bdbdbd said:
@FightingGameGuy: So, which system is more efficient, the one with as high unemployment rate as possible or the one with no unemployment?
Or system, where only a niche can afford to acquire everything they want and a niche can't acquire everything they need or system where everyone can acquire everything they want?
Now, i don't understand your problem with supply and demand, why the goods with demand can't be produced? I think the supply chain would have an estimation about the demand by how well people acquire the stuff.
So, what if equilibrium price is doing your part for community, which is defined by how you are capable/willing to work?
Communism is economic model, which ideal is democracy. The point is, that money has no meaning inside the community and everyone would take care of each other. But, you should remember, that communism, just what it's name says, is intented for communes, not nations. When i'm talking here about communism, i'm talking about how it would ideally work.
If you live in a commune, you know everyone and even if you would be new in the commune, it wouldn't take long before you would be part of the community, being "we", in this case the people you know. These are the people you want to help and work for.
If you live in a country, you know only a fraction of it's population. Maybe the people you know are "we", but the rest is not, they are "them". So would you work for "them", when you don't even get a feedback from your work from "them"? Of course, they would work for you, but it's not something you would feel being anything concrete, everything would just be something without value to you, since you didn't have to work for it, but everything you had done would have high value to you, because you did actually do some work for it.
And in ideal capitalist society, everyone would work for the elite, with as small wages as people stay alive and they wouldn't have a choice, when the only key to success would be birth right. Which would eventually lead to money losing it's meaning and the system to crash. Which would lead thru anarchy to communism. |
Stop equivocating the definition of efficient. I mean only one thing, that which I defined efficient to mean earlier; in economics, efficiency means producing as great a GDP as possible.
Unemployment is only a single factor in the GDP. Given diminishing returns, aiming for 100% employment is foolish, in doing so you will reduce the overall wealth, the GDP, of your market.
In your questions about unemployment and resource division, you're asking which system is preferable not which is most efficient.
My answer to that question is this: understanding that market economies are more efficient, it follows that in a market economy, the entire population will be better off as more and more time passes. History has shown that this increase in prosperity is so great that it generally greater than discrepancies in wealth distribution. Sure the rich get richer but the poor do to (at least absolutely), and they do so historically far more so than their communist peers.
Your attempt to limit the scope to communes is irrelevant. Whether we're dealing with cities, communes, or nations, markets still apply so long as there are two people wanting to trade and hence so do economics.
I don't understand at all what you're talking about with reference to supply and demand. You're statements are incredibly vague, veering on being outright ungrammatical "if equilibrium price is doing your part for community, which is defined by how you are capable willing to work"? "Communism is economic model, which ideal is democracy" What on earth do either of those mean? I don't mean to disparage you, perhaps English isn't your primary language or you wrote hastily, but I literaly cannot understand what you're talking about.
I've said two main things concerning supply and demand.
1. Setting prices, setting incomes, and alloting goods reduces efficiency.
2. Ignoring supply when determining prices also reduces efficiency (diamonds and wii).
I used diamonds as an example of something in which there is a finite supply that cannot conceivably be distributed to everyone; it's quite clear that there aren't 6 billion 100+ carat diamonds in the world available, I don't think there are even over 100. Even when something can be produced unendingly such as with Wiis you're ignoring the fact that production takes time, so for any given moment, the number of Wiis is in fact finite. Hypothetically, if you're not one of the lucky few who gets allotted a wii, why can't you pay tons of money or barter tons of goods to someone who did get one if you want a Wii that badly? Even if such transactions are outlawed blackmarkets will arise, which cannot effectively be stopped. And why would you want to? Yet communism requires taking away the freedom of trading in order for the government's arbitrary prices to have meaning.
Once again you're points about money are incorrect. If there are any discrepancies in between two socities in terms of the cost-effectiveness of producing any good (labor is a cost), specialization of labor and trade should ensue, mutally benefitting both societies. Even given only climate and agriculture such discrepancies exist, thus trade should most definitely exist. Trade is much more efficient with money than bartering so you should have money. Why on earth are you so deadset on self-economic abasement for your ideal society?
Furthermore, if you want to reduce all of society to only communes that can have no outside activities you will greatly cripple specialization of labor. What good is a brain surgeon to his commune if fewer than 1/10000 people ever have need of one? Chances are his commune will never have any use for him. Oh yeah, you can also pretty much kiss advanced eletronics such as video games and anything that must be produced by a team of highly specialized individuals good-bye as well.
