Economics: What might work, what should work, what has worked (command v. open market)

[felice]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

There are very rich people in Denmark, but so what? Its people have a high standard of living and excellent social services.

But they still have poverty. There shouldn't be anyone living in poverty in countries that wealthy and technologically advanced. And even if the average person has a comfortable standard of living, there's still room for improvement; reduced working hours if nothing else. Nobody deserves to be orders of magnitude wealthier than the average.

10 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Cronyism and corruption seems to walk hand in hand with full State control of a Nation’s economy.

So take measures to counter that. Assign capital applications to decision-makers randomly, harshly punish failure to disclose conflict of interest, record contact between applicants and decision-makers, and have decisions randomly reviewed. If you wanted to be corrupt in that environment, how would you do it?

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

The results of industrialisation under rulers like Stalin and Mao were certainly impressive in terms of producing good quality weaponry in large quantities, and appalling in terms of producing decent consumer goods.

One of the many reasons I'm not keen on revolution; a violent start combined with a very real ongoing threat from external forces is going to warp any state. All countries tend authoritarian during wartime. I want a gradual, democratically supported transition.

7 hours ago, Gorn said:

Personally, I think that workers' self-management in a capitalist system is the best of both worlds. In my imaginary system, all workers in a company, from janitor to CEO, own a share proportional to their position, seniority and work-hours

Who decides what's proportional? There are some advantages to such a system, but it still retains a lot of the problems of capitalism, with every company out to maximise their individual profits without regard for the common good.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Felice,

So take measures to counter that. Assign capital applications to decision-makers randomly, harshly punish failure to disclose conflict of interest, record contact between applicants and decision-makers, and have decisions randomly reviewed. If you wanted to be corrupt in that environment, how would you do it?

 

So, none of the command economies that were attempted during the 20th century had controls to attempt to curb corruption?

[lokisnow]

Ah well deserves got nothin to do with it, every self interested person believes they deserve a lot more, whether you are jeff bezos or the homeless man at my freeway off ramp. They both ardently believe they deserve more than they have.

[felice]

1 hour ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

So, none of the command economies that were attempted during the 20th century had controls to attempt to curb corruption? 

No idea. Obviously not adequate controls, if corruption was still a big problem for them. That doesn't mean it's impossible to implement adequate measures. What specifically do you think the inadequacies were?

59 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Ah well deserves got nothin to do with it, every self interested person believes they deserve a lot more, whether you are jeff bezos or the homeless man at my freeway off ramp. They both ardently believe they deserve more than they have.

Perhaps, but I suspect a disinterested third party would be rather more likely to agree with the self-assessment of the homeless man than with Jeff.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 hours ago, felice said:

No idea. Obviously not adequate controls, if corruption was still a big problem for them. That doesn't mean it's impossible to implement adequate measures. What specifically do you think the inadequacies were?

Perhaps, but I suspect a disinterested third party would be rather more likely to agree with the self-assessment of the homeless man than with Jeff.

I think that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Command economies give tremendous power to those in government with authority over the government and it is consistently abused.  The very level of power these people hold limits the ability to strip them of the power that they have been granted.  Therefore you empower them at your own risk.  

 

[maarsen]

20 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

I think that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Command economies give tremendous power to those in government with authority over the government and it is consistently abused.  The very level of power these people hold limits the ability to strip them of the power that they have been granted.  Therefore you empower them at your own risk.  

 

As Bezos is worth 155 billion dollars, as I just heard, I think he has the power to command the economies of countries who wish they had that kind of capital behind them. How long before the corruption begins? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, maarsen said:

As Bezos is worth 155 billion dollars, as I just heard, I think he has the power to command the economies of countries who wish they had that kind of capital behind them. How long before the corruption begins? 

Corruption already exists.  I'm attempting to point out that granting Government officials the same kind of power has been demonstrated to create cronyism and corruption.  I don't believe there is a systemic fix for that problem.  It is endemic to humans who operate with their self interest, or the interests of those they choose to care about, as paramount. 

In other words, it is endemic to humans.  I think the only way to root it out is case by case.  If you have empowered someone to the degree that they are empowered in command economies you have tied your own hands when it comes to taking away the power that has been granted.

[Spring Bass]

8 hours ago, maarsen said:

As Bezos is worth 155 billion dollars, as I just heard, I think he has the power to command the economies of countries who wish they had that kind of capital behind them. How long before the corruption begins? 

Can Bezos completely deprive you of a job or cut funding for your projects if he doesn't like you? 

That's a thing that could actually happen in a socialized economy. 

[felice]

12 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Corruption already exists.  I'm attempting to point out that granting Government officials the same kind of power has been demonstrated to create cronyism and corruption.

A government can be subject to accountability, transparency, and checks & balances in a way Bezos can't. Not all governments are, but a socialised economy doesn't prevent it.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

It’s not obvious to me that having ownership of production facilities and companies would be the one thing that absolutely and definitely will corrupt a government. After all it can handle law making, budget, taxation, police, defence, judicial system and so on without necessarily being corrupted. 

Or do we see a “sliding scale” where more government power means more corruption? In that case the Nordic countries should be among the most corrupt governments in the world with their high taxes and large governments. 

I think a completely state-run economy is a bad idea for many reasons, but I’m unconvinced about the corruption argument.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, felice said:

A government can be subject to accountability, transparency, and checks & balances in a way Bezos can't. Not all governments are, but a socialised economy doesn't prevent it.

How?  How can you prevent these government officials, a form of Oligarchy, from abusing the vast power granted to them?  How can you prevent them from targeting people who seek to strip them of the power granted with the power that they have been granted?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

It’s not obvious to me that having ownership of production facilities and companies would be the one thing that absolutely and definitely will corrupt a government. After all it can handle law making, budget, taxation, police, defence, judicial system and so on without necessarily being corrupted. 

Or do we see a “sliding scale” where more government power means more corruption? In that case the Nordic countries should be among the most corrupt governments in the world with their high taxes and large governments. 

I think a completely state-run economy is a bad idea for many reasons, but I’m unconvinced about the corruption argument.

So private ownership of the means of production is not allowed in Nordic Countries?  They aren’t mixed public/private economies?  I’m arguing against full and exclusive ownership of the means of production by the State.  I’m not arguing that some limited State control can not be useful.  

It is in the context of full State control that it is next to impossible to strip those with that full control of the power they have been granted without Soviet style collapses or the person in charge opening the door for private ownership (Deng Xaiping in China).

[Larry of the Lawn]

I'd rather have a system where I as a person have some kind of control (vote) over this shit than the capitalist vote with your dollar bullshit model.  At leasthave some kind of tool to keep the fuckers in line.  Who's going to bring Elon Musk or Bezos or the Koch brothers to heel when they get a little wild?

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

How?  How can you prevent these government officials, a form of Oligarchy, from abusing the vast power granted to them?  How can you prevent them from targeting people who seek to strip them of the power granted with the power that they have been granted?

Rights enshrined in a constitution is one method. Capitalism isn't necessary to do this kind of thing.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

3 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

So private ownership of the means of production is not allowed in Nordic Countries?  They aren’t mixed public/private economies?  I’m arguing against full and exclusive ownership of the means of production by the State.  I’m not arguing that some limited State control can not be useful.  

It is in the context of full State control that it is next to impossible to strip those with that full control of the power they have been granted without Soviet style collapses or the person in charge opening the door for private ownership (Deng Xaiping in China).

Yes, of course they are mixed economies. That wasn’t my point. My point was to falsify the idea that a bigger and more powerful government necessarily leads to more corruption. It seems like you agree with me on that one.

But my point is, if the government can be trusted to run healthcare and railroads and liquor stores like a monopoly, without being corrupted and sometimes even doing a decent job about it - what is there to say that the means of production is the thing that they can’t own? By what principle does it fail? I want some details, not just “Cuba and Venezuela tried this and now it sucks to live there”. 

Note that I am absolutely not in favour of nationalising the means of production, I’m just curious why it’s such a bad idea, on a theoretical level. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Rights enshrined in a constitution is one method. Capitalism isn't necessary to do this kind of thing.

How well has that worked in those nations that have gone for pure command economies?  Have such Constitutional rights prevented corruption?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

33 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Yes, of course they are mixed economies. That wasn’t my point. My point was to falsify the idea that a bigger and more powerful government necessarily leads to more corruption. It seems like you agree with me on that one.

But my point is, if the government can be trusted to run healthcare and railroads and liquor stores like a monopoly, without being corrupted and sometimes even doing a decent job about it - what is there to say that the means of production is the thing that they can’t own? By what principle does it fail? I want some details, not just “Cuba and Venezuela tried this and now it sucks to live there”. 

Note that I am absolutely not in favour of nationalising the means of production, I’m just curious why it’s such a bad idea, on a theoretical level. 

 

My point is that in those countries where the MOP is fully nationalized... corruption seems endemic.  That being the case such a strong correlation is hard to discount.  I think that putting that much power in the hands of those individuals inevitably corrupts them... well that or those nations have been consistently unlucky in who they pick for  more than Century.

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

How well has that worked in those nations that have gone for pure command economies?  Have such Constitutional rights prevented corruption?

You're making a big leap though in claiming it can never happen.

There's plenty of capitalist countries rife with corruption. And in the capitalist countries where this does not seem to be the case, say Canada as an example, it isn't clear that capitalism is the reason for the lack of corruption.

Rights can protect people if they are actually enforced. But we are assuming rights are enforced you see. I get to assume that, since you are taking the position that this can never happen. (Unless I'm reading you wrong)

Self-rule helps keep down corruption. This has nothing to do with capitalism, although democracy and capitalism are often paired. 

The best way though to keep down corruption is a culture that regulates corruption. And this is very hard to replicate and often takes a long time to build. 

So to sum it up, we are dealing with a democratic country, with a strong history and tradition of rights that are enforced, and a culture that discourages and regulates corruption.

Capitalism could be keeping poverty rates down, though, I suppose. And high poverty rates in a country are pretty strongly-connected to corruption.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

40 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

You're making a big leap though in claiming it can never happen.

There's plenty of capitalist countries rife with corruption. And in the capitalist countries where this does not seem to be the case, say Canada as an example, it isn't clear that capitalism is the reason for the lack of corruption.

Rights can protect people if they are actually enforced. But we are assuming rights are enforced you see. I get to assume that, since you are taking the position that this can never happen. (Unless I'm reading you wrong)

Self-rule helps keep down corruption. This has nothing to do with capitalism, although democracy and capitalism are often paired. 

The best way though to keep down corruption is a culture that regulates corruption. And this is very hard to replicate and often takes a long time to build. 

So to sum it up, we are dealing with a democratic country, with a strong history and tradition of rights that are enforced, and a culture that discourages and regulates corruption.

Capitalism could be keeping poverty rates down, though, I suppose. And high poverty rates in a country are pretty strongly-connected to corruption.

 

I’m not saying it can “never” happen.  I’m saying it hasn’t happened yet.  And that, for me, is telling.

[felice]

9 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

How?  How can you prevent these government officials, a form of Oligarchy, from abusing the vast power granted to them?  How can you prevent them from targeting people who seek to strip them of the power granted with the power that they have been granted?

Separation of powers? In the system I'm proposing, the people with the actual power to make economic decisions are employees, working according to guidelines set by a democratically elected government. If an employee acts corruptly, they can be fired, but the government has no authority to interfere with their day-to-day decision-making. If an MP does try to put pressure on an employee to act corruptly, that's a criminal offence and a huge political scandal that the opposition parties will have a field day with.

5 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

My point is that in those countries where the MOP is fully nationalized... corruption seems endemic.

And were those countries paragons of righteousness before nationalisation? Or were they corrupt hellholes to start with that nationalisation didn't miraculously cure overnight?