[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by Adam C)
I'm fairly sure that this isn't true. Do you have a source?

I'm afraid I didn't phrase that well. The UK birth rate is below the replacement rate, is what I meant to say. I can give you sources for that, but they're not hard to find.

UK Birth Rate: 1.96
UK Replacement Rate: c. 2.075

[Drapetomanic]

(Original post by snozzle)
....and what is better about the 'will of the majority' dictating economic decisions rather than capital owners constrained by the market?

A majority is equally capable of making bad decisions, or worse making decisions which exploit a minority. In your system a minority will always be overruled since consensus on what 'investments' to make will never be possible. If that minority refuse to go along with the majority what is their fate exactly? Force? It's the only logical answer.

First of all, basing a system of investment around the optimism or "animal spirits" of rich individuals is dangerous and chaotic. Having specialised bankers who are accountable to the public, making decisions would be much more logical and stable.

In terms of 'forceful overruling of the minority'; you're saying a system in which the majority dictates investment choices, is worse than a system that consists of a minority dictating investment regardless of what a majority actually want, based on the minority's personal confidence in an inflationary-recessionary market? How ridiculous.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
First of all, basing a system of investment around the optimism or "animal spirits" of rich individuals is dangerous and chaotic. Having specialised bankers who are accountable to the public, making decisions would be much more logical and stable.

That's just a prejudice and not born out by either facts or reasonable theory.

The 'animal spirits' you deride do not have unlimited freedom of action because they are confined to control their own Capital in a market where the price mechanism constraints and directs decisions by the 'hidden hand'. So long as your 'animal spirits' are prevented from achieving monopoly this is so.

You want to give all economic power to the majority (or at least those who claim to represent them) and by extension this incudes political power something that the Capitalist does not necessary have over and above anyone else. It is a concentration of power which is dangerous, to paraphrase Lord Acton "power corrupts". Not only that but there is nothing to stop the 'majority will' making awful economic decisions or making decisions which will oppress a minority, in fact in a planned economy the latter is a necessity since consensus is never possible.

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
In terms of 'forceful overruling of the minority'; you're saying a system in which the majority dictates investment choices, is worse than a system that consists of a minority dictating investment regardless of what a majority actually want, based on the minority's personal confidence in an inflationary-recessionary market? How ridiculous.

A minority aren't dictating investment/decisions unless they form a cartel/monopoly. You just have a multitude of economic agents responding to price signals. It's disseminated economic power and impersonal. The price mechanism actually signals what people want much better than any planning body could ever.

[Drapetomanic]

(Original post by snozzle)
That's just a prejudice and not born out by either facts or reasonable theory.

The 'animal spirits' you deride do not have unlimited freedom of action because they are confined to control their own Capital in a market where the price mechanism constraints and directs decisions by the 'hidden hand'. So long as your 'animal spirits' are prevented from achieving monopoly this is so.

You want to give all economic power to the majority (or at least those who claim to represent them) and by extension this incudes political power something that the Capitalist does not necessary have over and above anyone else. It is a concentration of power which is dangerous, to paraphrase Lord Acton "power corrupts". Not only that but there is nothing to stop the 'majority will' making awful economic decisions or making decisions which will oppress a minority, in fact in a planned economy the latter is a necessity since consensus is never possible.



A minority aren't dictating investment/decisions unless they form a cartel/monopoly. You just have a multitude of economic agents responding to price signals. It's disseminated economic power and impersonal. The price mechanism actually signals what people want much better than any planning body could ever.

Have you even read anything I've posted? You see the word 'planning' and spew a load of scripted anti-socialist nonsense. I don't want the whole economy to be planned and I want to keep the pricing mechanism!

What I want changed is our chaotic system of investment that propagates crisis whenever markets fall. Instead of investment funds generated from the savings of rich individuals investing directly or investment bankers using their savings, we'd have a system of public banks, with funds generated from a capital assets tax, that would be the basis of investment. This would be much more transparent, simple and eliminate the damage caused by investors 'losing confidence' in the market.

This, accompanied with an a system of democratically ran firms would make for a more stable and egalitarian economy.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
Have you even read anything I've posted? You see the word 'planning' and spew a load of scripted anti-socialist nonsense. I don't want the whole economy to be planned and I want to keep the pricing mechanism!

What I want changed is our chaotic system of investment that propagates crisis whenever markets fall. Instead of investment funds generated from the savings of rich individuals investing directly or investment bankers using their savings, we'd have a system of public banks, with funds generated from a capital assets tax, that would be the basis of investment. This would be much more transparent, simple and eliminate the damage caused by investors 'losing confidence' in the market.

This, accompanied with an a system of democratically ran firms would make for a more stable and egalitarian economy.

Any economic decisions making which ultimately rests (or claims to rest) on the 'majority will' can only be planning, despite the spin you choose to give it.

You can't have a system which responds to both a price mechanism and 'majority will', since in a conflict the 'majority will' must prevail hence the 'majority will' is sovereign and the price mechanism is something incidental.

And that is even before we start talking about how your Banks (planning bodies) are supposed to be made 'accountable' to the 'majority will', and the scope these planning bodies have to 'buy' support, or use propaganda, the real oppressive decisions they can make, and how people's live would be dictated by them, how the 'majority will' can be hopelessly abused, how the minority can be completely negated.

[Drapetomanic]

(Original post by snozzle)
Any economic decisions making which ultimately rests (or claims to rest) on the 'majority will' can only be planning, despite the spin you choose to give it.

You can't have a system which responds to both a price mechanism and 'majority will', since in a conflict the 'majority will' must prevail hence the 'majority will' is sovereign and the price mechanism is something incidental.

And that is even before we start talking about how your Banks (planning bodies) are supposed to be made 'accountable' to the 'majority will', and the scope these planning bodies have to 'buy' support, or use propaganda, the real oppressive decisions they can make, and how people's live would be dictated by them, how the 'majority will' can be hopelessly abused, how the minority can be completely negated.

You seem to be forgetting that I'm only advocating a form of 'planning' for new investments, that's around 10 -15% GDP. Let's forget about 'planning', for the moment. You could theoretically set up investment so that it responds purely to the market.

You'd set up public banks in different regions and direct the funds (generated from the capital assets tax) towards these banks on a per-capita basis. Banks within regions would compete i.e. charge more than the base rate interest (adjusted to the risk) and balance riskiness of their loans against the interest rates they charge, just like they do now.

Banking works just like today, except the economy doesn't depend on the savings and optimism of rich people. We'd eliminate the capitalist class by introducing democratically owned firms, thus raising the majority's wealth and quality of life.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
You seem to be forgetting that I'm only advocating a form of 'planning' for new investments, that's around 10 -15% GDP. Let's forget about 'planning', for the moment. You could theoretically set up investment so that it responds purely to the market.

You'd set up public banks in different regions and direct the funds (generated from the capital assets tax) towards these banks on a per-capita basis. Banks within regions would compete i.e. charge more than the base rate interest (adjusted to the risk) and balance riskiness of their loans against the interest rates they charge, just like they do now.

Banking works just like today, except the economy doesn't depend on the savings and optimism of rich people. We'd eliminate the capitalist class by introducing democratically owned firms, thus raising the majority's wealth and quality of life.

I can think of several criticism of that, for example:

If the banks are owned (whatever that actually means) by the people and accountable to the people why should the people not demand the relaxation of credit rules and demand the banks basically send a load of bad credit there way, or make some other bad economic decision that the people want for some emotional or selfish reason? How can the banks then demand repayment from the people who the banks are apparently completely accountable to?

This leads on to a question about incentive - what is the incentive for the banks if they are not making money for themselves?

Not all private enterprise is funded by credit. Will you ban individuals or groups of individuals setting up business' funded by cash? Would they be 'forced' to be 'democratically accountable'? (I assume you mean worker 'owned'?)...if so this basically completely decentives entrepreneurship, and that goes for the most part for entrepreneurship funded by credit unless you have some native idea about human nature.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
You seem to be forgetting that I'm only advocating a form of 'planning' for new investments, that's around 10 -15% GDP. Let's forget about 'planning', for the moment. You could theoretically set up investment so that it responds purely to the market.

You'd set up public banks in different regions and direct the funds (generated from the capital assets tax) towards these banks on a per-capita basis. Banks within regions would compete i.e. charge more than the base rate interest (adjusted to the risk) and balance riskiness of their loans against the interest rates they charge, just like they do now.

Banking works just like today, except the economy doesn't depend on the savings and optimism of rich people. We'd eliminate the capitalist class by introducing democratically owned firms, thus raising the majority's wealth and quality of life.

Heh, who would ever want to work for the public? Crap pay, treated like crap, no job security, unrealistic expectations. Nah, the best will just move abroad.

[Drapetomanic]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Heh, who would ever want to work for the public? Crap pay, treated like crap, no job security, unrealistic expectations. Nah, the best will just move abroad.

The whole system of economic democracy falls down because the best bankers wouldn't be paid millions?

You have to factor in that some people aren't motivated purely by money. Obviously it's a massive factor, and the best bankers would be rewarded for being successful. However, you have to consider that some people might actually want to provide a useful service in an egalitarian, wealthy and stable economy.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
The whole system of economic democracy falls down because the best bankers wouldn't be paid millions?

You have to factor in that some people aren't motivated purely by money. Obviously it's a massive factor, and the best bankers would be rewarded for being successful. However, you have to consider that some people might actually want to provide a useful service in an egalitarian, wealthy and stable economy.

Some..hardly a wide enough range to get a good selection of candidates.

[zedeneye1]

I support glorious union...

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
You have to factor in that some people aren't motivated purely by money. Obviously it's a massive factor, and the best bankers would be rewarded for being successful. However, you have to consider that some people might actually want to provide a useful service in an egalitarian, wealthy and stable economy.

One of the most fascinating paradoxes of the socialists is how often they claim that money is not important to people. And that money does not make people happy. And how people are motivated to work by more than money. And other such half truths.

However in reality, all socialists really ever seem to care about is money. Their sole concern is distributing money (wealth) towards what they think is a just distribution.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Drapetomanic)
Banking works just like today, except the economy doesn't depend on the savings and optimism of rich people. We'd eliminate the capitalist class by introducing democratically owned firms, thus raising the majority's wealth and quality of life.

I am pretty sure you do not have a clue how banks actually work.

[Oswy]

(Original post by snozzle)
Even if that is true we can still distinguish between utopian social engineering and piecemeal social engineering.

Anyway I would suggest that for something to be called 'social engineering' means it is a method or means consciously selected according to some kind of 'social science' and in accordance to the desired ends. Laws etc in primitive society were seen as natural forces, we are talking about taboo, totemism etc. To have a 'science' of law-making implies one is aware that laws are man made. It seems most likely that in primitive society and even later theistic societies nobody thought like that, so nobody would think "I think society should be like this so let's invent a new taboo to make it so". It was just not possible to view society from without as an Observer until probably the Greeks and the likes of Plato.

Again, I think you're tying yourself up in arbitrary divisions in order to (presumably) characterise socialism negatively as 'utopian' and/or 'social engineering' in contrast to political arrangements you have less beef with - identifying them as 'piecemeal', 'organic' or 'natural'.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Oswy)
Again, I think you're tying yourself up in arbitrary divisions in order to (presumably) characterise socialism negatively as 'utopian' and/or 'social engineering' in contrast to political arrangements you have less beef with - identifying them as 'piecemeal', 'organic' or 'natural'.

No I never said 'natural'.

Every social institution is man made, I reject any 'naturalist' explanation, but that does not mean that they were socially engineered.

Social engineering would be the scientific/rational planning of social institutions according to some desired ends, but note that the ends need not necessarily be 'reasonable' or 'rational' in themselves.

In opposition to this you could have social institutions created at random, or in ad hoc ways, or for religious reasons, or as ends in themselves.

[wilson_smith]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
One of the most fascinating paradoxes of the socialists is how often they claim that money is not important to people. And that money does not make people happy. And how people are motivated to work by more than money. And other such half truths.

However in reality, all socialists really ever seem to care about is money. Their sole concern is distributing money (wealth) towards what they think is a just distribution.

This seems subject to a quite common mistake; money isn't intrinsically valuable and doesn't inherently confer anything (happiness, extrinsic motivation, apples), it is a means to an end. What people value is what money can usually be translated into - material possessions and substantive liberties etc.

Few would deny, I think, that these dominant ends are unimportant - though money and the material possessions usually associated with their expenditure are only one primary good among many, and not necessarily the most important.

[Oswy]

(Original post by snozzle)
No I never said 'natural'.

Every social institution is man made, I reject any 'naturalist' explanation, but that does not mean that they were socially engineered.

Social engineering would be the scientific/rational planning of social institutions according to some desired ends, but note that the ends need not necessarily be 'reasonable' or 'rational' in themselves.

In opposition to this you could have social institutions created at random, or in ad hoc ways, or for religious reasons, or as ends in themselves.

But you're still trying to arbitrarily define 'social engineering' to fit your agenda.

Political and economic organisation which has used religion, for example, to promote obedience and acceptance of any given arrangements, easily amounts to 'social engineering' by any reasonable standards, i.e. religious doctrine or justifications for such arrangements 'engineer' the way social life is organised and can be lived, through such things as ideological indoctrination, religious taboos or laws - and this is whether or not appeals to 'God's will' or holy books have 'scientific' or 'rational' force of themselves.

I reject the idea that any social arrangements are 'created at random'.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Oswy)
But you're still trying to arbitrarily define 'social engineering' to fit your agenda.

Political and economic organisation which has used religion, for example, to promote obedience and acceptance of any given arrangements, easily amounts to 'social engineering' by any reasonable standards, i.e. religious doctrine or justifications for such arrangements 'engineer' the way social life is organised and can be lived, through such things as ideological indoctrination, religious taboos or laws - and this is whether or not appeals to 'God's will' or holy books have 'scientific' or 'rational' force of themselves.

I reject the idea that any social arrangements are 'created at random'.

I think you are coming at this from a vulgar Marxist POV where you believe the ruling class consciously create the law and political system to advantage themselves, but can you tell me where Marx said any such thing? Marx's theory of history had very little place for the sovereignty or autonomy of ideas, the current mode of production being purely a result of the resolution of class conflict in the previous epoch. This isn't ideas creating relations of production but the material basis of our existence creating them or necessitating them. I seem to remember something that Marx said about the futility of social engineering but I can't remember what.

Religion might mold or shape social life but it's not 'engineering' unless rationally planned using scientific methods.

[Oswy]

(Original post by snozzle)
I think you are coming at this from a vulgar Marxist POV where you believe the ruling class consciously create the law and political system to advantage themselves, but can you tell me where Marx said any such thing? Marx's theory of history had very little place for the sovereignty or autonomy of ideas, the current mode of production being purely a result of the resolution of class conflict in the previous epoch. This isn't ideas creating relations of production but the material basis of our existence creating them or necessitating them. I seem to remember something that Marx said about the futility of social engineering but I can't remember what.

Religion might mold or shape social life but it's not 'engineering' unless rationally planned using scientific methods.

The 'vulgar Maxism' criticism is actually aimed at those Marxists who appear to offer an unjustifiably 'fixed' or mechanical relationship between material conditions and ideology - with the latter (ideology) being generated by the former (material conditions). So you've kinda got that the wrong way around. Nevertheless, all Marxists, including Marx, understand that it is not consciousness which determines our material existence but our material existence which determines our consciousness.

Obviously you want 'social engineering' to mean something very specific which suits your aims but I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that religion has been, and continues to be, used by political and social elites to engineer social behaviour across society more widely. And Marx said plenty about how the ruling classes used ideology to defend and enhance their material advantages over those they ruled, that point is actually a pretty major one in Marxism generally.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Oswy)
The 'vulgar Maxism' criticism is actually aimed at those Marxists who appear to offer an unjustifiably 'fixed' or mechanical relationship between material conditions and ideology - with the latter (ideology) being generated by the former (material conditions). So you've kinda got that the wrong way around. Nevertheless, all Marxists, including Marx, understand that it is not consciousness which determines our material existence but our material existence which determines our consciousness.

I believe you have basically contradicted yourself there.

As I understand it 'vulgar marxism' turns Marx's scientific theory of history into a history of morals, so instead - as Marx said - the ruling class are compeled to impersonally exploit the other classes by virtue of the mode of production, it is turned into a narrative where the ruling class are especially evil, or bad, or greedy, and thus the have-nots are justified in overthrowing the ruling class by virtue of their more virtuous morality and values. In some cases it is enough that the have-nots are just have-nots and this justified them, say in the case of anti-Imperialism and nativism.

(Original post by Oswy)
Obviously you want 'social engineering' to mean something very specific which suits your aims but I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that religion has been, and continues to be, used by political and social elites to engineer social behaviour across society more widely. And Marx said plenty about how the ruling classes used ideology to defend and enhance their material advantages over those they ruled, that point is actually a pretty major one in Marxism generally.

No I don't believe that is so. That would imply that religious elites kind of all sat around a table and dreamed up ways to justify/perpetuate material exploitation by religious means. This would be vulgar Marxism because it introduces the personal/moral element as paramount, and forgets that Marxism is supposed to be 'scientific socialism' as so the personal element is minimal or non-existant; we're all caught in the web of material existence and class relationships, we don't create them, they create us.