, instead of currency. Marxists consider money be a obfuscatory veil over the economy that hides the reality of production. Fixing economic problems begins with analyzing the real thing.
I guess you want to destroy the power of finance capitalism in order to go back to industrial capitalism, that's what the soc-dems did after WW2. And it's what the Chinese are doing now. I'm not an ideological purist and i would go along with that because it seems like it would improve the material conditions of the workers. But if you want to sell me on the idea of reforming capitalism, you have to throw in irreversible reforms. (I don't want neo-liberalism undoing social democracy a second time). Every concession that workers win can never be taken back, circumvented or otherwise neutralized under any circumstance. You have to create special military enforcement that is tasked with upholding this above all else and by any means, it has to be the first priority for the state and baked into every institution.
I'll be honest with you, a part of me thinks you're just a small capitalist trying to use me as a useful idiot to get rid of a bigger capitalist rival. Once you have eliminated that bigger capitalist that is blocking your path, you'll flipp and become the same thing, and try to crush me just the same. I don't want to fight for getting stepped on by a different boot.
>In that case I want lobster, steak and champagne for every meal. Disconnecting desires from cost only makes sense if you have infinite resources.
Well you are technically wrong in the sense that humans are finite creatures and therefore everything about humans is finite, including desires. Demand is finite and it can be met. Obviously socialists don't cater to lunatics who think they are gods that ought to rule all of existence, because that's just a mental disorder. But you are not wrong about the general direction of socialist economics striving towards the elimination of scarcity. While we probably can't achieve 100% post-scarcity status for everything, we'll probably get pretty close, and only a few items like giant space-ships will be subject to rationing. Obviously one of the goals is creating molecular synthesis production tools that can make you any meal you can think off, by assembling it atom by atom. So yeah the unlimited lobster, steak and champagne deal that's like top priority
. Although we're going for a much broader variety of food choices. Only protein and alcohol for sustenance, that'll get old quick.
>The key thing that makes capitalism work is that when a capitalist misjudges what consumers want it he alone who suffers the cost of wasted resources.
Sorry but have you heard about "too big too fail"
, the argument that capitalists are rewarded for shrewd risk management, that's not applicable anymore. Besides if a company goes bust, the worker looses their lively-hood and have to suffer severe reduction of quality of life (including homelessness), while most capitalists have sufficient reserve's that they never have to worry about reproducing their personal existence or even suffering a diminished lifestyle. Workers carry most of the risks.>Central planners are always playing with other people's resources and other people's lives so they don't have the same incentive structure or feedback mechanism.
The task of the central planner is to calculate prices, it's like you replace the market with a computer program that calculates the optimal prices exactly, compared to even the most ideal markets that can only approximate it. The task of setting the priorities for what direction the economy takes is decided by the proletariat, via democratic polling. You get some kind of computer interface where you can adjust the priorities for surplus allocation, in however much detail you like, and then that will be counted like a vote.
>The roads are full of cars
Massive cars clog up the roads much quicker than small cars, who'd've thunk.
Also not many of those nice cars are actually payed for.
>Especially if you have anything on algorithmic central planning
I recommend TANS:Towards a new socialism
(pdf attached). That's a short and relatively newbie friendly book on Cybernetic Socialist economic planning. It's very different from the Soviet model. It was written in the 80s so there are some outdated technology references, but everything else is still relevant. Written by W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. Cockshott also does Videos:https://farside.link/invidious/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ
He has some rather technical video on planning algorithms, and a git-hub repo with example software.https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=czcnmQ3ua0Yhttps://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=rtZQtEnGtLchttps://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=Pqzj5hrnDCkhttps://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=IuQpzKW3_e8
This is more like intermediate to advanced material you probably want start out with the book. It's only 200 pages.