You are not meaningfully collecting different perspectives, though, if you are dismissing others as not falling inside of your own construct of “basic economics”.
I assume you are aware that economies have occurred historically not based on supply and demand.
Yes, they tend to fall under some sort of authoritarian system and usually still have free trade outside of the system. When supply and demand is discarded by government, people tend to die. So it seems to me that we can central power since the free market, while not ideal, is still better than the likely risk of corrupt power with all of the power.
People are dying because the entire economy, the entirety of processes of production and distribution, is under massively centralized control, and driven by the profit motive, which is inimical to human survival and flourishing, in a word, corrupt.
I have been browsing comments for the post quite aggressively, and have even read most of them now several times. I have found none advocating for supply and demand being “discarded by government”, nor any for expansion of authority.
I am actually advocating for supply and demand being “discarded by government” :)
Sorry, I realized after clicking “reply” that you’re already someone I’m having a (slightly heated, sorry!) discussion with. I promise I’m not following you.
But nonetheless, even Adam Smith (the founder of capitalism) had some problems with unrelated markets wrt necessities. We don’t have to go off the deep end to say “supply and demand economics should be discarded for food and healthcare if it’s the only way to stop poor people from dying inches away from trashbins full of food”
The phrasing is intrinsically nebulous and rhetorically charged, useful more as a tactic for constructing a straw man than for advocating meaningful social change.
The phrasing is intrinsically nebulous and rhetorically charged
Really? I’ll be less nebulous. I think the government should step in and provide food to all Americans, setting a purchase price based upon actual cost to produce.
useful more as a tactic for constructing a straw man than for advocating meaningful social change.
I think you might be confusing me. Because it sounds like you’re saying I should lie and pretend I don’t want to undermine supply and demand because it would be easy for a dishonest interlocutor to make me look scary. I don’t like my side lying about our positions.
I simply pointed out that there are a lot of us on the left who are “advocating for supply and demand being “discarded by government””. You came up with the phrase, and it is a clear reference to capitalism.
I am for the government intervening to break “supply and demand” in some cases. I hope you’re not saying “supply and demand” is a nebulous term. It’s a clear term with a clear meaning.
You are not meaningfully collecting different perspectives, though, if you are dismissing others as not falling inside of your own construct of “basic economics”.
I assume you are aware that economies have occurred historically not based on supply and demand.
Yes, they tend to fall under some sort of authoritarian system and usually still have free trade outside of the system. When supply and demand is discarded by government, people tend to die. So it seems to me that we can central power since the free market, while not ideal, is still better than the likely risk of corrupt power with all of the power.
People are dying because the entire economy, the entirety of processes of production and distribution, is under massively centralized control, and driven by the profit motive, which is inimical to human survival and flourishing, in a word, corrupt.
I have been browsing comments for the post quite aggressively, and have even read most of them now several times. I have found none advocating for supply and demand being “discarded by government”, nor any for expansion of authority.
waves hand
I am actually advocating for supply and demand being “discarded by government” :)
Sorry, I realized after clicking “reply” that you’re already someone I’m having a (slightly heated, sorry!) discussion with. I promise I’m not following you.
But nonetheless, even Adam Smith (the founder of capitalism) had some problems with unrelated markets wrt necessities. We don’t have to go off the deep end to say “supply and demand economics should be discarded for food and healthcare if it’s the only way to stop poor people from dying inches away from trashbins full of food”
The phrasing is intrinsically nebulous and rhetorically charged, useful more as a tactic for constructing a straw man than for advocating meaningful social change.
Really? I’ll be less nebulous. I think the government should step in and provide food to all Americans, setting a purchase price based upon actual cost to produce.
I think you might be confusing me. Because it sounds like you’re saying I should lie and pretend I don’t want to undermine supply and demand because it would be easy for a dishonest interlocutor to make me look scary. I don’t like my side lying about our positions.
You are not the one who chose the phrase. You expressed affinity for it, and I explained my concerns.
Huh? What are you actually talking about?
I simply pointed out that there are a lot of us on the left who are “advocating for supply and demand being “discarded by government””. You came up with the phrase, and it is a clear reference to capitalism.
I am for the government intervening to break “supply and demand” in some cases. I hope you’re not saying “supply and demand” is a nebulous term. It’s a clear term with a clear meaning.
The phrasing is not a serious explanation of a desirable political course.
It is just dishonest rhetoric, being given to collapse the gamut of transformative possibility into a bogeyman of consolidated state power.