If Capitalism is Immoral what System of Economics is Moral?

[MinDonner]

Eef, by poor people, I mean people who can't afford plywood, and I've already stated this several times. Citing income levels is irrelevant to this discussion. Shryke insists on talking about people who are priced out of the plywood market because of ability to pay, and there are precious few homeowners in the United States that can't afford plywood. This isn't luxury cars and high-rise condominiums. Yes, thanks to efficient free markets, plywood is affordable for even the poorest of the poor who have just enough money to own property near the beach.

This plywood thing is getting hilariously bizarre. Are you trying to illustrate the wonders of capitalism with the one product that is, apparently, totally unaffected by market forces? Plywood is as free as the air, there will be plywood in every home and a chicken in every pot, regardless of how far you live from the sea... :huh:

Here's a little story for ya, then:

Alf and Bob are rich. Chris is poor. Alf and Chris have homes near the beach, Bob lives a little further inland. Hurricane is coming, and oh noes, there are only two pieces of plywood left in Home Depot! Normally Chris can afford plywood, but Bob panics and offers the clerk more money, so he gets the plywood. Chris's house gets damaged. The end.

Is that simple enough? Are you now going to tell me how Chris should have bought plywood insurance beforehand so the whole thing is inapplicable?

[SergioCQH]

This plywood thing is getting hilariously bizarre. Are you trying to illustrate the wonders of capitalism with the one product that is, apparently, totally unaffected by market forces? Plywood is as free as the air, there will be plywood in every home and a chicken in every pot, regardless of how far you live from the sea... :huh:

Here's a little story for ya, then:

Alf and Bob are rich. Chris is poor. Alf and Chris have homes near the beach, Bob lives a little further inland. Hurricane is coming, and oh noes, there are only two pieces of plywood left in Home Depot! Normally Chris can afford plywood, but Bob panics and offers the clerk more money, so he gets the plywood. Chris's house gets damaged. The end.

Is that simple enough? Are you now going to tell me how Chris should have bought plywood insurance beforehand so the whole thing is inapplicable?

No, plywood is not as free as air. It is affordable to any homeowner who can afford property near the ocean because of our efficient capitalistic market. If we had a command economy, there wouldn't be any plywood left.

In your absurd hypothetical, yes Chris's house gets damaged. So what? Are Alf and Bob more evil than Chris because they have more money? Are they less deserving of plywood protection? Should we protect Chris's less valuable, less vulnerable house, and leave either Alf's or Bob's more vulnerable houses unprotected? Their houses are surely more valuable, and will cost more money to repair. So why shouldn't they get the plywood? It seems very simple to me.

[MinDonner]

:lol:

My absurd hypothetical is basically your absurd hypothetical with some names added. But it's nice to hear the admission that disaster-prevention resources should be channelled towards the expensive houses, regardless of their vulnerability, just because rich people deserve it more, or something. None of this "who needs it more?" crap. Can't possibly see anything immoral in that attitude. :rolleyes:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

If there is only enough plywood left for one house how is it better for government to determine who gets it as opposed to the individuals in question?

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Ok, ignoring this absurd discussion about plywood allocation. I'd like to see one of the posters who think communism is all that write a post explaining how a command economy can overcome the inability to use markets and prices to allocate resources and determine levels of production. Can't do it? Well, I don't blame you. There is a reason no serious university level economist these days argue for command economic policies.

I find it unlikely that many serious university level economist would paint anything as black and white as you are painting command economy vs. free market policies. do you have any examples of a country with no command economy policies? How is that country doing?

[ljkeane]

Not to get involved with the argument about the scarcity of plywood supplies but Sergio is right that the problem with communist economies is the inefficient allocation of resources.

Everyone dismisses the USSR as an example of a communist economy but in terms of the allocation of resources in such an economy they actually put a lot of effort into trying to create a system for the allocation of resources and often came up as far as I can see the best possible solutions and it was a complete disaster.

Capitalism is far from perfect and I can think of a lot of examples were applying Laissez-Faire economics to disaster scenarios produced terrible results but it does offer more efficient allocation of resources in most situations than communism.

[SergioCQH]

Look, if anyone even bothered to read my original post, I readily admit that some income distribution is probably necessary for a moral economic system under utilitarianism. There are many Western countries that have successfully combined market economies with welfare states. It astounds me that there are those who would actually rail against this very moderate position, and actually spit in the face of the entire economics academy, and argue that free markets and price allocation are bad things.

My original post was a very good contribution to this thread. Everything else has been an ill advised attempt to respond to trolls who refuse to engage in an academic discussion.

With that, I say adieu to this derailed disaster.

[SergioCQH]

I find it unlikely that many serious university level economist would paint anything as black and white as you are painting command economy vs. free market policies. do you have any examples of a country with no command economy policies? How is that country doing?

it doesn't exist, but that country would probably be the most successful economy in the world. Yes, countries try to set command policies. Most economists would say that any price controls, subsidies, or tariffs are bad for their economies. All economists would agree that a pure command economy would be an unmitigated disaster.

[SergioCQH]

My absurd hypothetical is basically your absurd hypothetical with some names added. But it's nice to hear the admission that disaster-prevention resources should be channelled towards the expensive houses, regardless of their vulnerability, just because rich people deserve it more, or something. None of this "who needs it more?" crap. Can't possibly see anything immoral in that attitude. :rolleyes:

The only problem with your absurd hypothetical is that it is a strawman argument and a misunderstanding of my illustration (it was, in fact, not a hypothetical at all).

[Shryke]

And he leaves playing the victim. In like a jackass, out like a pansy.

Dude, no one (baring a very few people who haven't even been posting since you did) has argued against a mixed economy.

We've only been pointing out how stupid your example is and how it demonstrates the OPPOSITE of what you think it does by showing how the Free Market does not properly distribute scarce resources under certain (in reality very common and numerous) conditions.

Hence, the need for a mixed economy since the free market is wholly inadequate.

it doesn't exist, but that country would probably be the most successful economy in the world.

How are we defining "success" again?

And are we forgetting infrastructure?

[SergioCQH]

And he leaves playing the victim. In like a jackass, out like a pansy.

Dude, no one (baring a very few people who haven't even been posting since you did) has argued against a mixed economy.

We've only been pointing out how stupid your example is and how it demonstrates the OPPOSITE of what you think it does by showing how the Free Market does not properly distribute scarce resources under certain (in reality very common and numerous) conditions.

Hence, the need for a mixed economy since the free market is wholly inadequate.

Ok, so apparently, you're brilliant and more knowledgeable about economics than widely published university professors? Oh yeah, who is the egocentric jackass here? Shryke, the message board poster who is more knowledgeable about economics than Nobel prize winning economists. The guy who admits he's never taken an economics course in his life.

[MinDonner]

Min,

If there is only enough plywood left for one house how is it better for government to determine who gets it as opposed to the individuals in question?

Simply by being a disinterested adjudicator who can allocate based on need, rather than on who is the richest. For essential services, pure capitalism disproportionately disadvantages the poor.

Moving away from the absurdities of plywood, let's look instead at school placements. In the UK at the moment, social mobility is really being hampered by the fact that richer parents can afford to live within the catchment areas of the best schools, so the kids of poor parents will inevitably get a worse education and therefore dimmer prospects, making a vicious circle. Now, in Brighton, they've recently started a system where school places are no longer allocated by area of residence, but by lottery, meaning that poorer kids can get into better schools without their parents needing to own a £500k house. Lots of parents were in uproar about this, but I am all in favour, cos I think the practice was disgusting, but it goes entirely against the supposed "free choice" of capitalism...

Edit: note: this is public education I'm talking here, private is a whole different kettle of fish

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

And your ad hominem insults "pansy" and "jackass" add what to the discussion?

[Horza]

You guys are going to love my next thread on sandalwood.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

How is the Government offical distributing plywood disintersted? Perhaps this person needs a powerful sponsor and will give the wood to the powerful rich person anyway? Perhaps this person is terrified and will give the wood to the first person who asks for it regardless of "need". For that matter how is this offical defining and applying the definition of "need"?

[Shryke]

Shryke, And your ad hominem insults "pansy" and "jackass" add what to the discussion?

About as much as Sergio's pompous arrogance, jackassery and baseless assumptions about others abilites/education/knowledge/etc.

Ok, so apparently, you're brilliant and more knowledgeable about economics than widely published university professors? Oh yeah, who is the egocentric jackass here? Shryke, the message board poster who is more knowledgeable about economics than Nobel prize winning economists. The guy who admits he's never taken an economics course in his life.

And you refuse to actually respond again. Several people have repeatedly shown the absurdity of your example.

Seriously, you keep referencing what seems to be a Chicago School Economist. Of course I'm gonna laugh at you.

Also, your still here. Liar.

[Shryke]

Min,

How is the Government offical distributing plywood disintersted? Perhaps this person needs a powerful sponsor and will give the wood to the powerful rich person anyway? Perhaps this person is terrified and will give the wood to the first person who asks for it regardless of "need".

Corruption is present in any system.

For that matter how is this offical defining and applying the definition of "need"?

Probably by some measure that has nothing to do with who can pay more. And that, by itself, makes it better for the situation in question.

[MinDonner]

Min,

How is the Government offical distributing plywood disintersted? Perhaps this person needs a powerful sponsor and will give the wood to the powerful rich person anyway? Perhaps this person is terrified and will give the wood to the first person who asks for it regardless of "need". For that matter how is this offical defining and applying the definition of "need"?

Oh, come on, Scot! (and we're still on the damn plywood!) I would hope that the official in charge of emergency plywood-distribution would be looking at the projected path of the hurricane, and dishing out the plywood supplies based on which homes were most at risk. If he's after powerful sponsors or acting out of fear, he is either corrupt or incompetent, but that does not mean the system is at fault.

Also, this:

Probably by some measure that has nothing to do with who can pay more. And that, by itself, makes it better for the situation in question.

[SergioCQH]

And you refuse to actually respond again. Several people have repeatedly shown the absurdity of your example.

Seriously, you keep referencing what seems to be a Chicago School Economist. Of course I'm gonna laugh at you.

Also, your still here. Liar.

Yeah, there are a lot of left-leaning people on this board who will always side with each other. So what? Does it make you feel better that you are siding with the crowd? I have rebutted every single argument thrown against me, even the strawmen that you so love to employ. You claim that everyone who has even remotest risk of suffering wind damage will want to spend the money and effort to buy plywood and cover their windows with it. But we all know this is not true. The price of plywood does play a role in weeding out a group of people whose assumed risk of damage is smaller than the certain cost of plywood. You have no arguments which I have not debunked.

[Usotsuki]

Ser Scot, should vaccinations be allocated through eBay auction? If I have a disposable income that exceeds the median am I by definition a more deserving recipient?