Human wants?

[MtnBiker]

Do the wants of humans exceed the means to satisfy those wants?

If so what is the best way to resolve the limited means?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Nature has ways of working this kink out. It's not usually pretty.

[MtnBiker]

Is the mechanism of markets a process of nature? A violence resolution could be considered a process of nature, but government handouts are not.

[Hobbit]

Do the wants of humans exceed the means to satisfy those wants?

Yes


If so what is the best way to resolve the limited means?

If you can definitively solve that, you can get a Nobel Prize. It even has its own category, called 'economics.'

[darin]

Self discipline is the key. Instead of a focus on what we want, we should focus on how we can help others. :)

[glockmail]

Do the wants of humans exceed the means to satisfy those wants?

If so what is the best way to resolve the limited means? Capitalism.

[Hagbard Celine]

Do the wants of humans exceed the means to satisfy those wants?

If so what is the best way to resolve the limited means?

We need bigger Costcos! Then there will be plenty of stuff for everybody!

[MtnBiker]

We need bigger Costcos! Then there will be plenty of stuff for everybody!

Are human wants only obtained through the exchange of capital goods?

[glockmail]

Are human wants only obtained through the exchange of capital goods?
No. I want to live in freedom but muzzies want world domination. The two goals are mutually exclusive.

[Joe Steel]

Do the wants of humans exceed the means to satisfy those wants?

If so what is the best way to resolve the limited means?

Humanity is taxing the means of nature to supply our wants and needs. Eventually, we'll have to implement a system of rational allocation to equitably distribute our scarce resources.

[MtnBiker]

Humanity is taxing the means of nature to supply our wants and needs. Eventually, we'll have to implement a system of rational allocation to equitably distribute our scarce resources.

Government fiat? Sounds like you are for a communist system.

[glockmail]

Humanity is taxing the means of nature to supply our wants and needs. Eventually, we'll have to implement a system of rational allocation to equitably distribute our scarce resources. Which resources are scarce that can't be substitued for others? :poke:

[Joe Steel]

Government fiat? Sounds like you are for a communist system.

While I regard socialism as the only hope for mankind, I am not nor have I ever been a communist nor have I ever lived in a communist system.

[Joe Steel]

Which resources are scarce that can't be substitued for others? :poke:

"Scarce resources" is a term of art used to emphasize the finite nature of all resources. Some substitution is possible now but eventually substitutions will fail to solve our problems.

[Mr. P]

Humanity is taxing the means of nature to supply our wants and needs. Eventually, we'll have to implement a system of rational allocation to equitably distribute our scarce resources.

You wish for socialism, huh?

[Hagbard Celine]

Humanity is taxing the means of nature to supply our wants and needs. Eventually, we'll have to implement a system of rational allocation to equitably distribute our scarce resources.

I think you're right, but I also think this is centur(ies) off. We could do a lot now to prevent this kind of future. Our descendants will curse us I think.

[Joe Steel]

You wish for socialism, huh?

Only by embracing socialism will humanity be able to avoid the resource wars made inevitable by the institutionalized greed of capitalism.

[Joe Steel]

I think you're right, but I also think this is centur(ies) off. We could do a lot now to prevent this kind of future. Our descendants will curse us I think.

It may not happen anytime soon but I don't think its centuries off. By eliminating disease and destoying the environment, we're increasing the population and destroying the planet's capacity to provide for it. We can see the evidence everyday in the news.

[MtnBiker]

Only by embracing socialism will humanity be able to avoid the resource wars made inevitable by the institutionalized greed of capitalism.

How will a socialist government decide who gets what? BTW it would need to be a global government considering resources are found globally.

[MtnBiker]

"Scarce resources" is a term of art used to emphasize the finite nature of all resources. Some substitution is possible now but eventually substitutions will fail to solve our problems.

Site a specific example.

[diuretic]

How will a socialist government decide who gets what? BTW it would need to be a global government considering resources are found globally.

The old command economy under communist theory hasn't worked in practice. A form of market socialism has been theorised by the late TR Young


MARKET SOCIALISM: Given the failures of central planning and the socialization of all three factors of production in the USSR and elsewhere, there has been a renewed interest in a form of socialism which allows a limited market in capital as well as goods and services. Labor is excluded from free market dynamics in that work is essential not only for buying things but for its social psychological benefits mentioned above.

There are some interesting versions of market socialism around. In the USA, John Roemer and Dave Schweickart are drawing the most interest. References below. The Radical Philosophy Association recently sponsored a Symposium on the work of Schweickart. The highlights of the Schweikart plan are:

All firms above a given size would be funded by the state. This socializes capital to some extent. Size is also not speciified. Some say firms with 20 or fewer workers can be privatized; some say 300 workers...very important question since those workers have no reliable connection to either production or distribution of essential goods. And exploit- ation...a nasty word in marxian theory...can still occur.

Each firm would pay a use tax on the monies provided by the state. This is really a standardized form of interest. lots of problems when the state sets interests rates; more when banking cartels do so.

Each firm would be worker managed. There are lots of advan- tages to worker owned and operated firms; higher quality, less waste, better maintenance, less worker turn-over or absenteeism and higher profits.
A problem arises since solidarity begins and ends within the shop, plant, mill, store or factory. Customers and competing worker-owned firms become class enemy.

Each firm would buy and sell its products/services on the market.
Thus both capital and labor is, to great extent, socialized, but goods and services still commodified. Those who do not cannot work are thus excluded from life's necessities. And a free market in some goods/services might still degrade.

Each firm would set aside funds to replace/rebuild/expand.

Why would workers decide to reduce income now for future productive capacity??? Good question...the state would have to monitor such reserve funds...lots of problems accrue.

Of the net income left after use tax and set-asides, workers would decide how to share out the rest.

Lots of room for jealousy, politicking, connivance and such but it is their problem not that of the capitalist or the state.

There remains lots of problems to be worked out about just what should be socialized; how much labor, capital, and goods should be freed to market dynamics; how would collective/community needs/goods be met [roads, schools, police, fire protection and such].

There remains a tension between democracy, social justice, and individual liberties not well resolved...perhaps unresolvable. There is always the problem of corruption in state and private sectors.

But as Michael Howard/UMaine said in his critique of Schweickart, his form of market socialism is democratic, it's feminist, it's green, it's pro-labor and it's a lot more democratic than wage labor.

http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/RED_FEATHER/lectures/027MarketSocialism.htm

As an idea it's worth a look at.

[Mr. P]

Only by embracing socialism will humanity be able to avoid the resource wars made inevitable by the institutionalized greed of capitalism.

Embracing something that fails? Good idea. :slap:

[Little-Acorn]

While I regard socialism as the only hope for mankind, I am not nor have I ever been a communist nor have I ever lived in a communist system.

Most people who believe socialism is the only hope for mankind, or indeed that socialism works at all, have never been a communist nor ever lived in a communist system. If they had, they'd know better.

As Reagan once said, "A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."

[diuretic]

No comments on Young's idea of "market socialism"? Do you think it could work?

[Hagbard Celine]

Embracing something that fails? Good idea. :slap:

It doesn't fail. We live in a quasi-socialist system now (social security? welfare? government bailouts of corporations?), not to mention the numerous European countries who use a semi-socialist system. The European economy is flourishing by the way. The euro, not to mention the British pound, is valued higher than the dollar.

[Mr. P]

No comments on Young's idea of "market socialism"? Do you think it could work?

Nope. Not in a free society it won't.

[Mr. P]

It doesn't fail. We live in a quasi-socialist system now (social security? welfare? government bailouts of corporations?), not to mention the numerous European countries who use a semi-socialist system. The European economy is flourishing by the way. The euro, not to mention the British pound, is valued higher than the dollar.

Yeah and they're supper worldwide economic powers too..right?
Not. They'll fail give em time. Socialism just doesn't work.

[Fountainhead]

I completely agree.

It is really-really WRONG for Brazilians to chop-down the rain-forest so they can plant sugar cane to create ethanol fuel for their cars.

Then ... proceed to become the worlds leading deep-water off-shore oil drilling nation ... but SELL the oil to fund more chopping-down of rain-forests

Because their cars run clean

[glockmail]

"Scarce resources" is a term of art used to emphasize the finite nature of all resources. Some substitution is possible now but eventually substitutions will fail to solve our problems.

"Term of art"? WTF?

Name one resource that can't be substituted or recycled. I can only think of one.

[glockmail]

Only by embracing socialism will humanity be able to avoid the resource wars made inevitable by the institutionalized greed of capitalism.
Ahh... a commie. No wonder you have no understanding of modern economics.

[Joe Steel]

Site a specific example.

Of a finite resource?

Oil.

[Joe Steel]

How will a socialist government decide who gets what? BTW it would need to be a global government considering resources are found globally.

Pretty much like the governments of Western Europe do things. They're not socialist but they're close.

They can create national health care, for instance, to replace rationing by price with rationing according to need.

[Joe Steel]

Most people who believe socialism is the only hope for mankind, or indeed that socialism works at all, have never been a communist nor ever lived in a communist system. If they had, they'd know better.

As Reagan once said, "A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."

Here's your problem: "(a)s Reagan once said ..."

Who cares what Reagan said.

[Joe Steel]

"Term of art"? WTF?

Name one resource that can't be substituted or recycled. I can only think of one.

We can substitute ethanol for gasoline but eventually we won't be able to make enough ethanol to fill the need.

[Fountainhead]

The finite resource that I want my local politbureau chief to procure for me is ...

FRONT ROW TICKETS - TO THURSDAY'S WARRIORS PLAYOFF GAME

These tickets are so finite that they are selling for upwards of $ 2,000.00 each !!!!

Only in a rotten, disgusting, Capitalist system do we have large black men playing a game and forcing whitey to pay outrageous prices to see them

F**K Capitalism !!!

[diuretic]

Pretty much like the governments of Western Europe do things. They're not socialist but they're close.

They can create national health care, for instance, to replace rationing by price with rationing according to need.

You'll make heads explode if you try to discuss national health care.

I don't know if the potential audience here is able to grasp the fundamentals of which you speak. For instance, Young's idea of market socialism has been greeted by a "it won't work." That's the depth of analysis that you'll have to put up with. Very shallow, a variation of the "because I said so", so beloved buy authoritarians everywhere.

In the decision to regulate the use/distribution of scarce resources there is a place for market mechanisms, but that place is increasingly small. I agree that such things as health care don't lend themselves to a market mechanism. So I can see that the laissez-faire approach so beloved by free market ideologues has to give way to some forms of control. If we don't then the internal driving forces in capitalism will simply keep going until resources are exhausted.

[MtnBiker]

Of a finite resource?

Oil.

There are alternatives to oil.

[MtnBiker]

Pretty much like the governments of Western Europe do things. They're not socialist but they're close.

They can create national health care, for instance, to replace rationing by price with rationing according to need.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

[diuretic]

The finite resource that I want my local politbureau chief to procure for me is ...

FRONT ROW TICKETS - TO THURSDAY'S WARRIORS PLAYOFF GAME

These tickets are so finite that they are selling for upwards of $ 2,000.00 each !!!!

Only in a rotten, disgusting, Capitalist system do we have large black men playing a game and forcing whitey to pay outrageous prices to see them

F**K Capitalism !!!

But you don't HAVE to go. This is entertainment, so it's rightly left to free market forces.

[Fountainhead]

But you don't HAVE to go. This is entertainment, so it's rightly left to free market forces.

You mean like arts & entertainment ? neither of which are essential to my basic survival ?

You mean like the National Endowment for the Arts stealing my tax dollars and paying an "artist" to create a "work of art" called PISS CHRIST ?

Shouldn't this sort of "artistic expression" be left to free market forces ?

Why did the FASCIST religion-haters at the NEA use public funds to create this "art"

[diuretic]

You mean like arts & entertainment ? neither of which are essential to my basic survival ?

You mean like the National Endowment for the Arts stealing my tax dollars and paying an "artist" to create a "work of art" called PISS CHRIST ?

Shouldn't this sort of "artistic expression" be left to free market forces ?

Why did the FASCIST religion-haters at the NEA use public funds to create this "art"

That's right, neither arts nor entertainment are essential.

Your tax dollars are taken by the government and distributed by the government.

Subsidising of art and entertainment - why not? Big business gets welfare why shouldn't artistic expression?

You'd have to ask whoever it was who used the money on "Piss Christ". It wasn't my decision.

[Fountainhead]

That's right, neither arts nor entertainment are essential.

Your tax dollars are taken by the government and distributed by the government.

Subsidising of art and entertainment - why not? Big business gets welfare why shouldn't artistic expression?

You'd have to ask whoever it was who used the money on "Piss Christ". It wasn't my decision.

On one level, I agree with you. Big business, Big government, or Big scienci-type research grants, or BIG BIG military-industrial corporations should not be given taxpayer dollars to WASTE.

On another level ... Big business creates the jobs that FUND the taxpayer dollars that PAY for welfare.

At the most profound philisophical level ... we are ALL in this together. If all the "evil corporations" were smashed to bits ... there would be NO revenue for the coffers. The globe would look a lot like CUBA. A very very good government trained baseball team ... with NO fans who can afford to see them.

[Hobbit]

That's right, neither arts nor entertainment are essential.

Your tax dollars are taken by the government and distributed by the government.

Subsidising of art and entertainment - why not? Big business gets welfare why shouldn't artistic expression?

You'd have to ask whoever it was who used the money on "Piss Christ". It wasn't my decision.

Just look at my sig. That was 60s dollars, too.

I say we cut it all off. Go back to the original intent of the Constitution and cut federal funding off from just about everything.

[glockmail]

We can substitute ethanol for gasoline but eventually we won't be able to make enough ethanol to fill the need. My '04 Exporer is a flex fuel, and I have used ethanol. Instead of 20 mpg I get 14. You do realize that it takes 3 gallons of ethanol to make 4 don't you? That's a lot of corn that could go to feed people instead of my SUV.

Hydrogen can be made from excess electricty generated by those 500 more nuke plants that we should have built since te 1970's but don't have the political will to. I'll take that over ethanol any day.

[diuretic]

On one level, I agree with you. Big business, Big government, or Big scienci-type research grants, or BIG BIG military-industrial corporations should not be given taxpayer dollars to WASTE.

On another level ... Big business creates the jobs that FUND the taxpayer dollars that PAY for welfare.

At the most profound philisophical level ... we are ALL in this together. If all the "evil corporations" were smashed to bits ... there would be NO revenue for the coffers. The globe would look a lot like CUBA. A very very good government trained baseball team ... with NO fans who can afford to see them.

No, Cuba is suffering because of an economic embargo, it is stil in place isn't it?

If the corporations were smashed to bits something else would be in place to do what they do. Not that I'd like to see them smashed to bits of course. That's a bit destructive.

[diuretic]

Just look at my sig. That was 60s dollars, too.

I say we cut it all off. Go back to the original intent of the Constitution and cut federal funding off from just about everything.

So what would you fund?

[Hobbit]

So what would you fund?

National defense, interstate roads, law enforcement, not much else, but there's not much the Constitution actually gives the federal government the power to do.

[diuretic]

National defense, interstate roads, law enforcement, not much else, but there's not much the Constitution actually gives the federal government the power to do.

Interesting. Does your federal government (like ours) try to garner as much power/authority from the states as it can? We're a federation but I think your constitution allows your states much more independence than ours.

Our states seem to be moving into the service role now (eg law enforcement, health services, education, local roads, environment, national parks - I know, "national" for us means at the state level we don't have something as widespread as the US Parks Service and so on). Our federal govt is trying to grab as much as it can from the states using our High Court (think SCOTUS) interpretations which are giving them greater powers.

Sorry didn't mean to take this down that path. Get it back on track by all means.

[Nuc]

Which resources are scarce that can't be substitued for others? :poke:

Fish

[glockmail]

Fish... farming.