I also believe that some short of planned economy can function even within capitalism and it does since states finance R&D, have trade policy, carrots and sticks, etc. In a more equal society, educational systems could function better, letting people to maximize their abilities and skills. Sociology, history, some economic disciplines (eg economic history/cleometrics or political economy), some disciplines of geography (eg paleogeography) etc. They actually used models like “Feldman-Mahalanobis” (with the so called “5 year plans”) quite successfully with high and stable growth rates for decades. (Feldman-Mahalanobis Model )That’s why I avoided to mention any kind of socialism or any similar political term.
I can not say many things about that, I’m not a philosopher nor a sociologist, I’m just trying to think out of the box. To give an example, think of all the sciences that are not “merchantable”. I don’t think that capitalism at its current state is as productivr and creative as it used to be, at least at the heart of the system. If we were back at 1700 I would be a capitalism-lover, for sure.
Marxism is a school of economic thought. I just believe that there’s no need for more growth in some countries (job generating process could be achieved by other means) mostly because after a turning point, it creates more negative than positive effects.Of course capitalism is a very successful system in terms of growth rates. You can’t (and never should try to) plan music industry or grocery markets but it can work in large scale investments and in crucial and strategic sectors.Marxism…? Hm, a short of.
Historically, it was a very successful system since the production has followed exponential growth but we should start to think of any alternatives that can gradually replace it.For example, I would suggest to focus on a zero growth- positive development model. This is absolutely true. I don’t think that capitalism at its current state is as productivr and creative as it used to be, at least at the heart of the system.
Do you believe that a better regulated capitalism, more ethical etc provides the optimal economic system? We can see that happening right now, it’s not a coincidence that the last 30 years so vast amounts of capital has been invested in derivatives, derivatives of derivatives, insurance of derivatives of derivatives, financial markets, etc instead of production. This societies have failed in many ways therefore we should critique them as much as we critique western societies or even more.I think I like the forces of social change. Marxism is a school of economic thought. It can not replace all markets though.
Deregulation and banking protection can be explained by that among others.But the biggest problem I would mention is… growth. It can not replace all markets though. Planning can function within or without capitalism. There are limits. It may be impossible even though I’m not convinced yet.
Thus, unemployment and inequalities* are organic components of the system (to some extent) . .
<
p> I’m afraid that such type of hypothetical model will sound quite dangerous to proponents of capitalism. There is a fine point of balance.What would the benefits be of a zero-growth-positive development model in terms of labor? Would higher education still be relevant?
I’m definitely against capitalism; I don’t blame all the existed markets though, they are a necessity and there always must be space for them. You can’t (and never should try to) plan music industry or grocery markets but it can work in large scale investments and in crucial and strategic sectors.Marxism…? Hm, a short of. Originally Posted by Achilleas Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re against capitalism and for something akin to a planned-economy, almost Marxism.Capitalism is generally crisis prone when there is either too much government or too little. As a system, it had been rather creative for centuries but I believe that there is a limit.
I intentionally didn’t mention socialism because I don’t know if the name is appropriate. Sure, there are very ingenious and useful thoughts about how to manage and solve its inefficiencies etc (especially by post- Keynesians, behavioral finance theorists, etc) but its extreme point in terms of usefulness occurs as long as they remain within the given framework.Of course there can be a balance. I didn’t have on my mind a Feldman model nor a similar growth model. Each one controls congress and political parties in numerous ways and the same thing occurs in the whole world. I would say that each country should have some strategic goals (eg high tech agricultural sector, tourism, petrochemical processing sector or whatever) and to some extend should organise and plan its whole function to achieve these goals.
Because it is often claimed that capitalism has faster growth rates than any kind of socialism, regardless if it’s true or not. Planning can function within or without capitalism. Of course there are more radically planed economies (China and india for example) with rather impressive growth rates.
I believe that productive capabilities are more than enough to satisfy the vast majority of social needs therefore a system that still focuses on compound growth may gradually loose its effectiveness. Think of the resources, the geographical space, environmental issues, the above discussion about profitability, etc. Sociology, history, some economic disciplines (eg economic history/cleometrics or political economy), some disciplines of geography (eg paleogeography) etc. I could propose very few characteristics like democracy, diversity, decentralized bottom-up decision-making, and this kind of staff.
Marx’s main work is about capitalism, not socialism. You may think that economy is ok, that you’ve found the equilibrium and then you’re at a disequilibrium, destabilizing, crisis prone economy, again.I actually believe that in a zero growth model education can shine. In a more equal society, educational systems could function better, letting people to maximize their abilities and skills. If we were back at 1700 I would be a capitalism-lover, for sure. Social inequalities are reproduced to some extend through the educational system.
As far as I understand this can not go on forever. There is a fine point of balance.What would the benefits be of a zero-growth-positive development model in terms of labor? Would higher education still be relevant?Cheers! Distribution of wealth, more free time for human development, more freedom, democracy and diversity, etc may be things that we should consider.Stanley514 you make a great point, we should really discuss about what is productive and unproductive labour (shouldn’t it be in another thread?) Distribution of wealth, more free time for human development, more freedom, democracy and diversity, etc may be things that we should consider.Stanley514 you make a great point, we should really discuss about what is productive and unproductive labour (shouldn’t it be in another thread?) Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re against capitalism and for something akin to a planned-economy, almost Marxism.Capitalism is generally crisis prone when there is either too much government or too little.
I also believe that some short of planned economy can function even within capitalism and it does since states finance R&D, have trade policy, carrots and sticks, etc. — I can not say many things about that, I’m not a philosopher nor a sociologist, I’m just trying to think out of the box. As a system, it had been rather creative for centuries but I believe that there is a limit. As far as it concerns ussr, china, cuba, etc well, that’s not the Marxism I’m talking about. Quite interestingly, for USSR (according to some CIA reviews) it is said that have reached even 25% growth rates, unfortunately I can’t find the relative papers to verify this info.
This societies have failed in many ways therefore we should critique them as much as we critique western societies or even more.I think I like the forces of social change. For China and India more research has been done. Of course this is not the main problem of the underdeveloped/undeveloped/developing countries.
You may think that economy is ok, that you’ve found the equilibrium and then you’re at a disequilibrium, destabilizing, crisis prone economy, again.I actually believe that in a zero growth model education can shine. Therefore, wen a situation is not a “win-win” then someone looses and usually cheap essay writing
, we loose. I would say that each country should have some strategic goals (eg high tech agricultural sector, tourism, petrochemical processing sector or whatever) and to some extend should organise and plan its whole function to achieve these goals. Of course there are more radically planed economies (China and india for example) with rather impressive growth rates. They tend to be extinguished by many “market-friendly” universities.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you’re against capitalism and for something akin to a planned-economy, almost Marxism.Capitalism is generally crisis prone when there is either too much government or too little. Marx’s main work is about capitalism, not socialism. The so called “parties of the wall street” is a procuratorial example. There is a fine point of balance.What would the benefits be of a zero-growth-positive development model in terms of labor?
Would higher education still be relevant? I’m definitely against capitalism; I don’t blame all the existed markets though, they are a necessity and there always must be space for them. I could propose very few characteristics like democracy, diversity, decentralized bottom-up decision-making, and this kind of staff. All these interesting things about “human capital” etc can become relevant.
How stable though? Chaotic dynamics could teach us a lot about non linear behavior. How stable though? Chaotic dynamics could teach us a lot about non linear behavior.
I would really like to find out if a zero growth model is sustainable and under which conditions (eg feudalism was a zero growth model but obviously I don’t have such a thing on my mind). As far as it concerns ussr, china, cuba, etc well, that’s not the Marxism I’m talking about. Capitalism is about constant, 3-5% compound growth for ever.
Think of the most volatile and important variable of the system- investments. Originally Posted by Achilleas One of the fundamental problems is that capitalism is crisis prone. But for the heart of the system- and by that I mean the richest countries in the world- I think that this compound growth is not possible. Furthermore, the system recovers when profitability rises and that can happen by certain ways- usually through depreciation (that creates unemployment) and by rising the surplus rate (by reducing the real wages) and that’s not a positive process for the majority of us.*(which can occur in sunny days as well/jobless recoveries are well known; we are in a jobless recovery right know actually)Another fundamental problem could be the power that money gives to certain people from certain social classes. (of course that’s true for almost each economic system but, only within capitalism money becomes an internal vital component of the economic system). Social inequalities are reproduced to some extend through the educational system.
Sure, there are very ingenious and useful thoughts about how to manage and solve its inefficiencies etc (especially by post- Keynesians, behavioral finance theorists, etc) but its extreme point in terms of usefulness occurs as long as they remain within the given framework.Of course there can be a balance. To give an example, think of all the sciences that are not “merchantable”. Or another example, I do like crisis theories and cleometrics but I’ll probably work as an accountan, since cleometricians are not useful for the vast majority of corporations.I definitely don’t have any clear answer.
