If you are serious, you have to actually disagree with one of the assumptions that I listed. Economics isn’t “prescriptive”, it’s “descriptive”. It doesn’t tell you how things should be, it tells you how they are.
The way you talk, it’s like saying “I don’t believe it’s raining outside. We should switch to a different weather system. Sunny days are better.”
You will agree some laws apply in capitalism and some laws apply in socialism or communism? And eventually some of these laws could be exclusive of each economic system?
The “if you take more, less remains” law applies to every system. And the fact that many people want to use the same resource.
Then in “capitalism” a person who offers more in terms of goods wins in contest, and in “communism” a person with more bureaucratic power to offer wins in contest. And in “socialism” it’s somewhere in between.
Inner workings of USSR bureaucracy had quite a lot of resemblance to actual market. Not talking about black markets there even.
So you believe economy it’s a social science which apply to any human society of history and the same “laws” apply to slavery, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism, socialism and communism?
“Ceteris paribus” means “other things being equal”. So under the same conditions, yes markets will function the same.
Do you not know that all of the political regimes you mentioned had market economies? Slave markets are very famous examples of slavery. Feudal lords had market towns that made a lot of money trading. The USSR had a large underground market economy.
These were all constrained in some ways, as all markets are. But they didn’t change the fundamentals. The only way to do that is to challenge one of the assumptions I mentioned earlier.
Like if everyone suddenly became Buddhist and rejected material possessions, that would change economics. Just changing the government won’t do it.
And a large official one between organizations, just a bit counterintuitive for us. Some organization’s buying capacity was a logical AND of “funds” (formal units allocated to it by its ministry or planners or something) and “money” (rubles on balance of that organization, both earned and from central financing). It couldn’t trade with other organizations for more than its “funds” allowed.
If you are serious, you have to actually disagree with one of the assumptions that I listed. Economics isn’t “prescriptive”, it’s “descriptive”. It doesn’t tell you how things should be, it tells you how they are.
The way you talk, it’s like saying “I don’t believe it’s raining outside. We should switch to a different weather system. Sunny days are better.”
You will agree some laws apply in capitalism and some laws apply in socialism or communism? And eventually some of these laws could be exclusive of each economic system?
The “if you take more, less remains” law applies to every system. And the fact that many people want to use the same resource.
Then in “capitalism” a person who offers more in terms of goods wins in contest, and in “communism” a person with more bureaucratic power to offer wins in contest. And in “socialism” it’s somewhere in between.
Inner workings of USSR bureaucracy had quite a lot of resemblance to actual market. Not talking about black markets there even.
So you believe economy it’s a social science which apply to any human society of history and the same “laws” apply to slavery, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism, socialism and communism?
“Ceteris paribus” means “other things being equal”. So under the same conditions, yes markets will function the same.
Do you not know that all of the political regimes you mentioned had market economies? Slave markets are very famous examples of slavery. Feudal lords had market towns that made a lot of money trading. The USSR had a large underground market economy.
These were all constrained in some ways, as all markets are. But they didn’t change the fundamentals. The only way to do that is to challenge one of the assumptions I mentioned earlier.
Like if everyone suddenly became Buddhist and rejected material possessions, that would change economics. Just changing the government won’t do it.
And a large official one between organizations, just a bit counterintuitive for us. Some organization’s buying capacity was a logical AND of “funds” (formal units allocated to it by its ministry or planners or something) and “money” (rubles on balance of that organization, both earned and from central financing). It couldn’t trade with other organizations for more than its “funds” allowed.