In that scenario, how do companies limit the influence of workers who are skilled at their jobs, but not so skilled at planning? Does everyone have equal say in a company’s direction, or do the people who know more about directing a company have more influence?
Ah, yes. Let’s take a look at those “reasons”.
1.
Let’s see, rich people can “drive” poor people from their homes by offering a price at which the poor people would be willing to sell. That seems a little like saying, “My boss keeps me as a slave: he pays me so well that I’m willing to stay on and work.” You have offered no argument undermining how I went about deriving the concept of value for property. You offer no counter-argument to my reasoning that the value is the price at which someone is willing to sell. If they’re willing to sell at price x, the can’t be forced out. They can only be force out if they are unwilling to sell. Since you have no argument against this section in my chain of reasoning my argument stands.
- You agree with the statement that
I’ll take this as meaning that there is no price at which you’d be willing to sell. I call you a liar. Unless you are one of those fools who’d rather fight off the explosion of Mt. St. Helen with a broom than give up your house, you have a price at which you’d be willing to sell. It’s a piece of property, not a person. You should learn some perspective. Be a man.
Besides, nothing prevents you from declaring a valuation of $100 billion. You’ll have to pay taxes on that, but it’s worth it because you like living there.
Do you recall earlier in the thread when I mentioned that most freemarketeers are motivated by ideology and don’t understand economics? Here’s where you prove that you are one of those people. For the “free market” to enjoy the advantages that make it a superior form of economic organization it needs to adhere to the conditions that make it efficient. You may recall from the proof of the First Fundamental Theorem of welfare economics that to have a Pareto optimum guaranteed to obtain the market must be competitive in the economic sense of the word. The “free market” is not about selling to the highest bidder. Indeed, in a “free market” the seller has absolutely no choice at which price she is going to sell; the seller is a price taker. So is the buyer. Unfortunately, in the case of setting values for takings and taxes, and indeed for buying and selling, properties and homes are too heterogeneous and the markets in a community too thin to satisfy the requirements for competition. Since the markets can’t be competitive, they can’t be “free”. Since they can’t be “free”, there is no reason for you to bring it up.
If markets fail the competition requirement, then it is reasonable for the gov’t. to intervene. Look up the economic research on asymmetric information, for example. And again, what part of willing to sell implies that the sale is being forced? And how does a “central planning authority” result from people declaring their own valuations of their property? These seem more like non sequiturs than reasons.
These are the “reasons” you offered when you so confidently declared,
All you have proven is that you can’t be bothered to actually read the posts you respond to, that you don’t know what you are talking about, and that you are too cowardly to ask yourself tough questions. What you haven’t proven is that the proposed property valuation scheme is “stupid” and “unworkable”.
You do offer up some “new” arguments. Let’s take a look at those.
This combines a repeat of #1 above with a failure to read the post where the scheme was introduced. It fails for the same reasons as #1. If you were nicer you might not have so many enemies, or at least you should make enemies with people who can’t afford to buy so many houses. Additionally, having property tax set according to value gives incentive to not state a higher price. That’s the point.
Since the market is non-competitive, this point is moot. Once again, what part of “willing to sell” do you not understand? If I value my property at price x and I’m offered y > x, then I may not want to sell, but I am willing.
I’m sure that by now you can understand why I didn’t give credit to your “reasons” why the scheme is stupid. You haven’t made the case. Indeed, you haven’t even addressed a single link in the argument defending the valuation scheme! Nor have you offered any counter-arguments as to why the plan would do more harm than good. The best you can offer is the nebulous threat of a vindictive millionaire buying home after home from people at prices at which they are willing to sell. Brilliant. :rolleyes: Since you’ve broken no link in my chain of reasoning, my argument stands. If you have an actual argument validating your assertion that this property valuation scheme is “stupid”, then please feel free to offer it up.
>> Besides, nothing prevents you from declaring a valuation of $100 billion. You’ll have to pay taxes on that, but it’s worth it because you like living there.
I’ll let the readers decide for themselves if it is reasonable that, to stay in my house, I should pay yearly in taxes more than the house is worth on the market (in other words, Ican’t stay in the house I bought) or if that is a really stupid idea. If you are so sure you can post a poll in IMHO and see how many people would support the idea and how many people would say it is utterly stupid. You wanna make any bets?
“You wanna make any bets?”
Not really, because the obvious answer is a 100% no.
I am unsure as to how you are unable to comprehend that js’s “assessment strategy” was nothing more than a little thought experiment in response to a sidebar argument to the main discussion.
Now it is the main discussion and I wonder… why? Why can’t you just let this go for what it really was instead of insisting (wrongly) that it was an honest proposal, that js actually wants this when you have been REPEATEDLY told that is assuredly not the case?
Pokom said:
I don’t think anyone in this thread would claim that Sweden was communist. Socialist might stick, but it’s not even really that. It’s still a market economy, albeit with a bigger portion of state control than most.
But Sweden still makes a good example of what’s WRONG with Socialism, because Sweden’s economy was a mess for a long time. When the Social Democrats came to power, Sweden’s growth rate dropped, interest rates rose, unemployment rose, the debt went through the roof, and there were a host of other structural problems. Under the Social Democrats, huge deficits caused a spike in interest rates to an astounding 500% in 1992, forcing the government to cut a whole bunch of those social benefits you are touting.
Sweden’s economy has improved in the 1990’s, as the more extreme parts of the socialist state were dismantled. Health benefits were cut, the government cut deals with labor unions to allow market reforms, and the government reined in spending in enough areas to actually post surpluses. Nonetheless, Sweden’s GDP growth still lags the European average.
Before the socialists came to power, Sweden had the highest standard of living in Europe. Now it lags a whole bunch of countries including the UK and Italy.
Thanks again. The funny thing is that when I think about the proposal, I just know that it isn’t a good idea. But I really can’t come up with a solid argument except that nobody will like it–which in itself makes it bad in a democracy. Things like that bother me…
Sorry about the hijack, everybody. Sometimes I lose my head. Please forgive me for that.
Communism is not innately evil or bad, such an assertion is ridiculous. There have been numerous communist or communistic countries and communities that been both collectivist and democratic, there failings were varied and often related strongly to factors beyond their control. As I understand it, private ownership is undermining democracy, consider the decisions being made by the WTO, WEF and IMF. These decisions are made in the interests of a minority without the consent of the people. One of the common failures of our hierarchical representative democracies is that those on top cannot possibly represent the interests of such large constituencies. In this way our capitalist democracies lend themselves to non-elected and undemocratic influences.
In Russia after the 1917 revolution the country was much more democratic and liberated then any ‘western’ nation now. Of cause many will disagree, however my understanding of democracy is that all of societies laws are to be determined by the will of the objectively informed majority with respect to the inalienable rights of the individual, such as the right to food, shelter, and an occupation. This is a tall order but democracy was never meant to be easy. What happen to Russian socialism was terrible. Stalin was brutal and charismatic; he managed to literally kill off most of his socialist opposition rather rapidly. From then democracy there was utterly ruined. It was not honest communists that made Russia the imperialist dictatorship it became, but opportunists that later could be described as state capitalists. Why? Because they accepted class divide, while a major plank of socialism is the end of class division. They kept the wealth under minority control, a characteristic indicative of capitalist systems. They traded for profit with external capitalist entities. Something capitalism seems to do is find and open new markets for the exploiting, too often by force or threat. This is one of the difficulties with achieving socialism; a friend said to me once, “…an island of socialism cannot survive in an ocean of capitalism.” He was right; this is why socialists must organise internationally.
Capitalism is not innately evil, or bad. Capitalism is not evil because evil does actually exist. Capitalism is not bad, for some, in fact for a few its really, really good. That’s why we should all keep our eye on the ball, because if we work hard, invest, do as our bosses and spiritual leaders tell us we might one day be worthy of that spot on the top. We can all be rich, but only a few of use at a time. And the closer you are to the bottom the greater the resistance from the above. There is the trickle down effect of cause, only I’m not into being trickled on. When we have democracy, we will have socialism, democracy is a perquisite for genuine socialism. There used to be a democratically elected socialist leader in communist Cuba, remember? Only when he was taken down so was socialism and democracy in Cuba. And what or who was primarily responsible? What or who made it possible? You already know.
Bummer, i meant “Capitalism is not evil because evil does NOT actually exist.” sorry.
Like the U.S. Supreme Court? If it weren’t for them we in the U.S. would have no freedoms left, IMO. And if the Fed chairman were constantly running for re-election…well, I wouldn’t want that. When the gov’t. represents tens or hundreds of millions direct democracy probably is pretty unworkable. Even with the technology to do it, following all the developments woud pretty much be a full-time job. There’s nothing unreasonable or anti-democratic in having elected officials appoint people to jobs. Here they appoint a cabinet, they appoint judges, most the work of government is done by appointees. If that were a problem, trade policy would be the least of anybody’s concerns.
Oh, I can’t let this one go.
Communism is a political system that elevates ‘society’ above the individual, and forces the individual to give up his or her own freedom of choice. That is an evil philosophy at its root. You know why communist countries become despotic hell holes? It’s not because there is some magical force that puts all the assholes in power only in Communist countries. No, communist countries turn evil because once you accept that the group is more important than the individual, you’re never too far from forced collectivization and the Gulag.
Why is it that holocaust revisionists are universally reviled (and rightly so), but people who whitewash the horrors of Commuism get a pass? Frankly, it makes me sick. For example…
This is a load of absolute horseshit. There was a brief, nascent ‘democracy’ budding under Kerensky, but that was squashed by the Bolsheviks, who ruled with an iron fist right from the beginning. Hundreds of thousands of people were MURDERED right after the Bolshevik revolution. People were hung in the streets. Kulaks were slaughtered by the thousands. Within ten years after the revolution, MILLIONS of people were dead from the effects of collectivization, both from bullets to the head and starvation.
Either you don’t know anything about the history of the Soviet Union, or you are intentionally overlooking an evil as monstrous as Hitler’s regime because it suits your politics. Either way, it disgusts me.
This is a standard form of revisionism often used by those who would whitewash the horrors of Communism. I can’t count the number of times some young radical fool has tried to tell me that the original revolution was a glorious people’s revolt, and everything was hunky dory until that evil Stalin came along and wrecked it all.
I’ve got news for you. V.I. Lenin is one of the biggest mass murderers in history. He was directly responsible for ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in direct purges and executions of wealthy Kulaks. And he was guilty of the deaths of millions more through his communist policies. The only reason Stalin ranks as the worst murderer of the century (worse than Hitler in body count) is because he lived a long time. Had Lenin not died early on in the revolution, I have no doubt that he would have racked up a body count just as impressive as Stalin’s. BUt even the short period he was in power he managed to kill more people than the previous hundred years of rule by the Czars combined.
I hear this excuse a lot. And it’s also a pile of steaming dung. Please tell me - what does Capitalism do that causes Communism to fail?
Look at North Korea - if a magic wand could be waved tomorrow and cause all the other countries of the earth to vanish under water, are you seriously suggesting that somehow North Korea would become a worker’s paradise?
What was it that the west did to the Soviet Union? Withold trade? Why should that matter? If the west refuses to trade, isn’t that the same as if they weren’t there at all? Sure, if there was no one else around the Soviets might have been able to reclaim 5% of their GDP in military spending, but that wouldn’t have even dented their massive structural problems.
This business about how the world has to become communist before it can work anywhere is not only bizarre, but it’s a handy excuse to avoid having to face up to the repeated failures and horrors every time some state tried to go communist.
And what magical force only allows a few people to be rich? You know why only a few people are rich? It’s not because of capitalism. It’s because of the bell curve. In any population there will always be those who try harder than others, who work harder, who make better decisions.
Nonsense. The closer you are to the bottom, the freer you are to take risks and change your life. There’s no ‘resistance’ from the top. There is no cabal of rich industrialists working to keep you down. You are free to rise as far as your ability and hard work will take you.
Please enlighten us. I thought the responsible party was that murdering son a bitch Castro.
This is about the angriest message I think I’ve left on the SDMB. But I’m getting sick and tired of these no-nothing young comrades running around telling us how glorious the world will be come the revolution. And it really set me off today, because I just finished reading about 200,000 people including entire generations of families being tortured in yet another communist hell-hole. As far as I’m concerned, it’s about time those of you who deny the reality of communism were held in the kind of contempt we keep for neo-nazis and other slimeballs who want to enslave people for a ‘higher purpose’.
Well. Certainly we shouldn’t ignore it, I’ll easily concede that. But on the same token we should not ignore other possible variables and we definatly shouldn’t assume there aren’t any.
How many of these communist countries had much freedom to begin with? Russia certainly wasn’t a penacle of modern thought at the time. I think it’s within common sense to assume any government that was imposed by another (ie: a Soviet puppet in a Warsaw pact country) wouldn’t be free no matter what system of government was involved.
In other words… take a country without freedoms, give it communism, and then say ‘look communist restricts freedoms’. I think this is as much of a fallacy as an apologist trying to claim we should totally ignore it.
All I’m saying… is I don’t think this really proves anything.
Clearly Sir (or Ma’am) you misunderstand me. I do not revere Marx… I don’t even agree with him. I do however credit him with writing all of this stuff down.
The general consensus seems to have been that Communist thought actually includes ‘lack of free speech/vote’. IF that is the argument then I am wholly within my bounds to ask for cites direct from the source. IF… on the other hand… you’d like to make the argument ‘Communism MUST lead to lack of free speech/vote’ then perhaps a direct cite isn’t necessary.
However… I think there is far too much doubt to assume 'countless examples. They are flawed for the reasons mentioned above. You can’t take a country without freedoms, make it communist, and then say communist = no freedoms.
I am not going to argue a planned economy is less free then a free-market… that is stupid. But I have never seen a good explanation of why other freedoms must disappear. So you don’t want to quote Marx? Fine. At the very least i think a damned good scholarly effort explaning what about the communist theory leads to loss of freedom without ignoring all the variables.
I actually am intrested in this… I am not sitting here blatently assuming such a cite doesn’t exist. I have yet to see it.
Night all… I’ll pop back in to check out your cites in the morning. If you can’t find a cite I urge you to reconsider your assumptions. And as a parting thought…
LostOne"How many of these communist countries had much freedom to begin with?.. In other words… take a country without freedoms, give it communism, and then say ‘look communist restricts freedoms’. I think this is as much of a fallacy as an apologist trying to claim we should totally ignore it." (editing mine, JT)
Then explain the relative differences viz W and E Germany post-1945. 2 countries from the same cultural background. One is capitalist and free, the other is Communist and is surrounded by a wall to keep the people in.
I don’t care if he actually wants it or not. If he presents a really stupid idea as it might serve for something, he better be ready to have it criticised. Since it was presented so poorly that a few of us were confused about it he can doubly be criticised. And since I still have no idea what the purpose of presenting that idea might be and since he is still defending it, I am still going to point out the fallacy I find in it. If he does not want stupid ideas criticised, the best option is to keep them to himself.
I have come up with a solid argument already and you are just not getting it: It would totally distort the pricing system like any other government intervention does. If you have to assess your house at millions and millions of dollars just so you can stay in it, then housing prices would be totally distorted with respect to their actual market value. And then you have the fact that if you assess houses like that, the taxes on them would be astronomical and most people could not afford them. The problem is not that people wouldn’t like it, the problem is that, even if you got everybody drunk and got this system passed, it would be unworkable and a huge disaster for the economy which would collapse in a matter of days. That’s the problem.
I still don’t understand what you were trying to illustrate or prove with this idea but don’t blame me for not letting it go. I have no interest in discussing what everybody agrees is a really stupid idea and I am only responding to what you keep posting so, if you want the issue to disappear, just drop it.
You are being intentionally obstructive as I have already answered this several times and you just ignore my answer and keep asking the same question. You can find my answer in this thread if you care to look.
Halo13 uses the often heard argument that it was bad luck that bad people rose to the top in the Soviet Union and I find that argument very weak. Hayek points out that in a centrally planned economy, the worst will rise to the top. The only way to implement communism is with a dictatorship and a dictatorship means the worst rise to the top. There is no other way. It was not just bad luck, it was the natural consequence a has been shown in every communist regime.
I share Sam Stone’s view that it should be just as unacceptable to excuse communist attrocities as it is to excuse Nazi atrocities. Communism is an evil system of government and attrocities comitted in the name of the people are still attrocities.
And allow me to give a personal reason.
“From each according to his ability…” Well, what about me, whose abilities would have no place in a communist world?
I’m a graphic designer. My purpose is to make commercial products visually appealing to prospective buyers. As a devoted capitalist, I love what I do, since advertising drives the free market.
But what would I do if there was no free market? I suppose someone would make me a ditch digger, since I have a back that can be put to work and my mind would be of no use.
I suppose I could just become a pure artist, but would THAT have any value in a communist society? [sub](Please understand, I’m serious here. I am actually looking for answers to these questions.)[/sub]
So, while you’re thinking up something for me to do in this glorious workers paradise, let me give you something else to ruminate on.
Try to imagine how a communist society would look. Every product would come in a plain cardboard box with a white label & black lettering. Design would be non-existent because it would have no value. Even industrial design would only be towards basic ergonomics. Visual interest would be minimal, serving only to keep our personal environments from looking stark. I see a great deal of beige in your future utopia.
See? Communism isn’t just evil - it’s BORING.
>> See? Communism isn’t just evil - it’s BORING
Oh come on. You can’t possible mean that. There’s plenty of excitement for you while you are wondering if you’ll be executed or sent to the gulag. Let me know what capitalist game show on TV gives you that kind of excitement. And it’s all provided free of charge by the state! 
I’m not. I’m blaming you for saying something is stupid and having no compelling reason for doing so.
Let me explain something. “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.” To discredit an argument, you must break at least one link in the chain of statements establishing the truth of the proposition. I have given you the respect of adressing every link in your chain of reasoning. I even numbered your arguments to make it easy to follow. Every argument you offered has failed–the only one I haven’t addressed is your argumentum ad populum and since it is a logical fallacy it requires no rebuttal. You, in turn, have not addressed a single link in my original chain of reasoning, nor have you addressed any of my rebuttals. Indeed, in the post to which I am responding, you merely rehash an argument that I have already countered–you offer no extension, no new evidence, and no proof that you even understand the original proposition.
Since I have beaten every argument of yours, and you have not addressed a single of mine, we can provisionally conclude that I am right and you are wrong.
Here’s the thing. You confidently declared that the property assessment plan I offered was “stupid”. Yet you have been completely unable to establish that “fact”. The best you can do is rehash dead arguments and spout logical fallacies. So I must ask, if you are so incapable of proving the stupidity of something as stupid as this, then how smart are you? Are you really that moronic, or should you avoid calling something stupid until you have a damn good reason to do so? I’m betting on the latter. You don’t seem that dumb to me, quite frankly, so maybe you should think twice before typing insulting remarks. Get it?
With respect to your proposed assessment plan I said:
So I did establish pretty well that it is unworkable. Now, if you disagree with my assessment (grin) you can counter my arguments. But don’t say I have not adressed what you said. I now await your arguments showing I am totally mistaken and your proposal would not have the effects I said.
-
Markets not competitive=>market values do not reflect free market principles=>appeal to market not appropriate.
-
Owner’s sincere valuation of home valid.
-
Current assessment method flawed.
-
Disincentive to state artificially high valuation.
-
You yourself state, “When a house is for sale it generally goes to the highest bidder,” thereby implying that valuation method produces sale prices below market value. You are contradicting yourself.
There, off the top of my head, are five aspects of my arguments that have already refuted the claim I quoted above–before you posted it. Yet you re-posted it, after I already pointed out that it was an old and previously addressed argument!
Since you did not address any of them, when you’ve had ample opportunity to do so, we can conlude that you have no defense against them. So then you add that a valid system of property valuation will cause the economy to collapse in a couple of days. Properly pricing goods will cause the economy to collapse? Now that is certainly not the view of most free marketeers I’ve known. Nor any economist. By ignoring arguments you’ve put yourself in the position of defending across the board price interference by the gov’t. (since proper pricing will lead to economic collapse). You are a closet communist.
sailor,
Call me stupid, but I don’t see where you conclusively established that the thought experiment on housing valuation by js_africanus is unworkable.
From his argument, I don’t get where one is forced to appraise the value of own’s home at millions and millions of dollars because you want to keep it. All he stated was that to properly assess the value of the home for tax purposes, one should provide to the property assessor what you (as an individual) feel your property is worth. If you feel your property is worth 100,000, then if I offer you 100,000.01 cents you are obligated to sell it.
Furthermore, I think his little thought experiement does have merit. In the US, if the government wants you’re property and you don’t want to sell - tough. “Eminant Domain” gives the government the RIGHT to take the property and compenstate you for it. The compensation they give you for your property (in most cases, I’m assuming) is the property’s market value. If you paid $100,000 for your property, but it’s market value (as determined by the government) is only $80,000 dollars, then the government is only entitled to compensate you $80,000.
In the example by js_africanus, I’m assuming that in the proposal put forth, if the government wanted to buy your property, then they would be obligated to pay you what YOU think the value of your property is worth. So if you paid $100,000 for your home, but you think it’s worth $150,000, then the government would pay you $150,000 dollars. Because, that’s what you’d be willing to sell your property for (i.e. the value of your property).
To refer to what you used earlier, what’s to prevent the government from using it’s power of eminant domain to buy up property from a bunch of poor people? What’s to prevent the wealthy from lobbying those in government to use their power of eminant domain to buy up property from the poor and then turn around and sell it (at a favorable price) to those very same wealthy individuals who lobbied the government in the first place?
Do you honestly think that this doesn’t happen (I don’t think it happens a lot myslef, but I’m not naive to think that it doesn’t happen at all).
Like js_africanus, I don’t think necessarily that his proposal would be acceptable to many people (including me), but (in principle) I don’t see any inherent problems with it. Mind you, it would only work if people were willing (and able) to adequately assess the value of their property and were willing (and able) to abide by the obligation to sell their property at the assessed value.
Oh, and js_africanus,
You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters 
Is anybody else following what this guy is saying? Does it make sense? Because it doesn’t to me.
>> 1. Markets not competitive=>market values do not reflect free market principles=>appeal to market not appropriate
You are saying the housing market in the US is not competitive and therefore “market values do not reflect free market principles”? I am not even going to bother with this nonsense. Does anybody else reading this thread believe this is a fair statement?
>> 2. Owner’s sincere valuation of home valid.
Does any other reader believe an owner’s “sincere” valuation is the bestmeasure of market value?
>> 3. Current assessment method flawed
What the hell does this mean? That fair market value as assessed by the free market is “flawed”? Does anybody agree with this?
Look, I am not even going to continue wasting my time. Does anybody else follow this and can explain it to me? Maybe then I can attempt to discuss it. For now it is meaningless nonsense to me.