Anonymous landtrust 10w

I don’t care about growth

1

Anonymous OP 10w

Then how do you produce enough to get everyone what they need/want?

0

Anonymous landtrust 10w

Im not saying it all should be private but it’s not that simple

0

Anonymous landtrust 10w

Growing with inequality usually Trumps stagnation with equality. Belarus is the most income equal nation on earth and people are not rushing to immigrate there.

0

Anonymous landtrust 10w

Because it would be a function of the state to provide those things. And there wouldn’t be middlemen skimming profit off the top of whatever it is. Utility services are examples of this

4

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

Utilities are also a unique industry though. The basic technologies of the utility buissnes are well understood and we don’t expect very much “innovation” in this sector of our economy. So the downsides of a state monopoly are mitigated

1

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

The state can’t allocate those resources effectively because decision makers aren’t personally liable and government bureaucracy creating inefficiency

-1

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Also many utilities are naturally monopolistic so a state run firm or a private monopoly with a regulated prices (as is usually done) may very well be more practical

1

Anonymous canesfan 10w

So you agree? You think the downsides of a state monopoly (in this case) would be negligible.

3

Anonymous landtrust 10w

If you think federal agencies aren’t personally liable, wait until you hear about executive boards

3

Anonymous landtrust 10w

Historically states have not though. The Soviets invested Millions into massive infrastructure projects in Siberia with little upside. A private comaony could never do that they would have gone out of buissnes. Meanwhile Soviet computing stagnated as nobody was able to start a buissnes and commercialize it.

0

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

They’re not. It’s not their money

0

Anonymous landtrust 10w

Also, in the case of housing— there are more empty homes in the US than homeless people. A nationalized housing industry could fix this. Build where there is need, and not where there is a high ROI

3

Anonymous canesfan 10w

The Soviets investments were a huge success that’s why they became a global superpower. But it wasn’t simply “nationalization” which caused it

1

Anonymous canesfan 10w

They sent people to space what do mean their computing stagnated

3

Anonymous landtrust 10w

They also restructured their entire economic system, yes

3

Anonymous landtrust 10w

Well their investments were initially successful. They moved farmers from the factory into higher productivity factories (designed in many cases by American engineers). But once they initially industrialized they failed to develop emerging industries effectively. Combine that with political corruption and the drain of the Afghan intervention. The whole system collapsed.

0

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Well, a funny thing happens when you turn most of the moneyed world against a developing nation— they tend to fall apart

3

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

The Soviets controlled Eastern Europe. The Chinese were communists. Africa and South America had mixed allegiances but many were usefully. Primarily the Soviets where not able to trade with the west but trade with the west is usually slanders as “unequal exchange” anyways

-1

Anonymous canesfan 10w

*neutral not “usefully”

0

Anonymous canesfan 10w

*Slandered not “slanders”

0

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

Negligible in some specific industries but absolutely not in others

0

Anonymous canesfan 10w

‘Slandered as “unequal exchange”’ like there aren’t observable power imbalances; ok dude

3

Anonymous canesfan 10w

What downsides of nationalization do you fear

3

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

Western countries have fewer tariffs than most of the world. And the developing world can ride on the coat tails of western technological developments by importing high tech capital and trained engineers. The whole idea is complete nonsense

0

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Socialists only recognize the massive benefits of trade with the west when Soviet economic collapse gets brought up

0

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Damn, the west sure is far ahead in tech. I wonder if there are any historical reasons for that…

2

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Also in your own example you frame the success of these developing nations as being dependent on The West. Can you see how that might not be entirely fair? How it might lead to economic power being wielded to exert influence over smaller, poorer nations?

2

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

By what mechanism? Each company negotiates their own trade terms. The only trade term the countries decide are things like tariffs which as I said are lower in western countries, even less so after the neoliberal wave of the 1990s and 2000s

0

Anonymous canesfan 10w

What do you mean by what mechanism? Consider the embargoes of Cuba and the DPRK. When America doesn’t like you, they tell their buddies not to sell to you. Be serious

2

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

Those countries brought that on themselves by seizing western assets without any reimbursement. North Korea also holds the world hostage with nukes to boot. Western countries are more than happy to trade with countries that don’t steal from us.

-2

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Also this isn’t “unequal exchange” this is a lack of exchange. How can the west be fleecing these countries if there’s no trade to begin with

-1

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Don’t have the time or crayons to explain this to you

2

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

You can explain to Americas economists as well while you’re at it. Because “unequal exchange” isn’t a theory many if any professional economists take seriously.

-1

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Capitalist economists aren’t interested? Shocker

3

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

They are interested in empirical results, but you practice the flat earth version of economics.

0

Anonymous canesfan 10w

Materialist analysis probably does seem like a strange concept to u

3

Anonymous boariskarloff 10w

Dialectical materialism is hardly an approach to economics at all. It’s philosophy.

1

Anonymous canesfan 10w

And there’s nothing wrong with philosophy but the ham handed attempt to predict economic behavior with “dialectical materialism” is pretty much indefensible empirically.

1