Cubans allowed to own computers

(This is from a paper I just turned in.)

Why did the attempt at a Marxian economy fail so spectacularly? Many socialists and communists believe that the Soviet Union deviated from its Marxist origins by attempting to skip transitional steps between capitalism and true communism (Stites). Other economists have pointed to inherent flaws within the ideology of communism itself (Richmond).

Some asserted that the Soviet Union's system of centralized planning confirmed what had been suggested in academic settings: That a centrally directed economy is paradoxically the least capable of effectively organizing production.

One such critic of economic centralization was economist Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian school. His work demonstrated that a system of free exchange was absolutely essential to a “rational economy”. Without free exchange of goods and capital, there was no market, and without a market there were no prices. Without prices as an indicator, costs and expenditures could not be rationally calculated, leading to massive instability in the economy.

As Mises himself put it “Without calculation, economic activity is impossible. Since under Socialism economic calculation is impossible, under Socialism there can be no economic activity in our sense of the word... All economic change, therefore, would involve operations the value of which could neither be predicted beforehand nor ascertained after they had taken place... Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy.”
 
No internet. The US refuses to connect the cables.

Of course, the US embargo has no effect on the Cuban economy, so I'm being silly, aren't I?
Total BS. The internet is available in many places that the US never connected cables to.

Like China, and NK, Cuba likes to block access to those things. Shoot, they even restricted ownership of computers until... Wait... Isn't that what this thread is about?
 
Damo said:

And people (Short Note from WM: this may mean Democrats, or it could just be a random anecdote. No matter what, Damo will argue about it, and claim there's no way in the world it could be construed that way, and that Democrats are still socialist, at the same time) wonder why the US resists going socialist?
 
Damo said:

And people (Short Note from WM: this may mean Democrats, or it could just be a random anecdote. No matter what, Damo will argue about it, and claim there's no way in the world it could be construed that way, and that Democrats are still socialist, at the same time) wonder why the US resists going socialist?
Note "the US". not "they"... emotard.
 
(This is from a paper I just turned in.)

Why did the attempt at a Marxian economy fail so spectacularly? Many socialists and communists believe that the Soviet Union deviated from its Marxist origins by attempting to skip transitional steps between capitalism and true communism (Stites). Other economists have pointed to inherent flaws within the ideology of communism itself (Richmond).

Some asserted that the Soviet Union's system of centralized planning confirmed what had been suggested in academic settings: That a centrally directed economy is paradoxically the least capable of effectively organizing production.

One such critic of economic centralization was economist Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian school. His work demonstrated that a system of free exchange was absolutely essential to a “rational economy”. Without free exchange of goods and capital, there was no market, and without a market there were no prices. Without prices as an indicator, costs and expenditures could not be rationally calculated, leading to massive instability in the economy.

As Mises himself put it “Without calculation, economic activity is impossible. Since under Socialism economic calculation is impossible, under Socialism there can be no economic activity in our sense of the word... All economic change, therefore, would involve operations the value of which could neither be predicted beforehand nor ascertained after they had taken place... Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy.”

Communism just wasn't well thought out at all, was it?

Marx got drunk one night and just blurted out "Hey guys, wouldn't it be awesome if we all just shared everything and worked for each other and got along?"

Everyone answered "rad".

And that's the basis behind "The Communist Manifesto".



Now, in places without incentive people may still work. You just won't get much done. Granted, works completed purely under economic incentive often have a fake feel to them, but it's an improvement over nothing being completed at all.
 
Communism just wasn't well thought out at all, was it?

Marx got drunk one night and just blurted out "Hey guys, wouldn't it be awesome if we all just shared everything and worked for each other and got along?"

Everyone answered "rad".

And that's the basis behind "The Communist Manifesto".



Now, in places without incentive people may still work. You just won't get much done. Granted, works completed purely under economic incentive often have a fake feel to them, but it's an improvement over nothing being completed at all.



Well, behavioral economists have demonstrated that money isn't really all that great an incentive to get people to do stuff. In fact, the amount of money they receive isn't all that reflective of the vigor with which people do their jobs. That is, you only get a little bit more out of people by paying them a lot more money. People are actually willing to work much harder for free wherein they aren't getting paid but rather are performing the task out of a feeling of social obligation. Additionally, once you remove the social obligation aspect and make it a market transaction (instead of asking a friend to help you move you say you'll pay him $10 an hour) you lose the benefits of a non-market transaction (people willing to work hard for little).

Maybe the socialists and communists just got things wrong by paying anyone anything. If they refused to pay people and relied on the sense of social obligation instead of offering rather paltry wages, who knows . . .
 
Well, behavioral economists have demonstrated that money isn't really all that great an incentive to get people to do stuff. In fact, the amount of money they receive isn't all that reflective of the vigor with which people do their jobs. That is, you only get a little bit more out of people by paying them a lot more money. People are actually willing to work much harder for free wherein they aren't getting paid but rather are performing the task out of a feeling of social obligation. Additionally, once you remove the social obligation aspect and make it a market transaction (instead of asking a friend to help you move you say you'll pay him $10 an hour) you lose the benefits of a non-market transaction (people willing to work hard for little).

Maybe the socialists and communists just got things wrong by paying anyone anything. If they refused to pay people and relied on the sense of social obligation instead of offering rather paltry wages, who knows . . .

Yeah, I'm not going to be a conservative and say that money is the only possible reason people do anything at all, but it's hard to imagine our economy being organized as efficiently as it is without monetary incentive.

It's interesting that people pop up and do things like write linux without getting paid, though. But that's a bit more interesting than, say, seasoning chicken, which is what I do for a living. I know I wouldn't season chicken for no money. If my employers paid me more, I wouldn't do it any more efficiently. But I might get another job...
 
Free health care.
Free education including postgrad at university.
Expensive computers (at the moment).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
 
Free health care.
Free education including postgrad at university.
Expensive computers (at the moment).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Don't forget that they weren't even allowed to own them until just now.... I can't imagine crippling my household like that, let alone a whole nation.
 
I agree...........

Dude... Australian politics and their opinion of our politics is part of just plain politics. It isn't "just plain US politics...


also charv and diet don't take themselves all that serious...their humor lightens the atmosphere of the board!
 
Shouldn't that be "humour"?

I don't advocate closed borders on the board - just imagine the outcry from the left if foreigners who supported President Bush posted here....
 
Back
Top