Are you in favor of a Managed Economy

[bryant69]

I.E. an economy which is directed by a centralized bureaucracy (NOT a managed capitalism). Economic decisions are made by civil servants not individual business entities (i.e. corporations).

I'll acknowledge that I'm not an economist and I might not be using this term correctly, but please use the above definition for the purposes of this poll.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mike_c]

1. not as you've described it, but I am very much in favor of some regulated economic models....

eom

[The2ndWheel]

2. I'm opposed to anything large scale

The smaller and more decentralized it is, the better.

That's not going to happen, since any economy based on competition will eventually lead to mass produced centralization.

[Turbineguy]

3. The USSR was

a managed economy. If you see a line get in it. When you find out the product being sold has no utility to you, buy it anyway. When at McDonalds get in the shorter line. The longer line is for the toilet.

Managed economy joke:

A person walks into a butchershop.
"Do you have any fish?"
"We don't have meat here, they don't have fish across the street."

[Dhalgren]

6. Capitalist joke: The wealthy eat the poor. Ha ha ha...

[bryant69]

8. Fucking pathetic

That's not even funny; it's just warmed over ideology.

Bryant

[Dhalgren]

12. Good catch...

:eyes:

[JVS]

14. Capitalist joke #2. Why wasn't the plantation owner upset about the loss of slaves?

Because he still had the capital to dictate economic terms to a pool of people who either could take the work and wages he was offering or starve.

:rofl:

[bryant69]

15. That's not funny either

Pretty sad. Ideologues don't make good comedians though.

Bryant

[JVS]

16. Sure they do, they just have to be of your own ideology

[bryant69]

20. You really find "The Wealthy eat the Poor"

to be a funny joke? It makes you laugh?

Bryant

[JVS]

22. No. It wasn't that good a joke. That's why I offered some alternatives

[bryant69]

24. Yeah but none of them are funny

Which one makes you laugh?

I mean really laugh?

Vs. which one makes the point you want to make?

Bryant

[Dhalgren]

32. The "point" is the point...

[JHB]

47. Try this:

[bryant69]

96. That actually is funny showing that you can be funny and make a point

I think you are trying to pretend something; I never said communists or those concerned with economic justice couldn't be funny. Rather I said those particular jokes you were telling would only be funny if you were an ideologue.

Bryant

[JHB]

104. That wasn't me, and I understood you clearly.

Thus I provided actual joke material.

[JVS]

19. Why did the Kulak cross the road?

To sabotage our tractor, so we shot the fucker!

[Dhalgren]

23. Another Capitalist joke: Why did the little poor girl die of a bacteriological infection?

Her parents couldn't afford health insurance. :rofl:

[JVS]

26. And why couldn't they afford it?

Because they didn't work hard enough!

[JVS]

28. My cousin asked me how I liked my landlord

I said "Medium rare"

[Dhalgren]

30. Now THAT is funny!

[bryant69]

33. Credit where credit is due - that actually is funny

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

40. What is true is seldom funny, no matter what comedians say.

The truth is often bitter and tragic. His first comments had the sting of truth, so they weren't very funny.

[bryant69]

41. I don't agree with that either, but I know better than to disagree with you

Bryant

[Tyler Durden]

43. And I should know better than to reply to your gibes....

...but I think ignore lists are fascist, and like you, sometimes I just can't keep my big mouth shut.

fini

[JVS]

44. I like the ignore list. Whoever jokes about prison rape gets put on ignore by me

It's quite nice, and doesn't feel fascist at all.

[Tyler Durden]

45. Love the Castro quote.

I hope I have not been guilty of the "prison rape" item, although I have been known to put mouth in gear before engaging brain.

[bryant69]

57. Truth is not an impediment to comedy

Rather comedians are often the only truthful people allowed.

I do favor capitalism over a managed economy; but that doesn't make me blind to the indignities and horrors that capitalism has inflicted on people. Some of those are no laughing matter. On the other hand there have been tv shows, movies, comic strips and comedians who deal with this material in a genuinely humorous manner.

That said, such comedic efforts don't usually end with an exhortation to overthrow the system, and so might be seen as inadequate from an ideologues point of view.

Bryant

[GirlinContempt]

78. I don't know what's more condescending

'ideologue' or just the whole package.

[bryant69]

95. I guess you have the right nickname

If you think that "Rich eat the Poor" is a worthwhile joke, you are an ideologue. Sorry about that.

Bryant

[GirlinContempt]

97. Uh, right.

Sure. mmhmm. Okay. Good job.

[bryant69]

98. Good response. I can see you have at

least one tool in your rhetorical toolbox i.e. acting disdainful and hoping nobody notices you haven't actually made an argument.

How's that working out for you?

Bryant

[GirlinContempt]

99. My rhetorical toolbox, eh?

I like that. Even more condescending. However, you're making all of my arguments for me by being dismissive and repetitive, not to mention your misuse of words.

[bryant69]

100. I suspect anything i say would be condescending

at this point.

Have a good day.

[GirlinContempt]

101. You don't seem capable of much else,

so probably.

[Turbineguy]

84. Indeed.

Perhaps a touch of horse radish to go with that.

[GirlinContempt]

79. Why did the capitalist throw the clock out the window?

So he could turn back fifty years of economic progress, environmental protection, and worker rights.

[JVS]

81. Why does the capitalist do anything?

for money!

[GirlinContempt]

85. Why did the capitalist cross the road?

To steal from the proletariat.

[JVS]

86. That sounds a lot like my Kulak joke upthread

[GirlinContempt]

87. That's because capitalists don't produce anything of their own.

They just take other peoples bits.

[JVS]

88. Do you think the term "bogarting a joint" might be etymologically related to "bourgeoisie"?

[GirlinContempt]

90. haha

HAHAH
ha

[Turbineguy]

82. delete

delete

[JVS]

29. What happened when Fidel Castro decided to open up the port of Mariel...

to people who wanted to go to America, the land of the free?

































The land of the free put them in detention camps!

:rofl:

[ThomWV]

4. If, and then If, and then If, the slippery slope

If you can manage an economy then you should be able to manage how people earn in that economy
And if you can manage how people earn in a society you should be able to manage how they spend in an economy.
And if you can manage how they spend and work you should be able to manage their leisure time.
And if you can manage their leisure time and their working time and their earnings and their spending then ....

[Dhalgren]

5. I am in favor of a strongly socialized economy. The wealth of a society

is finite and belongs to the whole society, not just to the wealthy. The wealth of a society should be distributed equitably throughout and across the society. Not that everyone should have the same or that greater labor would not result in greater reward, but there has to be an acknowledgment that all citizens should benefit from the society of which they are part.

[JVS]

7. Yes. You don't see any of the corporations managing their money by a market system.

Inside every corporation there is economic planning and it works splendidly for them. If they can plan then so can the people.

[bryant69]

10. One counter-argument is that there is in theory accountability

in the Private Sector. If your plans fail, you get in big trouble with the bosses, the stockholders, the board of directors et al. Of course that's not the way it always happens in the private sector; but does anybody believe that civil servants would face the same sort of economic consequences for failure that those in the private sector face (theoretically at least).

Also of course we have a electoral system; the President can change every 4 years, Congress changes every 2 years (or has the potential too). Companies can make long term plans because in theory they won't get fired in 4 years; Civil Servants who serve Congress and/or the President could be fired every couple years, and a whole new plan implemented.

Bryant

[JVS]

11. If you want to call golden parachutes accountability, sure.

Basically it comes down to this. Democratizing an economy is hard. I believe that a centralized economy is easier to democratize than a market economy, because a market economy fuels the very forces who would oppose its democratization, namely the bourgeoisie. The difficulty with a planned economy, similar to a centralized government, is that it is often slow to react or takes on a life of its own. However, I see more potential for democratization of this type of economy because the management class that it creates is far less empowered than it's free-market counterpart. Our current system revels in this empowerment of the owners and calls it success. At least in a planned economy the public correctly perceives individual who are exploiting the system as corrupt.

[bryant69]

18. My First response disappeared

In a well regulated capitalism there is competition - i.e. each part of the economy has an incentive to be successful to defeat their business rivals and capture more of the economy.

In a managed economy there is no competition; the only incentive civil servants have to change their business model is the threat of being voted out of office, and, as we've seen, even that is not necessarily a huge impediment.

Bryant

[JVS]

21. Well regulated capitalism quickly become poorly regulated because...

the best (i.e richest) capitalists get enough money to buy a government more to their liking.

[bryant69]

25. Ah so your theory is just to hand the economy over ot them at the beginning?

In the name of efficiency I take it?

Bryant

[JVS]

27. Yeah, that's exactly what I said

You win a cookie

[bryant69]

31. That's what it looks like to me

Who's going to run the economy in your estimation? A corrupt civil bureaucracy. Yeah that's a lot better than corrupt capitalist corporations. A real step up.

I mean you might say that your particular vision doesn't include corruption in the civil bureaucracy. But the concept of a non corrupt civil bureaucracy running the economy is funnier than any of those "jokes" you told above. Power Corrupts - the more power the more corruption. How are you going to keep your civil bureaucracy from turning out like Soviet Russia? Continual reform and regulation you say? Well if that won't work in a managed capitalism why will it work in a central bureaucracy?

Bryant

[JVS]

34. Since Russia stopped economic planning has corruption grown or dwindled?

[bryant69]

35. Oh, so you are holding the Soviet Union prior to Gorbechev up as a model

Of what you want to do to America. Thank you - that simplifies our discussion enormously.

I'm opposed to it, and it seems unlikely that you will succeed.

Bryant

[JVS]

36. I'm pointing out that unplanned is even more corrupt than planned

[bryant69]

39. Well you are asserting that

I'm not sure I'd agree, but I suppose that arguing it would get us in the uplifting comparison of those killed by Corporate malfience and those caused Stalin and Mao.

At any rate, we've both made our case. It doesn't seem like our frames of reference line up enough to have further meaningful discussion.

Bryant

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. That had nothing to do with a lack of econimic planning

It had to do with a total breakdown of Government institutions. The corruption was always there, it was just well regulated by the state.

[JVS]

53. And now it is laissez fair corruption with a more powerful oligarchy.

congratulations. Freedom has ringed or something

[vincent_vega_lives]

70. Russia is now economicly a lot like the US and UK was in the 19th century.

I agree. Too much freedom can be a bad thing.

[JVS]

89. Which is sad because Russia already caught up to the great economic powers in the 30s and 40s...

and now they have to do it again. So much effort down the drain.

[SarahB]

37. Bingo.

A free market of competition where the companies with innovative ideas that are in demand will prosper in the market is an illusion, especially if those alternative products interfere with current business. The status quo businesses often remain despite public demand for alternative products because it lies in bed far too much with status quo politicians.

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. Nope no favoritism or corruption in Socialist countries right? (n/t)

[JVS]

50. Well, seeing as it was once a policy in socialist countries to kill managers...

who were not able to fulfill production goals, which is a great deterrance to stealing from the people's wealth, I'd have to say that they have a lot more credibility on this being tough on corruption thing than the economies that created the golden parachute.

[bryant69]

58. See you are in favor of a Soviet Style economy.

You just keep providing evidence of it. I'd like nothing more than for you to just admit that you want to see America in the great situation Russia was circa 1970 or so.

Bryant

[JVS]

62. I have criticizm of the Soviet economy of 1970, but they are not criticism...

based on the idea that the Soviet economy of 1970 lacked vital input from the Bourgeoisie. I reject the idea that any corrections of the Soviet economy of the 1970s would have to incorporate re-introducing Western Capitalism.

[bryant69]

65. There is is. Thank you.

For the record I think your ideas if implemented would be more destructive and more murderous than President Bush's (although not by much). Therefore I cannot in good conscious support you, but only oppose you.

Bryant

[JVS]

68. I do not care what you think

[bryant69]

71. What a coincidence.

I don't care what you think either.

[JVS]

72. Great, now we agree on something!

:party:

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Sure, it was the policies of those with the power

to dispose of those managers who were "not able to fulfill production goals". In other words, did not conform with those who had the power to dispose of them. Neither system is immune to abuse and corruption, because both include human beings. A system, however that does away with profit and property is contrary to human nature, who is a competitive and territorial animal by nature, while well-regulated capitalism harnesses it.

[JVS]

67. Until our economy puts corrupt corporate rulers to death or into dire poverty...

it has no moral authority to lecture adherents of other systems on being tough on corruption.

[Dhalgren]

93. This is the point and thank you for making it!

Capitalism "has no moral authority to lecture adherents of other systems on being tough on corruption." And Capitalism has very little authority to lecture anyone on anything. Al Capone was a typical capitalist - he was just slightly less subtle than most, but only slightly...

[vincent_vega_lives]

102. That is beyond the pale

to equate every entrepreneur, small business owner and 'typical capitalist' with a criminal thug. I take it you never have and never will try to start a buisness if that's your attitude.

[Dhalgren]

103. If you consider a small business owner a "capitalist", then we are not

talking about the same thing. However, if a small business owner behaves as a "capitalist", then his/her thugishness in simply porportional...

[JVS]

106. Oooh. Reminds me of another capitalist joke: What do you call a businessman with scruples?

Uncompetitive!

[Dhalgren]

107. A former businessman?

What most Americans forget, today (if they ever knew), is that many "small business" men and women were supporters and participants when the Reds stormed of the Tuileries Palace during the French Revolution, that led to the capture of Louis XVI. The idea that "small business" persons would not be the natural allies of the proletariat is just more capitalist mythology that passes as truth. "Sigh", well, at least they are "good Americans", eh? They can sleep with that...

[LSK]

49. public financing of all elections takes care of that doesnt it???

[JVS]

52. No. Because the rich either won't allow that or if they do allow it, it will be...

because they know how to get around it. If you want to get rid of this problem you have to have a state where the people rule, even if it is difficult and unpleasant to try for.

[LSK]

60. or speaking realistically, President Obama signs it into law in 2010

As it passes the Democratic House and Democratic Senate by then.

[JVS]

63. Realistic like a flying space goat

[LSK]

66. so tell me which part of it is not realistic?

President Obama? President Edwards? (I will admit President Hillary might not like it)

Dem controlled House and Senate??

Which part of it is unrealistic???

[JVS]

69. The convergence of all three

The president in 2010 will be whoever benefitted the most from the current way of doing things. It is unlikely that they'd rock the boat.

[JDPriestly]

9. What economy is not managed?

Right now, the Bush administration is managing our economy by big-time government spending on the war, the Homeland Security make-work-for-otherwise-unemployable-security-guards-and-baggage-x-rayers, etc. project as well as the No Child Left Behind project which is giving work to those who prepare tests for schoolkids. The Federal Reserve's super low interest rates were also a way to manage the economy. Every government changes government regulations so as to affect the economy. There is no such thing as an economy that is not managed. It is a matter of degree and to what end the economy is being managed.

[IChing]

17. That is why the poll is bullshit

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. With any type of economy you end up with the powerful bosses.

See Lord Acton's axiom for what happens.

[lectrobyte]

38. There needs to be a happy balance. Too centralized, you end up with nice Migs

but no TP for your bunghole (Beavis reference, dating myself here), too capitalistic, sweatshops and highly divided society.

[Selatius]

42. A centralized bureaucracy running the economy would be A DISASTER OF GIANT PROPORTIONS.

What you need is to transform the existing economy by setting up a public investment mechanism.

This mechanism's sole purpose would be to buy up failed or failing firms or provide funding to start new firms. The difference between this and, say, the SBA, is that this mechanism would concentrate exclusively on reorganizing or establishing firms as worker cooperatives, and it would concentrate on educating workers on an alternative besides working for somebody else to make somebody else richer.

Use this mechanism to transform the economy. Give workers a choice between working for the corporation or working for a co-op. Keep the market for goods and services in place; let firms decide how much they will charge at the counter, but democratize decision-making power in these firms.

There are ways to democratize decision-making power in terms of allocating capital in an economy without centralizing power to the point where you endanger your economic functions and without getting rid of a pricing mechanism in the market. All you need to do is democratize the firms, and let the firms compete in a (mostly free) market for goods and services. The law of supply and demand will apply in that case.

The simple fact is a centralized bureaucracy is too slow and cumbersome to process the amount of information an economy the size of the US generates on an hourly basis. The result is vast wasting of precious resources. You need multiple firms in competition with one another to maximize the efficiency of operations, not a state-run monopoly, but you have to regulate to promote competition instead of allowing monopolies or oligopolies.

I don't oppose some economic sectors run by the state directly: Health care, public education, utilities, and some heavy industries such as steel manufacturing or mining, but the state shouldn't run everything because of logistical concerns.

In those cases, I favor state intervention because I don't believe profit should dictate in terms of things such as health care, public education, and so forth.

[LSK]

46. Why is there this need for extremes?

How about a well regulated capitalist economy?

Or what they have in the EU????

[Selatius]

55. Unfortunately, neoliberalism is starting to infect the EU.

This is why the French voted down the EU Constitution because many felt it was grossly long in addition to enshrining neoliberal economic dogma into law. The Netherlands already privatized their health care, and Shroeder in Germany wanted to institute "austerity programs" to balance the budget by slashing funding to social programs before finally leaving office. He only won the last time by campaigning against the US on Iraq.

[JHB]

54. I go with "biased/phoney/bullshit"

What you describe is usually called a "Command Economy".

There's also no particular reason for limiting the discussion in such a way, since there are many degrees of regulation and management in between.

[Sammy Pepys]

56. No way in hell n/t

...

[Selatius]

59. Also, your poll incredibly simplistic, since most socialists at this point don't support the idea.

You might have a few hold-overs from the past who still believe the purist state socialism paradigm holding viability, but you'd be hard pressed to find many of them at this point.

Most people I've found who call themselves socialists wish to see economic decisions democratized, but that does not necessarily mean they favor a state bureaucracy doing it either. This is what split the 1st International between Marx and Bakunin.

[Tektonik]

64. I'm in favor of regulated capitalism

not this oligarchical unregulated bullshit that's occurring now

[murloc]

73. Is it like managed healthcare?

I don't think the HMO system has worked out well at all.

I guess it depends on WHOSE economic decisions are being made by civil servants.

I certainly would not want someone else managing mine.

But really, I guess I'm not too sure what system you are describing.

[hogwyld]

74. I would love to see a centralized economy

As the current capitalist system is so inherently failed in this country. All it has done is to make the rich people richer at the expense of the poor working class. Pay everyone the same, and we will have a workers paradise here.

[Thothmes]

75. Government Managed anything

Every time I hear someone extol the virtues of Government Management, pictures of FEMA and the DOD come to mind. In theory sounds good, until the Republicans get back in power again.

[ProgressiveFool]

76. A managed economy is a nightmare waiting to happen

Who makes the decisions about what to produce? If you put politicians in charge of deciding, they will reward cronies or industries, or back "local" goods from their area. A group of economists might be better at it, but would the politicians give up that much power to a group of academics?

I'm strongly in favor of a regulated economy, even highly regulated. Let the market and laws of supply and demand decide what gets produced, but let government create laws to ensure that private corporations don't take advantage of the consumer or harm them through negligence.

[KG]

77. this belongs in the economy forum

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

80. This Market Socialist sez "Hell No!!!"

A command economy will just lead to a new ruling class of corrupt bureaucrats replacing the Corporatist investor class. We should have a regulated market economy based on co-ops.

[IChing]

91. Small is beautiful

read the book?

[Odin2005]

94. Heard of it, havent got a chance to read it yet.

[NormanYorkstein]

83. Managed By WHOM?

[IChing]

92. The problems of this planet cannot be solved with

the economic system we have today
that should be the guardian of
the people, the planet, the entrepreneurs, intelligentsia and the wealth holders.

The system is out of balance
only when all agree that they are equal
branches will we, as a species, have survival.


The destruction of the middle class is not helping (I'm being kind to the rapist)


People will always rise up and should be rewarded by society
or society will rise up

Unfortunately, the classless society will never be
But balance can be reached.

This isn't hard to understand
after looking at monkeys.

[Xenotime]

105. Govt should run the economy.

We should get somebody in office how runs the country well and let them make decisions on finance. That would solve many problems.

[gravity]

108. I don't want the government to decide what needs to be produce

Government sponsored clothing, food, television, automobiles, electronics etc will just suck.

The problem with centralized economies is that it doesn't reward innovation, efficiency, and risks. People have no incentive to use less resources or come with a more efficient means of production since their is no personal incentive to do so and no competition.

In a free market, if someone sells an inferior product or has a shortage in production, it creates incentives for people to produce more goods which are better in quality. In a command economy, you just get to wait in line until the government decides you can have what you want.