PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: [Pen-l] planning [was: Paul Davidson sums up
- To: Progressive Economics <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Pen-l] planning [was: Paul Davidson sums up
- From: Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 06:49:05 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fhSOil10s3Di676Ca9VsmEE8yFwMoFnOnE2wKZTP4Sw=; b=xrqRai5zO6hwn1ckliTG9vVqjg7wwoAJotaljeGykeqTUH+4dQORgBFlW4cDB5sgKy rkdviip/f080MI90rYy6O+AWJlyzuYDuhr0hPEC4wQsNCk3vbSNwvace8jh9DhDe6Bif cYRWO7TKqPZV5LNJLgrADeijy9XpdSWRKKQTY=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qiVfS0vOXGT9v2xh5NAGzEJsxjR799OFe2+G5C36TxsowP5CKy+/72fgXmF//eHYvm hVGUEsRUtBqZZ7uvmh0XUL5Pvb42f9+ecAIUpoZ6ZhyvtBRuSw+rjH+6iyaizeWr8gou yEOCwv7APVP9bgsNBtn5wd4reDp4VMl1s3oI4=
John Vertegaal wrote:
> FWIW, it looks like we both agree that central planning is a dead end and
> that social democracy is the way to go.
I didn't advocate any kind of social democracy. Social democracy would
involve a system of more rational management of capitalism due to
pressure from labor unions and other popular forces. It's better than
what we have now, but I didn't advocate it in my e-mail.
Instituting a not-for-profit economy would be a revolutionary change.
Of course, it is utopian at this point.
> "From each according to ability, to
> each according to deeds", I also concur with.
Charlie Andrews' system (if it works) tends toward "from each
according to ability, to each according to needs." It sees the "deeds"
criterion as transitional.
> But because we cannot sidestep
> natural elasticities between costed inputs and demand for output, and deeds
> become valued through the demand for one's output, I hold that a for-profit
> economy is by far the most effective way to deal with this situation; as
> long as it leads to an after the fact (of supply) remuneration in the form
> of profit sharing. This necessitates cost+ pricing, rather than a command
> system, at least for a substantial portion of an economy. A "tendency to
> gradually move toward a non-market communism" would be absent. But why would
> that matter in an environment where social needs are adequately taken care
> of?
This is gobbledygook, full of sound and fury but saying almost nothing.
Capitalist profit-seeking destroys people and the natural environment.
It's "effective" (efficient?) only at promoting the individual profits
of those who already own a lot of wealth. We already have a "command"
system: if it's not profitable for a powerful economic interest, it
does not happen. Those with money rule.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]