JohnT, I think you must be misunderstanding something.
js_africanus said
and msmith537 responded
which makes perfect sense to me. My answer is along the same lines. I can’t see how they are both on the same side of the issue. when one proposes something and the other says it’s a dumb idea.
It could be that I misread js’s post… I thought he was responding honestly to Sam Stone’s (and others, including mine (unstated)) assertion that there is NO* way to gather honest information about value (to quote Sam: “because he or his miraculous database have no way to gather all the information that I have and my neighbor has”). js, as s/he has shown in this thread, likes to reason things out and is not uncomfortable with doing so. For example, look at his (gonna assume you’re a guy, js)post in reply to LostOne’s query about why people assume that there is a correlation between Communism and Despotism… though js admitted his lack of scholarly credentials in re: to Communism, he took a very credible and (imo) convincing stab at it.
And he did the same to to Sam Stone.
msmith537 is against Communism for emotional reasons. js sounds as if he is against Communism for pragmatic reasons, unless I totally misread such posts as this, his reply to Sam Stone’s reply to the “assessment thread”:
They are on the same side… just because ** msmith537** can’t recognize when somebody is being intellectually honest doesn’t mean that they are not. **
*remember the evils of using absolutes, especially in GD. 
** Of course, I could be totally wrong and JS is a flaming Red. But you sure don’t read that way!
Ugh. I previewed enough. I feel that this isn’t the best worded argument, but it’ll have to do.
sailor, I think js_africanus’s example was meant to be in a case where one’s house is for sale, which would answer msmith537’s argument, and was just an example of how to elicit an honest preference. He did go on to say it would not be feasible as an economic model.
Yes… yes, we have. And it always boils down to the same thing - you and others asking me to map out every single last detail of a socialist society when not even Marx thought doing so was a good idea.
I’ve danced this waltz before, and I certainly am heartily tired of it, even if there are new partners like JohnT out there with empty cards.
So, gentlemen, if you’ll pardon me, I believe I’ll sit out all future threads of this sort.
I’m sure that’s the first time you’ve ever said that.
I’m sure you’re tired of the Communist waltz… the world is dancing to a different tune nowadays!
I think the argument is that you cannot map out a society, period. Central planning on a large scale, backed up by the force of law and violence, does not work.
We DON’T want you to map out a society. Better to let society shape itself naturally.
If you bow out, I’m not sure there are many people to argue for Marxism. Calling Chumpsky. Kim Jong Il might loan us a spokesperson.
I had too much work to do after lunch, and now I see this thread has passed me by.
Quick question for Olentzero. Have you ever red The Dispossessed by Ursula Leguin?
I don’t get it. When a house is for sale it generally goes to the highest bidder. That’s the free market.
What I understood is that for tax purposes you would assess your own house at a value and then if someone offered more, youd be obligated to sell. Which is just incredibly stupid.
Repeat after me:
He… was… playing… a… thought… experiment.
Marx is not my Bible and it comes down to the fact that you have no good answer for questions whether they are specific or general. Look at my recent post:
You cannot get any more general than that. You just have no good answers, general or specific. And you think people are going to join you in a movement with a program which says “Just follow me and I’ll tell you where we are going later”? I don’t think so. I am just glad that people who think like you are such a miniscule minority that we are in no danger that they’ll ever get anywhere.
Right - but he wasn’t explaining how the free market works, he was coming up with a hypothetical way to elicit an honest assessment. IF there was a law that, when you were ready to sell your house, required you to accept the lowest offer over its assessed value, then, according to js, you would be inclined to assess your house no lower than its actual value (which would otherwise save on taxes but hurt on the sale), and no higher (which would otherwise hurt on taxes, but return more on the sale). Without such a law, you’d have no reason not to undervalue your house for tax purposes, but hold out for a high bid for selling purposes, if I read js correctly. The problem as I see it, is that it hurts me, the buyer who worked hard for the big cash, who is willing to pay extra for this house, but can’t buy it because the seller has to draw straws to see who gets it for a penny over its assessed valued. My extra cash now becomes worthless in this transaction, moreso if this ‘honest assessment’ law is applied across the board, and we’re back to killing incentive.
zwaldd, that just makes no sense to me. When I put my house on the market and say I want 100K, I am implying I will accept offers over 100K. The Whole idea of having the government intervene in private sales seems like a huge mess and burden for NO gain. What is the gain of having the government intervene like that in a sale? Either the price is set freely or it isn’t. If it is set freely between buyer and seeler then we don’t need all this crap. And otherwise, it is a fact that I lose my freedom to dispose of my property as I see fit. You cannot have a central planning authority deciding the same thing individuals are deciding. If a central board takes the decision from my hands, then I have lost freedom. There’s no way around it.
If you list for 100K and a buyer shows up with a cashier’s check for 100K, it’s sold - subject to some legal standards of proof, formality, and specificity.
If you list a house, it behooves you to pick a reasonable price if you want to sell it.
Wow, I started posting that about 13 minutes ago. Didn’t preview. Late simulpost with sailor.
sailor, you’re arguing that js’s scenario is oppressive and unnecessary. I don’t think he’s claiming otherwise. It was just an example of how an honest preference could be elicited. He could have said a gun to the head will elicit an honest preference, doesn’t mean he’s advocating the method.
Maybe it is just you. Regardless of whose side he is arguing, I don’t see the point. Basically, all he is doing is setting up a reverse action which end up with a dozen bids for at the appraised value of the house. It doesn’t let the homeowner receive the maximum value for his house which is…as you may have guessed…the maximum value someone is willing to pay for it.
Actually, I’m not against communism. Since I’m not working, I kind of like the idea of the rest of society supporting me.
JohnT, thank you for the thoughtful defense. (I am a he, btw. I use “she” in my examples because if I’m imagining situations, then I’d like to have women in them.) It means alot. zwaldd, thank you for the thoughtful critique. That means alot as well.
You are both right in that I was providing an example of how it is possible to elicit private information and, as noted, that it probably wouldn’t be practical for a planned economy.
Since there seems to be some misunderstanding, let me try to flesh this out a little more. Here in America property taxes are nearly ubiquitous. Also in America, ownership of a particular plot of land is not a sacred right: the gov’t. retains the right to enforce a “taking”, IIRC, provided that fair compensation is given in return. Now, if we’re going to have a property tax, then the tax should be based on what the property is actually worth. How do we figure that out? Right now, as I understand it, the gov’t. basically employs real estate experts who take a “guess”. “Based on similar houses in the area, if this property were on the market it would sell for x dollars.” Is this system fair? Does this represent what the property is actually worth? The expert may value my house at $1, when to me it is really worth $2. I wouldn’t sell my house for a buck, but for two bucks I’d be sad to move out, sure, but it would be worth it. So in a sense, my house is really worth $2. Suppose it’s the other way around. I’d be happy to sell my house for $1, but the assessor says it’s worth $2. Now I’m stuck paying taxes on $2 worth of house with no guarantee that the tax I’m paying reflects reality. For all I know, once my house goes on the market I may only get $1.50, or $1, or even $0.50. I’m getting screwed! In that light, it seems reasonable to define the value of a piece of propety as what that property is actually worth to the person who owns it.
If we define the value of a piece of property that way, then the tax assessment as well as any takings that may occur will accurately reflect how valuable the property is to the owner. Suppose the state decides that it’s going to build a new highway–right through your house. Would you want the compensation to be an assessor’s “best guess”? Or would you want the compensation to reflect how much you really value the house? Do you want to risk paying too much taxes because of a “best guess” or do you want to pay taxes based on a true valuation of your property? Is it “stupid” to think that property taxes should represent the actual value of a property, and is it “stupid” that the value of a property is what it is actually worth to its owner? Some might say no. Those who say yes should probably take the time to come up with a good reason.
If you answered no to the previous question, then the next logical question is “how do we accomplish such a goal?” I’ve outlined one method. A method that some evidently feel is stupid. Fair enough, but there is something about that view that I don’t understand. If a piece of property is actually worth x to its owner, and the owner is offered a price y > x, why would that person not sell? If a person is unwilling to sell a house at price y, then the house must be worth more than y, no? If she is unwilling to sell her house for some price z > y, then it must be worth even more than z, right? If she tells you that her house is worth z, but is unwilling to sell it for z, then how can we justifiably conclude that she is being accurate and truthful about what her house is really worth to her?
The plan I outlined elicits an accurate assessment. A person simply asks herself, “At what price would I be willing to sell my house?” The answer is what the house is worth to her. The plan doesn’t force anybody to sell her house, because at the quoted valuation she’d be willing to sell. What the plan does force her to do is to be honest, since if she lies she screws herself. The only reason for a person to not want to sell under the plan I outlined is if she lied in her valuation. But if she lied in her valuation, then she’s screwing me by lowballing on her taxes, which impacts school funding, fire department funding, police funding, inter alia. Why should I care if she gets screwed then?
Now, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I’ll be the first to admit that. And, although I didn’t devise this scheme, it does make sense to me. Yet, it could very well be stupid. However, just saying so only proves that the person so saying should watch more Monty Python.
js_africanus, I will repeat that the scheme is pretty stupid and unworkable and I already gave you the reasons. On top of that it has little to no bearing with the discussion at hand which is whether prices should be agreed freely between buyers and sellers or whether the government should intervene. But you’ve had us scratching our heads for a while
>> The plan doesn’t force anybody to sell her house, because at the quoted valuation she’d be willing to sell.
Well, that’s just great isn’t it? Because you are forcing homeowners to set their values well above market just to be able to stay in their homes. Because your enemy can just come and buy up your house and evict you. I would be very willing to buy the house of my enemy at a premium of $100 just to make him move.
The definition of market value is that agreed by a seller who is willing,* but not forced*, to sell and a buyer who is willing, but not forced, to buy. It is not the price of a seller who is forced to sell when he does not want to sell.
To say you could force someone to sell their property at market value is just plain stupid. My car may only be worth in the market $2000 but I can’t see why I should be forced to sell it at any price. To repeat what was posted by msmith537
My thoughts exactly.
::sigh::
Well, I haven’t read all of the post so I just hope that I wont be repeating things all over again…
I live in Sweden, a country which most americans would consider communist or at least socialist. So, to clarify, we’re not underdeveloped, actually at least the UN (communist organisation?) consider Sweden and Norway as the countries with the best situation for those who live there. We enjoy all the liberty we can ask for (although the police is sometimes just as violent as yours, during the EU-summit in Gothenburg for example). The social democratic party has been in office almost all the time since WW II and they have often been backed up by the communist party.
I call myself a communist, although I do not approve to Leninism and its effects (i.e. the USSR, N.Corea, etc.). Instead I think that we should look towards the communist parties of western Europe to see what socialism and communism has of value for the future. I will try to make a concise description of the ideology of these parties.
-Democracy has to prevail. Socialism is to prefer in general, but above all is democracy. Most often, a socialist and democratic development will go hand in hand, but if there is a conflict between the two, democracy is the fundament.
-Communism will not mean everything will be owned by the state and planned in detail. Common sense and reality shows that this is folly. Rather a communist society would have a combination of state, county, and cooperative ownership to ensure… what is to be ensured? Democracy. The cornerstone is that workers (in abroad sense, not only those who build cars) are affected by the actions of the companies and therefore should have the right to influence the planning. The principle of “one man, one vote” will not only apply to politics but to the economy.
-The point is not that everyone should earn exactly the same sum of money either. The class difference that is basic is the one between the vast majority of people, who work, and the small minority who own, and therefore have income without having to work for it and the power over many peoples lives. Of course income differences will be lower in a socialist society, but they will not disappear.
-These things are in the end meant to secure the possibilty for all to evolve as they wish, believe it or not. Just think about this a moment: How much in your life is determined on class, gender, etnicity basis? All of those things makes us less free. A free society would guarantee that all of its citizens has the same possibilities without being locked into a certain pattern.
This is going far out of space. I just want people to know what it is that they discuss. There you go, comrades!