Talk-Polywell.org

Why the USSR failed:

There is no New Socialist Man. We only have the old man conditioned by biology: acquisitive, territorial, hierarchy loving, favors biological relations (families) etc. etc. etc.

We have a system that produces pretty well with the old man - if we don't let greed and envy make us crazy about the imbalances that naturally occur in such a system. In fact Marx said it best. If you want to generate capital the way to go is capitalism.

My econ prof stressed that Adam Smith emphasized the "enlightened" part of "enlightened self interest". (It was the age of enlightenment.)
And, that Henry Ford's practice of paying his workers enough so they could buy his products was a classic example.
It also convinced them to work hard to keep their good wages.
I know I'm much more productive when I am being paid more.
But the current business model seems run be counter to that.

I couldn't stand more than one semester of econ.
But, it was eye opening at the same time it was irritating what with all their hidden assumptions and exclusions and fuzzy math and fuzzy logic.

Corporate bureaucrats can be just as bad as government ones about using the above strategies to maximize pay over work.
That is simply what raw self interest looks like from below.
Personally, I couldn't work that way and so wound up with less pay and more work.

So, why does it feel like the invisible hand is giving me the finger?

So, why does it feel like the invisible hand is giving me the finger?

Tom, I expect that everyone over 40 from the middle class down feels that way these days. I've excluded the youngsters, because they don't know any better yet. The finger will train them, all in due time.

So, why does it feel like the invisible hand is giving me the finger?

Because you don't take your self interest seriously.

There are two ways out:

1. Be satisfied with what you have
2. Get more

tombo wrote:I couldn't stand more than one semester of econ.
But, it was eye opening at the same time it was irritating what with all their hidden assumptions and exclusions and fuzzy math and fuzzy logic.

You know, if they had actually used fuzzy math and fuzzy logic, it may have been ok. But all that fuzzy thinking got me down.

KitemanSA wrote:

tombo wrote:I couldn't stand more than one semester of econ.
But, it was eye opening at the same time it was irritating what with all their hidden assumptions and exclusions and fuzzy math and fuzzy logic.

You know, if they had actually used fuzzy math and fuzzy logic, it may have been ok. But all that fuzzy thinking got me down. :wink:

The estimation of human behavior is difficult. Thus it pays more than the estimation of the behavior of electrons.,

> Why the USSR failed:

Ermmm... there seems to be a bit missing after this..

I see no reasons yet why a capitalist cooperative business model where the workers own shares in the business and directly benefit from their increased productively and are not having the wealth siphoned off by the boss, shareholders or money lenders, would fail to work in our capitalist society.

Especially given the fact that they already do, have done for years, and having even experimented myself has shown me they work rather well.

What the USSR did, what they did wrong, interests me to know and understand, so if there are errors in the cooperative model, that they might be corrected early on rather than later.

I think perhaps we just don't understand each other at the moment of what we are trying to say to each other.


> And, that Henry Ford's practice of paying his workers enough so
> they could buy his products was a classic example.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me!

In the UK, we provide credit to the same ends..


> 1. Be satisfied with what you have
> 2. Get more

I'd add:

3. Get more and share it..

The error in the cooperative model is motivation.

Not everyone is motivated to cooperate equally.

So unless there is some kind of incentive program the effort over time devolves to the minimums.

The ideal of course is to set the incentives to maximize useful output.

MSimon wrote:

So, why does it feel like the invisible hand is giving me the finger?

Because you don't take your self interest seriously.

There are two ways out:

1. Be satisfied with what you have
2. Get more

Simon, that's BS- That's just another way of the HAVE's telling the HAVE NOT's to enjoy the finger! People I know used to say, "Well, at least you have your health."
What happens when you don't have your health? Those two ways out are just the same as, "F**k off and die."

Aero wrote:

MSimon wrote:

So, why does it feel like the invisible hand is giving me the finger?

Because you don't take your self interest seriously.

There are two ways out:

1. Be satisfied with what you have
2. Get more

Simon, that's BS- That's just another way of the HAVE's telling the HAVE NOT's to enjoy the finger! People I know used to say, "Well, at least you have your health."
What happens when you don't have your health? Those two ways out are just the same as, "F**k off and die."

One should add to that...

4) Thou shalt pay TAX, before, during and after the event of ones demise. ( unless your name is Joe the Plumber / )

> effort over time devolves to the minimums

I would agree with that assertion, but..

Whats wrong with people doing just that ?

With plenty of unemployed, and lots of people doing jobs which aren't actually useful, if we just did the important stuff instead, wouldn't that be enough ?

Ok, so the rate of technological development wouldn't be earth shattering, but we'd slowly plod along, and meanwhile we'd all enjoy ourselves with the likes of a 4 hour working week, rather than working ours into an early grave by doing 50 hours, getting up at 5am to spend our day in traffic jams, to then see most of our income get swallowed up by taxes, rents, mortgages, petrol/gas..

Aero wrote:

MSimon wrote:

So, why does it feel like the invisible hand is giving me the finger?

Because you don't take your self interest seriously.

There are two ways out:

1. Be satisfied with what you have
2. Get more

Simon, that's BS- That's just another way of the HAVE's telling the HAVE NOT's to enjoy the finger! People I know used to say, "Well, at least you have your health."
What happens when you don't have your health? Those two ways out are just the same as, "F**k off and die."

Jeeze. You would think that the haves are stealing from the have nots and that economic conditions should have zero diffusion time. Reality doesn't work that way.

So you can either wait for the diffusion or accelerate it. Theft (arbitrary redistribution) slows the diffusion because it does not maximize the wealth in the system.

So what would I do to speed the spread of wealth? Institute Anglo Saxon political systems everywhere. Once you get the politics right (it may take 50 to 100 years or more) wealth generation follows.

Nanos wrote: > 1. Be satisfied with what you have
> 2. Get more

I'd add:

3. Get more and share it..

You first. Just so I can be sure this is not a one way deal. Once I have seen significant sharing from you over a significant period of time, (say 50% of your income for 20 years), I think it would be safe to reciprocate.

MSimon wrote: Jeeze. You would think that the haves are stealing from the have nots and that economic conditions should have zero diffusion time. Reality doesn't work that way.

I posted this link earlier in this thread, here it is again for those who missed it. http://www.gazetteonline.com/section/salaries02
It shows a link to the top 100 salaries paid by the state of Iowa. Not an elected politician in the lot. Mostly professors and assistant professors teaching 40 hours a week at the medical college. The lowest salary is nearly $300,000 and they are being paid by the tax payers who can't even afford good medical insurance. If that is not the HAVE's stealing from the HAVE NOT's, I don't know what it is.
The state does not need such good, expensive medical instruction that the medical care resulting is not available to it's citizens who paid for the instructors. If the only way to make medical care available to the tax payers is to "Dumb it down" then "Dumb it down!"

Aero wrote:

MSimon wrote: Jeeze. You would think that the haves are stealing from the have nots and that economic conditions should have zero diffusion time. Reality doesn't work that way.

I posted this link earlier in this thread, here it is again for those who missed it. http://www.gazetteonline.com/section/salaries02
It shows a link to the top 100 salaries paid by the state of Iowa. Not an elected politician in the lot. Mostly professors and assistant professors teaching 40 hours a week at the medical college. The lowest salary is nearly $300,000 and they are being paid by the tax payers who can't even afford good medical insurance. If that is not the HAVE's stealing from the HAVE NOT's, I don't know what it is.
The state does not need such good, expensive medical instruction that the medical care resulting is not available to it's citizens who paid for the instructors. If the only way to make medical care available to the tax payers is to "Dumb it down" then "Dumb it down!"

Supply and demand determine salaries except when there is political chicanery. You don't fix bad politics by more politics.

BTW in a diffusion of technology situation those on the edge of the diffusion almost always get the least capable resources. If you keep improving a technology the edge gets better faster. The rich serve as guinea pigs. The poor are the mass market.

In 1939 who could afford a TV set? In 2008 who can't? In America they are free. Same question: in 1975 who could afford a computer with a 1GB disk storage? In 2008 who can't?

Patience grasshopper.