Is Communism / Central-planning The Answer?

[Dr Doom]

I was just reading some excerpts of Dmitry Orlov's, stories from a post-collapse russia:

“Another key difference between the US and the USSR : in the Soviet Union, nobody owned their place of residence. What this meant is that the economy could collapse without causing homelessness: just about everyone went on living in the same place as before. There were no evictions or foreclosures. Everyone stayed put, and this prevented society from disintegrating.”

“One more difference: the place where they stayed put was generally accessible by public transportation, which continued to run during the worst of times. Most of the Soviet-era developments were centrally planned, and central planners do not like sprawl: it is too difficult and expensive to service. Few people owned cars, and even fewer depended on cars for getting around. Even the worst gasoline shortages resulted in only minor inconveniences for most people…”

It seems in certain areas, infrastructure planning / housing the communist centrally

planned economic system works quite well.

As it is we've left everything to the free market. So when the inevitable HPC leads

to an economic collapse. The effects are likely to be worse even than when the

Russian economy collapsed in 98'.

[MarkG]

Indeed. It's no coincidence that central banks are one of the main goals of the Communist Manifesto.

[tahoma]

The Chinese are currently putting measures in place to prevent a housing bubble of their own. A supposedly autocratic dictatorship seems to be more honest and take more care of it's citizen's economic welfare than our wonderful 'free democracies'.

Democracy is just the political manifestation of capitalism.

[LivingTheDream-JustLikeLeedsUtd]

I suggest you take a trip to Cuba and see how that's working out for those guys.

There is NO equality in housing. Some live in spanish villas renovated by UNESCO money, while others live in shacks in the country, "commuting" to their place of work on horse and cart.

The high rise and shacks on the edge of havana are as bad as I've seen anywhere in the world. Think of a Rio de Janeiro "Favela" but state funded.

Anyone who decides they want to move from another part of Cuba to Havana needs permission from Castro.

[HPCheese]

The Chinese are currently putting measures in place to prevent a housing bubble of their own. A supposedly autocratic dictatorship seems to be more honest and take more care of it's citizen's economic welfare than our wonderful 'free democracies'.

Democracy is just the political manifestation of capitalism.

China killed the Beijing bubble by slapping a 5% tax on properties re-sold within 2 years.

If you really think China's so great why not go and live there? Communism sucks.

[no accountant]

A supposedly autocratic dictatorship seems to be more honest and take more care of it's citizen's economic welfare than our wonderful 'free democracies'.

But it's not free is it. I can't build my home on the edge of London. Central planning has dictated that. If we were still allowed to build then houses on the edge of towns would cost about the same as the cost of building them. This would be the natural way to meet supply and demand.

It's central planning (1947 Town and Country planning Act + Central banking) that caused this bubble in the first place!

Edited May 4, 2006 by no accountant

[tahoma]

China killed the Beijing bubble by slapping a 5% tax on properties re-sold within 2 years.

If you really think China's so great why not go and live there? Communism sucks.

I'm not saying China is great. I'm saying if they can be honest about bubbles and counter them, why can't our government?

[BillyShears]

China killed the Beijing bubble by slapping a 5% tax on properties re-sold within 2 years.

If you really think China's so great why not go and live there? Communism sucks.

There are problems with Communism sure. But can't you have a 5% tax on properties re-sold withing 2 years without going the whole communist route? And is that tax such a bad one? Surely it would be ad homenim to criticise the tax because China is a communist country or to pretent that such a tax could only be implemented if the "rest" of communism is implemented too?

Billy Shears

[RichM]

Captialism and free markets now!

[Seamaster]

If communism is the answer, it was sure as hell a stupid question.

[Randall Herbert]

I think Charles Clark, Jack Straw, Gordon Brown and manu other dodgy NU LAbour tossers would have a view on that!!

Charles Clark and Jack Straw spent their student youth as guests of Mr Castro and other unsavoury South american figures.

Wonder where they got their dodgy plicies from?

Don't vote for these BAAAAstardSSS what ever you do.

[Mushroom]

Blair and Prescott fighting over who gets the best Dacha?

No thanks.

Soulless flat like all the rest, no thanks, oops, an inner city in the Uk.

Internal passports, no thanks, oh hang on, coming to a country near you.

No loo rolls in the shops, no thanks.

Queue for bread, no thanks.

Lot of central planning in UK anyway.

"Communism", as manifested up to now hasn't worked.

"Capitalism" is only vaguely better though.

We just haven't found a truly satisfactory way of ordering Human affairs yet.

I doubt we will.

[MarkG]

I'm saying if they can be honest about bubbles and counter them, why can't our government?

Because they're not a democracy. It's rare for any democratic government to look past the next election, or have any real policy beyond increasing their power and buying votes.

[Time to raise the rents.]

I was just reading some excerpts of Dmitry Orlov's, stories from a post-collapse russia:

“Another key difference between the US and the USSR : in the Soviet Union, nobody owned their place of residence. What this meant is that the economy could collapse without causing homelessness: just about everyone went on living in the same place as before. There were no evictions or foreclosures. Everyone stayed put, and this prevented society from disintegrating.”

“One more difference: the place where they stayed put was generally accessible by public transportation, which continued to run during the worst of times. Most of the Soviet-era developments were centrally planned, and central planners do not like sprawl: it is too difficult and expensive to service. Few people owned cars, and even fewer depended on cars for getting around. Even the worst gasoline shortages resulted in only minor inconveniences for most people…”

It seems in certain areas, infrastructure planning / housing the communist centrally

planned economic system works quite well.

As it is we've left everything to the free market. So when the inevitable HPC leads

to an economic collapse. The effects are likely to be worse even than when the

Russian economy collapsed in 98'.

Um sorry, but is that the collapse of communism you're speaking of? Why would a system that collapsed be any good?

And also, please explain the purpose of the public transport running. Was it to ferry the people back and forth to nowhere & no job?

[tahoma]

Captialism and free markets now!

I agree with laissez-faire capitalism - look at my signature. But I wonder if there is a better way to implement it than a bunch of self interested smiling skulls in political parties that are distinguishable only by their level of (in)competence.

[jp1]

Its great if you want to live like this

[RichM]

I don't think our economy will collapse, it will just struggle. The wheat will be separated from the chaff, there will be a refreshing amount of change, as well as misery for some poor inidividuals who over-borrowed over the past few years. We will come through it.

Communism on the other hand is a good way of driving your country back about 30 years.

[MarkG]

But I wonder if there is a better way to implement it than a bunch of self interested smiling skulls in political parties that are distinguishable only by their level of (in)competence.

How can a government 'implement' free-market capitalism other than by abolishing most of itself? In a free market, the government would do little beyond protecting the borders and running the courts, and some would argue that it isn't even needed to do that.

Claiming that any Western nation has a free market economy is absurd, particularly when the government controls the supply of money.

[tahoma]

How can a government 'implement' free-market capitalism other than by abolishing most of itself? In a free market, the government would do little beyond protecting the borders and running the courts, and some would argue that it isn't even needed to do that.

Claiming that any Western nation has a free market economy is absurd, particularly when the government controls the supply of money.

Hey, that's a great idea for a new political party. Manifesto: Vote for us, and we will abolish ourselves. Plus back to a gold standard on paper money. Plus public services run on the principles of private business. I'm rambling again.

[ganymede]

Both systems screw their citizens and plunder the environment; but capitalism produces fewer poor people.

[BuyingBear]

Central banks endlessly printing cash is the ultminate form of central planning, it's just that the market is left to decide into which asset class the capital is to be directed into.

Under old school Keynesianism the executive also sets prices and plans exactly where each button is to be spent, arguably this is a better outlet for liquidity as it results in useful lasting assets after the bust, usually in the form of infrastructure like roads, bridges, hospitals, large capital projects etc. I suppose the dotcom bubble resulted in us laying enough fiber to last a century, but a lot was pissed away, the property bubble has resulted in some houses being upgraded and some ghastly new builds; however a lot has been pissed away on frivolous short-term consumption, this is not investment for the future... unless you're a bank.

[MarkG]

On the other hand, the Japanese pissed away a lot of money on worthless infrastructure programs over the last decade or so. So neither is guaranteed to work.

[Mushroom]

How can a government 'implement' free-market capitalism other than by abolishing most of itself? In a free market, the government would do little beyond protecting the borders and running the courts, and some would argue that it isn't even needed to do that.

Claiming that any Western nation has a free market economy is absurd, particularly when the government controls the supply of money.

Part of the conundrum is that it can be argued that Government is neccessary to provide a legal framework within which the free market can work. Laws to govern contracts so both parties have recourse to action if either are aggrieved. Otherwise banditry might be the order of the day.

Of course Governments then quite happily expand their legislative influence.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Mushroom

[BuyingBear]

On the other hand, the Japanese pissed away a lot of money on worthless infrastructure programs over the last decade or so. So neither is guaranteed to work.

Indeed, but each provincial town getting its own airport kind of defies the cluster effect.

[Fudge]

There never has been a country which has managed to form a true model of Socialism or

Communism. Then again you could argue the same with Capitalism, I think what we have now in the world

is a form of mercantilism, where it appears to be a free market but the majority of the wealth is channeled to a small minority who run the system, while half of the worlds population live on 2 dollars a day.