carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/30/85)
First some preliminaries: In article <10482@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > Standard sophomore text in the subject [sociology]? There is a short book by Peter Berger called *Invitation to Sociology*. But I think it is more important to take a course in rigorous thinking. I would suggest a course in analytical philosophy. >I really don't know much about sociology, since the only college course on >the subject that I attended began with the instructor saying that you had >to be a Marxist to be a sociologist. Obviously you don't, but it helps, especially around Berkeley. >Marxism is like smallpox: the only thing you want to >learn about it is how to stamp it out. Let me rephrase that: the only thing *you* want to learn about it is how to stamp it out. People with open minds want to learn how a Marxist perspective in the social sciences might help one to understand history and society. >As I dimly recall, Ireland in the 19th >Century was pretty much a colonial feudal aristocracy, which is close enough >to socialism that a simple hacker like me can't really tell the difference. >Anyone want to correct me? A new libertarian equivalency! Feudalism = socialism. I suggest you look up "feudalism" and "socialism" in an encyclopedia, preferably a scholarly work such as *The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences*. If you want to learn about the Irish famine, read *The Great Hunger* by C. Woodham-Smith. On to the main topic: >Finally, whether you call them "needs" or "demands", you're still >talking about the allocation of scarce resources...which is done optimally >in a free market. This is well known to be false. The Prisoner's Dilemma-type situations that have been mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg. We may wish to have the free market on other grounds (and I agree that the marketplace is a highly useful institution) but not on the grounds of the optimality of its outcome. (This is an instance of the general truth that there is no reason to expect that the collective outcomes of individual choices will, in general, be optimal (for the moment I am avoiding the question of how we define "optimal"). To broach a rather large subject, an example is the fact that the American political-economic system is highly suboptimal, even though for the most part Americans freely assent to its principal features.) You would have a stronger case if you said that the fundamental theorems of welfare economics show that the free market, if it fulfills certain conditions such as perfect competition, always results in a *Pareto-optimal* outcome. But if you say this, you run into some serious problems. First of all, Pareto optimality is not identical to optimality per se. Let us take Brazil, where the peons starve while the cattle pig out because the peons have little money compared to the rich landowners. This may well be Pareto-optimal in either the strong or weak (potential compensation) sense, but it is certainly arguable that it would be a more desirable outcome if the rural poor had more to eat at the expense of the wealthy. I do not think one has to be a thoroughgoing utilitarian to make this argument. More fundamentally, libertarians cannot invoke the criterion of Pareto optimality and remain consistent libertarians. The first reason is that, as Amartya Sen has shown in *Collective Choice and Social Welfare*, there is a potential conflict between libertarian principles and the principle of Pareto optimality (the Paradox of the Paretian Liberal), so that Libertaria would have to violate Pareto optimality now and then. The second reason is that libertarians are committed to judging outcomes by the *process* through which the outcome was reached, not by the outcome itself. For example, if you are poor in Libertaria and no rich person offers you any charity, and no fraud or initiation of coercion has taken place, then tough on you, according to libertarians. You can rail against fate or beg for money, but you have no legitimate grounds to complain that the situation is unjust. All the rules have been followed, hence the outcome is just. Now, an individual libertarian may *prefer*, for whatever reason, a social state that is Pareto-optimal to one that is not, but she has no objective basis for saying that a Pareto-optimal outcome must be better than a suboptimal outcome. Hence, whether the free market leads to some kind of optimality or is horribly inefficient, the *outcome* of the market process is irrelevant to the libertarian judgment on the free market. >Your concern seems to be that such allocation is >inequitable. But that word itself is almost meaningless, since I think that >any means of organizing the world in any way where I don't get what >I want is inequitable. And you know damned well that that's a pretty >universal definition of inequity. This is bizarre. I don't know of anyone who thinks that equity or justice means "getting whatever I want." >The trouble with your "needs" is that someone has to decide which are >valid, and which are not -- which in turn involves cultural value >judgements. The great thing about demand as a measure is that you >don't make judgements on the relative worth of A's vs B's demand -- >it all comes out in the wash. More to the point, demand measure may >be optimized automatically without examining the nature of the >demand, whereas -- by definition -- that's not true of "needs". The trouble with your "demand" is twofold: First, you are talking about *effective* demand. A person who has little or no money has little or no demand in your scheme. So the Brazilian peon has much less demand for grain than the wealthy cattle rancher, and it just automatically comes out in the wash that he is malnourished. Thank goodness we don't have to bother with any cultural value judgments, such as that people should not starve to death in the midst of plenty. Second, Arrow's Theorem proves that not all social decisions can be rationally based on individual preferences alone. Try doing it for Condorcet's voting paradox. So inevitably someone will have to decide, either dictatorially or through the dreaded value judgment. You can't escape the problem of "Who decides?" by means of the free market. >And, better put, who prevents the market from acting as >it will? When needs are allocated "so that the poor can receive them" -- as, >for example, certain "staple" foods are in Mexico, or as almost everything is >in the USSR -- the inevitable result is black markets and shortages. *The >market reality always makes itself felt*; when you try to prevent the market >from working -- and I'll concede your motives -- all you manage to do is >bollix things up terribly and hurt the people you were trying to help. If you would carefully study Nicaragua, Cuba, and China, I think you would be less likely to make dogmatic statements like this. I don't believe any of these countries is a workers' paradise, but they have made significant improvements in the well-being of their people. By your logic there should be mass starvation in these countries. Ask the Nicaraguans themselves whether they have generally been hurt or helped by their government's socialist policies. Markets, BTW, have not been abolished in these countries, nor should they be. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/02/85)
I really don't have time for this, but... In article <204@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >First some preliminaries: > >In article <10482@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > >> Standard sophomore text in the subject [sociology]? > >There is a short book by Peter Berger called *Invitation to >Sociology*. But I think it is more important to take a course in >rigorous thinking. I would suggest a course in analytical >philosophy. > Physician, heal thyself.... > >>Marxism is like smallpox: the only thing you want to >>learn about it is how to stamp it out. > >Let me rephrase that: the only thing *you* want to learn about it is >how to stamp it out. People with open minds want to learn how a >Marxist perspective in the social sciences might help one to >understand history and society. There is a difference between open-mindedness and airheadedness. Marx's predictions are manifestly false: the only Marxist revolutions in history have been in poor, agricultural, feudal societies: not the industrial societies that Marx predicted would rebel. The difference is crucial, since the central tenet of Marxism is that the major cause of revolution is the alienation caused by industrialization. It turns out that this is false: Marxist revolutions occur in feudal societies, and the Marxist dictatorship that replaces such a society is not measurably different from its predecessor. Every Marxist "revolution" is merely a change of governing thugs. > >>As I dimly recall, Ireland in the 19th >>Century was pretty much a colonial feudal aristocracy, which is close enough >>to socialism that a simple hacker like me can't really tell the difference. >>Anyone want to correct me? > >A new libertarian equivalency! Feudalism = socialism. I suggest you >look up "feudalism" and "socialism" in an encyclopedia, preferably a >scholarly work such as *The International Encyclopedia of the Social >Sciences*. If you want to learn about the Irish famine, read *The >Great Hunger* by C. Woodham-Smith. Damn right. An economy is either competitive or command. Feudalism and socialism are both command economies, which means that the goodies are passed out to political favourites. If it quacks like a duck... > >On to the main topic: > >>Finally, whether you call them "needs" or "demands", you're still >>talking about the allocation of scarce resources...which is done optimally >>in a free market. > >This is well known to be false. The Prisoner's Dilemma-type >situations that have been mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg. It is not well-known to be false. See Alchian & Allen, or Hirschleifer. Or read Smith, or Pareto, or Hume, or Mill, or Ricardo, or Friedman (either one) or Stigler, or von Hayek. Of all of history's great economists from Smith on down, only a very few would not argue this. I am more than a little surprised that you would make this statement. Most statist economists that I know would argue that, though the market was optimal, it did not address concerns of equity. >se. Let us take Brazil, where the peons starve while the cattle pig >out because the peons have little money compared to the rich >landowners. This may well be Pareto-optimal in either the strong or >weak (potential compensation) sense, but it is certainly arguable >that it would be a more desirable outcome if the rural poor had more >to eat at the expense of the wealthy. I do not think one has to be a >thoroughgoing utilitarian to make this argument. Brazil is hardly a market economy. I think 60% of gnp goes through the state there, does it not? > >More fundamentally, libertarians cannot invoke the criterion of >Pareto optimality and remain consistent libertarians. The first >reason is that, as Amartya Sen has shown in *Collective Choice and >Social Welfare*, there is a potential conflict between libertarian >principles and the principle of Pareto optimality (the Paradox of the >Paretian Liberal), so that Libertaria would have to violate Pareto >optimality now and then. Examples? I find this very odd, since Pareto was a Libertarian to the extent that he advocated any political system at all. > >The second reason is that libertarians are committed to judging >outcomes by the *process* through which the outcome was reached, not >by the outcome itself. For example, if you are poor in Libertaria >and no rich person offers you any charity, and no fraud or initiation >of coercion has taken place, then tough on you, according to >libertarians. You can rail against fate or beg for money, but you >have no legitimate grounds to complain that the situation is unjust. >All the rules have been followed, hence the outcome is just. Now, an >individual libertarian may *prefer*, for whatever reason, a social >state that is Pareto-optimal to one that is not, but she has no >objective basis for saying that a Pareto-optimal outcome must be >better than a suboptimal outcome. Hence, whether the free market >leads to some kind of optimality or is horribly inefficient, the >*outcome* of the market process is irrelevant to the libertarian >judgment on the free market. You are confusing the two issues. My moral judgement on the worth of man the individual is not at issue: I cannot hope to persuade those who find coercion legitimate on moral grounds. At issue is the optimal allocation and production of scarce resources. This is subject to theoretical and empirical analysis. Over the past 200 years there has been no shortage of either. The judgement of history is clear: the free market yields such an allocation. Those who wish proof should not take my word for it, but consult any of the authors I cited above. > >>Your concern seems to be that such allocation is >>inequitable. But that word itself is almost meaningless, since I think that >>any means of organizing the world in any way where I don't get what >>I want is inequitable. And you know damned well that that's a pretty >>universal definition of inequity. > >This is bizarre. I don't know of anyone who thinks that equity or >justice means "getting whatever I want." I do. Do you think it any coincidence that Claude Pepper, representing the congressional district with the oldest population in the US, finds it "just" that the young be bankrupted to subsidize the old? Do you not find it coincidental that Jesse Helms feels that it is just that American taxpayers subsidize lung cancer? Tell me, then: which American politician, in the interests of justice, votes against the interest of his constituents? And how long does he remain in office? Do you still find that definition bizarre? > >>The trouble with your "needs" is that someone has to decide which are >>valid, and which are not -- which in turn involves cultural value >>judgements. The great thing about demand as a measure is that you >>don't make judgements on the relative worth of A's vs B's demand -- >>it all comes out in the wash. More to the point, demand measure may >>be optimized automatically without examining the nature of the >>demand, whereas -- by definition -- that's not true of "needs". > >The trouble with your "demand" is twofold: > >First, you are talking about *effective* demand. A person who has >little or no money has little or no demand in your scheme. So the >Brazilian peon has much less demand for grain than the wealthy cattle >rancher, and it just automatically comes out in the wash that he is >malnourished. Thank goodness we don't have to bother with any >cultural value judgments, such as that people should not starve to >death in the midst of plenty. I still haven't seen evidence of this...your 20% figure was *completely* anecdotal... > >Second, Arrow's Theorem proves that not all social decisions can be >rationally based on individual preferences alone. Try doing it for >Condorcet's voting paradox. So inevitably someone will have to >decide, either dictatorially or through the dreaded value judgment. >You can't escape the problem of "Who decides?" by means of the free >market. Reference? > >>And, better put, who prevents the market from acting as >>it will? When needs are allocated "so that the poor can receive them" -- as, >>for example, certain "staple" foods are in Mexico, or as almost everything is >>in the USSR -- the inevitable result is black markets and shortages. *The >>market reality always makes itself felt*; when you try to prevent the market >>from working -- and I'll concede your motives -- all you manage to do is >>bollix things up terribly and hurt the people you were trying to help. > >If you would carefully study Nicaragua, Cuba, and China, I think you >would be less likely to make dogmatic statements like this. I don't >believe any of these countries is a workers' paradise, but they have >made significant improvements in the well-being of their people. By >your logic there should be mass starvation in these countries. Ask >the Nicaraguans themselves whether they have generally been hurt or >helped by their government's socialist policies. Markets, BTW, have >not been abolished in these countries, nor should they be. Cuba is kept afloat by $18 billion a year in sugar subsidies. Nicaragua, last I heard, suffered shortages in many staples -- and there have been anti-government demonstrations. (early September, if memory serves). And China's revolution did so well by the people that their first move when the Great Helmsman died was to steer the ship for a free market economy. Rick.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/08/85)
In article <204@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >First some preliminaries: > > >A new libertarian equivalency! Feudalism = socialism. I suggest you >look up "feudalism" and "socialism" in an encyclopedia, preferably a >scholarly work such as *The International Encyclopedia of the Social >Sciences*. I agree, the two are not really equivalent, but I can understand how someone might get that impression. *European* feudalism at the *village* level was essentially socialistic in organization. Of course that is not true of other feudalistic cultures, so there is no real relationship. > >On to the main topic: > In general I found this to be a well written article, however, I have a couple of questions. >You would have a stronger case if you said that the fundamental >theorems of welfare economics show that the free market, if it >fulfills certain conditions such as perfect competition, always >results in a *Pareto-optimal* outcome. But if you say this, you run >into some serious problems. > I would like to see the definition of pareto-optimal. >Second, Arrow's Theorem proves that not all social decisions can be >rationally based on individual preferences alone. Try doing it for >Condorcet's voting paradox. So inevitably someone will have to >decide, either dictatorially or through the dreaded value judgment. >You can't escape the problem of "Who decides?" by means of the free >market. > Could you state Arrow's Theorem and Condorcet's Voting Paradox? I ask because I have had little training in economics and I do not understand these terms. I would appreciate help. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/10/85)
In article <10516@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > >Damn right. An economy is either competitive or command. Feudalism and >socialism are both command economies, which means that the goodies are >passed out to political favourites. If it quacks like a duck... >> You seem to be confusing the economy of modern "communist" nations with a true socialist economy. Properly speaking socialism is based on *community* ownership of recources, and is not necessarily a "command" economy at all. In fact it may well be totally democratic(in the old sense of every member voting on every issue). Actually, the only truly successful socialist entities I know of are small, democratic communities. They exist right here in the US, as well as in Israel(If my memory serves me right). They do *not* exist in any major communist nation. It is interesting to note that the word "communist" and the word "community" are closely related. In Russia the recources are "owned" by the *state*, not the community, so I would call thier economy a *statist* economy. The same is true of the other major "communist" nations. Statism and socialism are not at all the same thing. Even feudalism is not exactly a command economy. It is based on a hierarchy of authority and rights. No one really "owns" anything, but everyone(ideally) has *rights* to some portion of the *production* from some resource, and every resource is assigned to some person or set of persons for management purposes. Higher levels have no control over the use to which the production is put by the person recieving it, they recipient is even entirely free to sell it, and often did. The result is sort of a mixture of authoritarian and free-market and even socialist economies. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/15/85)
In article <787@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <10516@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >> >>Damn right. An economy is either competitive or command. Feudalism and >>socialism are both command economies, which means that the goodies are >>passed out to political favourites. If it quacks like a duck... >>> > You seem to be confusing the economy of modern "communist" >nations with a true socialist economy. Properly speaking socialism is >based on *community* ownership of recources, and is not necessarily a >"command" economy at all. In fact it may well be totally democratic(in >the old sense of every member voting on every issue). Actually, the >only truly successful socialist entities I know of are small, >democratic communities. They exist right here in the US, as well as in >Israel(If my memory serves me right). They do *not* exist in any major >communist nation. It is interesting to note that the word "communist" >and the word "community" are closely related. You mean the Israeli kibbutzim. The difference there is that the individuals in a kibbutz have pooled their marbles voluntarily, and people may leave the kibbutz -- in general, taking stuff with them. In true socialism, you're there for life, and if you manage to leave you get the shirt on your back. Anyway, "community" ownership is a myth. In practice, as well you know, one person or a small group of people control the use of any given resource. This is certainly true in any entity of substantial size. Hence that person or small group owns the resource, and can dole it out as they see fit: they command the resource, and, human nature being what it is, dole it out to their buddies. > In Russia the recources are "owned" by the *state*, not the >community, so I would call thier economy a *statist* economy. The same >is true of the other major "communist" nations. Statism and socialism >are not at all the same thing. Humph. All right, show me a socialist, non-statist society. > Even feudalism is not exactly a command economy. It is based >on a hierarchy of authority and rights. No one really "owns" anything, >but everyone(ideally) has *rights* to some portion of the *production* >from some resource, and every resource is assigned to some person or >set of persons for management purposes. Higher levels have no control >over the use to which the production is put by the person recieving >it, they recipient is even entirely free to sell it, and often did. >The result is sort of a mixture of authoritarian and free-market and >even socialist economies. >-- And how are the rights enforced? In any real situation, the person that receives a good from the "higher levels" does so not once but many times -- and that means that the "higher levels" can cut off his flow any time. This gives the "higher levels" considerable authority over the blokes at the bottom of the ladder. "Yes, Comrade, everything is ours, but nothing is mine". -- Rick. > > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > >UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen >ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/22/85)
In article <10659@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >> ... In fact it may well be totally democratic(in >>the old sense of every member voting on every issue). Actually, the >>only truly successful socialist entities I know of are small, >>democratic communities. They exist right here in the US, as well as in >>Israel(If my memory serves me right). They do *not* exist in any major >>communist nation. It is interesting to note that the word "communist" >>and the word "community" are closely related. > >You mean the Israeli kibbutzim. The difference there is that the individuals >in a kibbutz have pooled their marbles voluntarily, and people may leave >the kibbutz -- in general, taking stuff with them. Yes, I mean the kibbutzim. And it is the voluntary nature of these communities that was a large part of my point. As far as I can see the only successful socialist economies are *voluntary* ones! I believe it is the attempt to make socialism *required* that has turned all larger scale attempts at socialism into statism. > >In true socialism, you're there for life, and if you manage to leave you >get the shirt on your back. Anyway, "community" ownership is a myth. In >practice, as well you know, one person or a small group of people control >the use of any given resource. Except in a small group, where group ownership is possible. > >Humph. All right, show me a socialist, non-statist society. Ther aren't any above the size of an individual community. The kibbutzim are one example, American religious communes are another(and some of them do *not* allow you to retrieve your goods when you leave). > <In response to some stuff about feudalism> > >And how are the rights enforced? In any real situation, the person that >receives a good from the "higher levels" does so not once but many times -- >and that means that the "higher levels" can cut off his flow any time. This >gives the "higher levels" considerable authority over the blokes at the bottom >of the ladder. "Yes, Comrade, everything is ours, but nothing is mine". > I agree, this often happens in practice. That is why I used the word "ideally" in my description. But there were methods of enforcement in many cases. In England there were Moots and Grand Juries, which were essentially independent of seignoral authority and which actually adjudicated most disputes. Also tradition was of far greater importance in European medieval society, providing considerable restraint on action(rather like peer pressure today). Then there was the Church, which did insist upon honoring agreements and respect of rights. Of course I prefer a more explicit set of checks on authority, and a more flexible method of assigning rights. That is why I live in the US. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker) (10/28/85)
A socialist economy must be a command economy. Saying the community owns
something solves nothing. Everything is scarce. Things must be
allocated. There must be a decision making process. The market uses
individual ownership and decision making. A socialist economy uses
collective ownership and collective decision making. The decision making
power must be vested in a few if the population involved is of any size.
Once they have this power (the power of ownership) then they turn around
and pursue their own ends. Why should they care about the ends of the
weak? With individual ownership and decision making the little guy has a
chance of his own ends being persued since he has some decision making
power that comes with ownership (or for the poor, the hope of gaining such
power). Even if we assume that the power elite care about the ends of the
people (ignoring all of history, a vast testament of man's callousness
toward his fellow man) they could not know or pursue them as well the
individual himself. Imagine a small group of men trying to make *ALL* of
the economic decisions of daily life for a population of just thousands
(let alone billions). How are they to know if I want to snack on jelly
beans, run off to this or that movie, or buy some jeans. Even if you
break the population down into small groups so that the decision makers
are closer to the people, you are only approaching the ideal of giving
each individual this power for himself (an ideal that requires private
property).
--
Michael D. Walker (Mike)
Arpa: walker@oberon.ARPA
Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker
{several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker