Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    Markets can be directed.... its a tool not a dictator.
    The direction of markets via the government has always failed.

    http://jim.com/econ/chap17p1.html
    http://jim.com/econ/chap16p1.html
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of discussions about Communism seem to assume it's an idea to be implemented, an order imposed on reality.

    It's, erm, not
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Regardless of the Calculation problem;

    In any case, military planning is hardly an excellent way to run a civilian country. Firstly the first purpose of any military is combat and so resources are directed to ends where the outcome of their production is not known; i.e. if I divert 20 aircraft I am unsure of how many will return from a sortie: if I divert 20 tons of steel I know they can be used to produce X cars.

    The aim of any economic policy is economic welfare; we can hardly say that military planning has these values in mind. Everywhere in military planning the minimum must be used to achieve the maximum and although this mirrors the marketplace in some ways, in others it does not. The minimum resources must be allocated to achieve the maximum human output - i.e. if humans can be demanded to do more and use less then that is an efficient use of resources. While this is true in any circumstance it also leads to miserable living conditions. The living conditions endured by the services especially while on duty are not anywhere near those that civilians in the free market. The aim of the marketplace is maximum resources for minimum input - not minimum input for maximum resources.

    Thirdly there is a rigid chain of command in military planning that is not necessarily useful to apply to a market situation. The fact that individual firms generate their own management organisation is a testament to the idea that for some methods of production, some methods of management of superior. How it is intended that a system of military planning could emulate this is unknown to me. Of course in certain branches there are different ranks with different objectives, but in our military there are few branches for few purposes; in the marketplace, many industries, for many purposes. The central planning board of a militarily planned economy would be unable to cope with the quantity of planning necessary.
    I can barely understand the last paragraph, but as far as the one before that is concerned.... so what if they have different objectives? Doesnt stop the military subjugating market forces for its own ends here applicable. It is certainly not irreconcilable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    I can barely understand the last paragraph, but as far as the one before that is concerned.... so what if they have different objectives? Doesnt stop the military subjugating market forces for its own ends here applicable. It is certainly not irreconcilable.
    Yes it is. It is impossible to direct markets for an objective purpose. The result is shortages, overproduction, malinvestment, misallocation of resources - never before in history has a Government successfuly distorted a market to achieve its intended aims without side-effects that are equally as bad or worse as the original problem.

    Incidentally, it's your task to prove that Government intervention works - not mine.Insofar all you have said is "the military can subjugate/direct market forces" - you haven't explained how or given any ideas. You can't just go "here's my idea, disprove it" and then repeat your idea when faced with the facts - you actually have to give solid evidence for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    The direction of markets via the government has always failed.

    http://jim.com/econ/chap17p1.html
    http://jim.com/econ/chap16p1.html
    That doesn't mean it will always fail, especially after changes have been made. However it is untrue to say it always fails, taxation to stop the use to harmful things have had some positive effect, the banning of certain things have also been effective - though I admit not absolutely so, but nothing really is.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    That doesn't mean it will always fail, especially after changes have been made. However it is untrue to say it always fails, taxation to stop the use to harmful things have had some positive effect, the banning of certain things have also been effective - though I admit not absolutely so, but nothing really is.
    How is that relevant to military planning? Isn't military planning the direction of production and not consumption?

    But yes, I will concede that taxation to reduce consumption has worked. Any other examples?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If you're going to bash any idea stated here, then why bother making a discussion thread?

    It's my belief that a democratic system does not put the best people into power - in fact, I think that some of the people that are most likely to seek power and the ones that should not have it. Just because a lot, or even most people believe something does not make it right, or even sensible.

    It makes sense therefore, to have positions of leadership filled by those who are arbitrarily mentally, psychologically and physically fit for the job - the best people for the job in fact. Of course, this sort of idealised political system is far beyond us today, both in terms of political and technological evolution, but it's something to think about.

    Have you read any of the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunderX)
    If you're going to bash any idea stated here, then why bother making a discussion thread?

    It's my belief that a democratic system does not put the best people into power - in fact, I think that some of the people that are most likely to seek power and the ones that should not have it. Just because a lot, or even most people believe something does not make it right, or even sensible.

    It makes sense therefore, to have positions of leadership filled by those who are arbitrarily mentally, psychologically and physically fit for the job - the best people for the job in fact. Of course, this sort of idealised political system is far beyond us today, both in terms of political and technological evolution, but it's something to think about.

    Have you read any of the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card?
    If power cannot be trusted to the most representative method of power, i.e., democracy - then isn't that an argument for the abolition of power and not actually furthering power by making it even more arbitrary than it already is?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Yes it is. It is impossible to direct markets for an objective purpose. The result is shortages, overproduction, malinvestment, misallocation of resources - never before in history has a Government successfuly distorted a market to achieve its intended aims without side-effects that are equally as bad or worse as the original problem.

    Incidentally, it's your task to prove that Government intervention works - not mine.Insofar all you have said is "the military can subjugate/direct market forces" - you haven't explained how or given any ideas. You can't just go "here's my idea, disprove it" and then repeat your idea when faced with the facts - you actually have to give solid evidence for it.
    I started this thread saying that I am of the opposing veiw but wish to find a logical reason why not, so I am playing the role of the anatgonist.

    shortages, overproduction, malinvestment, misallocation of resources - never before in history has a Government successfuly distorted a market to achieve its intended aims without side-effects that are equally as bad or worse as the original problem.

    those are not examples of government giving markets direction, it is just planning. Governments giving markets direction is deciding on a project and allowing private individuals compete for the contract, rather than allowing a large government body do it. The example of harnessing the power of the market is common is american and many other countries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunderX)
    If you're going to bash any idea stated here, then why bother making a discussion thread?

    It's my belief that a democratic system does not put the best people into power - in fact, I think that some of the people that are most likely to seek power and the ones that should not have it. Just because a lot, or even most people believe something does not make it right, or even sensible.

    It makes sense therefore, to have positions of leadership filled by those who are arbitrarily mentally, psychologically and physically fit for the job - the best people for the job in fact. Of course, this sort of idealised political system is far beyond us today, both in terms of political and technological evolution, but it's something to think about.

    Have you read any of the Ender's Game series by Orson Scott Card?

    sorry for being harsh with my criticism. I agree in principle with your point; my dispute is with The Republic and all that nonesense about cyclical mating, and shared sexual partners whithin this super-breed of humans that is simply impractical in so many ways. In any case it is an issue for a different thread. No I havent read it, why?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    Despite being an informed free marketer, I am struggling to refute the analogy that because the efficiency of the military arises from its coordination and discipline within ranks, so as a consequence a planned economy will be the more efficient at reaching its ends. If this holds to scrutiny; then an amalgamation of communist centred direction, and competition (used to define the end), might be the best political form. Can you find a flaw?
    The military has specific objectives, economy has only one direction, get bigger. The price of the civil servants neccessary to run this would hinder that goal. What's more simply saying they are the same is not enough either, you must justify why they are comparable.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.