Boston Basic Income #40: Socialism vs Capitalism (Poor Audio)

Boston Basic Income #40: Socialism vs Capitalism (Poor Audio)

okay we're like hi everybody this is great group tonight they turn out hello everybody out there inside the camera so welcome to our weekly basic income discussion group unfortunately the sound quality is a little worse today because I couldn't get the microphone to work so we've got the built-in microphone on my laptop and the stream quality may or may not be bad so we might end up uploading a video of this afterwards the steam doesn't go well so yeah we're here to talk about socialism versus capitalism and these are interesting concepts there's a lot of I guess political contentiousness between socialism capitalism and so I have a question write a few questions one is how does basic income fit in is it more compatible with capitalism or is it more more of a socialist idea or is it kind of orthogonal to the two and then another question is you know people who are pro socialism tend to see kind of capitalism as bad and people who are Pro capitalism tend to see socialism as bad so how do these two camps define the other camps point of view so if you are a capitalism supporter how would you define socialism and if you're a socialism supporter how would you define capitalism like you kinda want to start with those questions and go around the room and get thoughts so I'm not an expert on like the two camps but I guess the way I would think about it is in terms of what kinds of things are like centralized organizations the best at managing for society and what kinds of things work best as emergent from individual people's choices I don't know if those exactly map onto capitalism socialism but those are the concepts that are kind of useful for me and for me get the question like I said of which things as opposed to it's always good for you know everything that's always good to have no state so so I think more cuz of what is good for what they think it's um as construed by you which is the form of it that I know the best is something that optimizes capacity the likes of individual choice based market to align well with people's well-being by for example giving people money to spend so that the profit would have been aligned but there won't be Way and dealing with a problem that isn't dealt well with by the emergent properties of people's individual spending which is how to throw money back to them sooner so money has to grow up in that kind of way in the back to consumers and also it seems like that you can come by these well handled by a well-functioning government has one option so in that sense it kind of maybe alliances with the supply side but it might also align well with the capitalist items of making allowing the free market including deliver market operate in a way that maybe I guess that buzz get it's like a lot helping each piece of things to work what would a socialist say capitalism as well so like I said I almost don't want to use this term and I'd only know what they means but I'll take a gander I guess a cartoon version is like a socialist might complain that capitalism is a system that cares about the accumulation of money maybe for a few people maybe for no one and doesn't care enough about well-being and a capitalist might say socialism is a system that is naive about how to have an efficient economy that actually works well for the prosperity of everybody okay the basic income is you know there's something there's a free housing facilities education I think basic interpersonal are you're not gonna pay you services and we're gonna just keep it money something anybody music because in demo some little there are schemes and it gives juice to politicians to stop you know you know giving the function and that is it going they said if you just say that instead okay they gave maybe you see how gas subsidies he and victims of differences of cities we had subsidies and education and Joe quoted us as an affirmative action for necessities buses if that has dollar production and it has lifted the back of buses and it was supposed to do so I think it was just giving them the money then figured out he was at this thing it's a better option of use livable for Russia I think that's capitalism awesome I think that both of us point-of-view basic income and so I think it's like that oh well as far as the basic victim goes I agree with you that it's worth Agra know that I think basically from one category and both the socialist and a catharsis personally I try to be unbiased but I generally support capitalism and socialism because I support the free market to support people having more freedoms than the hey I have a better understanding competence integrate really well a couple of them but what about like the capitalist economy wants to not paper goods at all live it all Kaitlyn today's to and so they think I'm feels more like I still to this like oh we're gonna give things people just because they deserve them for existing I have the social sites of defying capitalism a day like capitalism is like the exploitation of the laborer class is trying to get as much flavor out of important areas for as little money as possible so these people feel sort of like Oh well basic income in either capitalistic or socialistic it's well as it was implied in the article it has properties and quality and its Hagen well as I've stated it well capitalism and socialism they both expect you to get jobs well with basic income if it's high enough you don't even need to get a job if you don't want to with socialism well basically you need to the function well you probably need socialized health care which is which with if you have to have it's not included to race in your economy but take a large chunk out of your basic income so or when completely unaffordable the way socialism is viewed in this country in well rather in a cupid it's the word thrown around for no particular reason like the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare is well not social rather a capitalist beast and it's based on Mitt Romney's the former governor of Massachusetts I could say that basic income from my point of view is the capital and the community benefits like communities first and there is no such thing as individualism in socialism no it's it and so when there is a socialism people believe that government must do everything for them like there's free education free medicine and three houses free car etc like you don't really need to worry about tomorrow's day all about about salaries about money to be like always worrying about your existence about your surviving because parents – okay alright the government already provides you with all the goods that are necessary this is like an ultimate socialism but it's like how it was said like it's pretty naive way of thinking about economy that is why it doesn't work well when like people try to apply it but basic income is like another question when is capitalism there's a big group of people who are hurt by like they do to their specific characteristics I guess all their origin perhaps they cannot benefit from it because they the labor they provide is not in demand for example which it's cheap according to the market and etc for them some income like the goddess of anything just income for the resistance is necessary because they could not survive on on their salaries due to the free market which is like the churning by the cap society but during the socialism is liked like you already have house your children go to school like you have education you didn't pay for anything of it like why do you have why doing it but more info but in capitalism for example if you are from some poor areas like and it's really and there's like some some situation that because of which you cannot get an education or your salary is really really like low you need some help from government which is basic info but on the other hand basic income I think it it must not be like universal thing like for everyone for example in big cities if you if you got education if you have to your job like well page of not like you're really rich but it's well-paid you can afford like a good life like good standards of life why do you need what they think it will make you as it was said again it will make you lazy and less competitive in the capitalist society ok so I think these are these are great comments from everyone and I can kind of see everyone's perspective – I really liked Pablo's comment that basic income is like subsidizing the free market I think you know definitionally I think the simplest definitions of socialism capitalism are that capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and then socialism it's collective ownership I mean the production and when I hear these these two definitions I automatically think well it's it's more efficient for some things – for for some resources to be allocated and some things to be provided by the free market and it's more efficient for other resources to be allocated and services to be provided by by the government collectively in the interests of the people so I feel like there's always there's always going to be both and if you have like a philosophy of everything needs to be free market or everything he needs to be kind of collectively controlled then what you're striving toward is never going to be is never going to be the right answer so I think one question we can ask is is you know what kinds of things should be you know managed for the benefit of everyone and what kinds of things should be is left up to the markets I like what Bethenny said about you know when people have money but yeah as far as as basic income goes I would say that it's both socialist and capitalist in the sense that it funds the free market so people can be free to make their own decisions with what they want what they want how they want to spend their money but it's also something that's provided by the government has provided for the collective benefit of people so there's kind of this hybrid here that you can't really have a properly functioning free market if there isn't some kind of collective management of it and obviously can't have any kind of society if you don't have some kind of market that allocates resources efficiently so my mom is on here don't go in so she says basic income seems to fit the socialist perspective having to do with the quality and community well-being for all and also fits the consumer different perspective of capitalism keeping the profits going we already have a mix for example Social Security welfare yeah I mean I think that's right I think we already have a mix and I think it's impossible to have one 100% free market economy and it's impossible to have a 100% so so yeah this is the first article gets an article from Teen Vogue last year and I got a little bit of criticism for choosing this article because of kind of how I guess simplistic it is in terms of representing the socialist perspective on capitalism but it's also true that when this article first came out last year a lot of my network and a lot of my friends were like wow I've never seen capitalism described so clearly and so well you know I'm gonna read more Teen Vogue now and stuff like that so this is definitely something that resonates with people yeah does anyone have any more thoughts yeah and also giving people a basic income allows the labor market to be a free market and still have a humane society so like if we're requiring people to get all of their income through the labor market and actually several people mentioned this kind of thing and then they might just not have a skill that's in demand they might not have like we might not need their labor at all and an efficient economy and so to tie your entire to come to that you either have to choose between like a society that's not really working for the people very well or if it's not a lot of them or you know you have to make the labor market not a free market not a capitalist really yeah and so I think that the position now is kind of an unhappy an imperfect hybrid of the two like we're sort of leaving people behind and also certainly not just a free market to try to help people like and it sort of could be potentially a lot better right yeah I think where to look what Elizabeth was saying before we're you know like one of the features of capitalism is that you know employers want to pay as little as possible for their labor that's only a bad thing if people need to get their incomes from the right or expecting yeah so that is exactly right yeah and like I think the way you think about emphasizing the consumer so like that's actually kind of good for the consumer assuming the consumer has their money which is really the case right now so but but yeah and I think capitalism in a way or the free market can be like a tremendous engine for creating wealth and labor market can be part of that it's just not necessarily distributing back yeah yeah and people have access to spending money than the profit motive of the companies is aligned with doing things that are good for consumers right there's no mechanism in the economy that puts money into consumers hands and we've kind of like jury-rigged the labor market to to force money to people through wages and stuff like that but but then you have more inefficient labor here I couldn't want to get back to how Pro capitalism people and pro socialism socialism people think about the other time I think you know people who are pro capitalism and pro socialism by and large everyone wants to live in a prosperous society where they people are doing as well as possible and you don't want you know poverty and all of that I think the you know and I think some people said this I think you know the pro socialism people view the pro capitalism people as as you know promoting you know like greed greed and you know self-interest and you know leaving people behind and you know that that leads to poverty and then the pro capitalism people you know I people were mentioning as well you mention this first you know it feels it feels naive to people who understand the the power of the markets to create wealth to interfere with that because the maybe everyone's going to be worse off right they're sabotaging that and people are worse yeah so I think with that we can get start getting two quotes from the article yeah I both of the articles I picked are somewhat anti-capitalistic which is fine for me because I'm kind of prove capitalistic so so I feel like that side other people here that feel that way too so the first quote from the article is this one this was a popular article among my network of friends many hello Jared nice so we're getting to the first quote from the from the teen vogue article so this quote is the kind of impact that capitalism has on your life depends on whether you're a worker or a boss so that's very interesting because it's kind of dividing people into these two category you're either a worker or a boss what about people who aren't workers their bosses right and I think this is you know Bethany brought this up but you know like what matters in terms of people's well-being is what they get out of the economy not necessarily what they put into the economy and by framing everyone is either a worker or a boss you're kind of saying you know you're defined by what you put it you're either a laborer or someone who's like wrangles the laborers or something like that yeah and I think there's there's more to people than that and I do like to think about people more as consumers what can the economy to do is for them rather than what are they putting into the economy I don't have any thoughts about that coop I got a lot of them sue me don't worry about running out you don't put fill in there anything what do you see in it you think it's our problems like if I could go to work or about are you probably about as a problem I think I think people who identify themselves with capitalism and socialism they all kind of have this labor orientation like with socialism it's about the workers deserve stuff and the capitalism it's maybe about the workers need to do the work to earn the stuff or something like that but still about the workers either way a lot of time and I'm saying that maybe that's that's you know when I posted the description of this meetup I asked if there were things that capitalism and socialism agreed on and whether they were all right or they were all correct and one of the things I was getting at was this this kind of focus on labor that I think I think those times are getting wrong yeah I think people also it's a good article because most people when they hear capital them they confuse it was I mean capitalism has been around forever you know like once and then think about identifying piece of property that's capelin or we're trimming so how does that commune with the one hand the invisible hand is taken to the extreme decreases everything should be left to the invisible hand on the market Plains and there should be no social intervention anytime so out of this mess absolutely obvious that's absolute this and not say that but people who took his Wars become multiple actually hadn't read this whole block most people who refer to the middle hand have not read the entire book by those medicine so how does this actually see something quite opposite but the people who use this book and use the insula hands as a code word right will say that is what you that is what is go ahead means which is basically saying that there should be no there should be no guard intervention which make Captain Simcoe it gets orderly what we can in fact that calculated something kind of a sign I decided pretty peacefully so let me see if I understand correctly what you're saying are you saying that capitalism is just markets and then the invisible hand is the expectation that everything can be handled automatically by markets right so so there's a group of people in society that will argue that everything will turn out well sometimes you know but but they agreed there will be women losers right but the winners who are determined by their little hand so you know it's just tough luck that you're losers and that's that's the basic okay but that's not half of it that is now that's not the kind of show capital but a lot of people think that is both or less what would you say is the definition of capitalism we started talking about this before you got here but no I actually defined it ll say that without making quite a complicated that one one one first people between two hundred gatherers start to trade with each other and then but not only do it once it's not like I'm starving and but I have something are you drawing any kind of distinction between capitalism and markets are you just saying capitalism is a balloon once the first time you understand that your stuff is war or something at myself is worse I'm saying and we both recognize that they have some sort of value and we start training in very consistently so that you understand there's a cap that's the port capital I mean you have you have a piece of properties and this kind of value then not only value by you but that's kind of value by lots of people else how part we just say just keep it there look I literally because once you start adding additional definition and whatever to it it becomes very community okay so I'm gonna move on for another foot okay what I thought was wrong but yes capitalism is so that so we're just asked me what you thought the definition of capitalism is and Kim Kelly says capitalism is defined as an economic system in which a country's trade industry and profits are controlled by private companies instead of by the people whose time and labor powers those companies so I would say that it's still you know like it's still presenting this dichotomy between between companies and then the people who are who are producing what's being produced now should-should I mean like the benefits of the economy's good with people right like I mean I think everybody agrees with that and that's you know like again kind of what you get out of the economy so I think there could I put these two two quotes together because I think they're kind of making the same mistake that there's like there's like a choice either profits go to private companies or they go to laborers and then there's a third option which is someone without a job has no place in this model right and socialists might try to claim the person who doesn't have the job and say well this is a worker who's out of work but they're really a worker at heart or something like that why so why doesn't the person say that the other question you'll say it's wider than for example job is it because of his or her choice or becoming in the have a choice you know this is the person that I enjoy playing xbox we've got all the time sure I mean so there could be a lot of reasons why someone doesn't have a job and that really becomes important I don't know that the reason becomes important I know that for anyone who doesn't have a job there's clearly clearly it's not worth it for them to be working given whatever their circumstances happen to be maybe they think I don't know the reason can be anything right yeah so I think what matters is that for from the production side of things what matters is that the people who we need to be working are working so that will kind of be determined by the market so if this guy's playing xbox but suddenly the economy needs him to be working then it can decide the market can you know decide to pay him enough to get him to work I don't ride it out there maybe he just didn't feel like working how much you pay well then they'll find someone else right so then what do you do with that person what do you mean you don't need to use them you don't want your labor force to be full of people but then there's innovation and other and if you're not working but you're not like looking for a job that you're just not counted in the labor force and I think Chris's Kurtz is a little bit wondering what about the people who aren't in the labor force is that okay is that what you're asking about Chris no I think you seem that they're talking about the benefit get distributed you survive the benefit get the truth of the people right so this is where you know we had done this before where the fairness question and a base income comes in and just because well if society says without thinking production to akan yeah we did the current system there's definitely a reward and Punishment system oh yeah so the reward is that you work you get rewarded with subsistence and payment most times well you get that with payment alright but if you if you do not work your punishment will be no payment no more a lot less you have like yeah so I mean the question is obviously in order for the economy to function consumers needs money so the question is how do you get money to those consumers what's the most efficient way and there's no like law of economics that says an efficient labor market will provide consumers with enough money to maximally activate the productive capacity of the economy or what the economy is capable of producing for them so if you if you we kind of expect three different things in the labor market we expect people to get their incomes from the labor market we expect efficient allocation of Labor and then we also expect you know workers to get meaning and purpose that kind of thing now the problem is if you are focusing on just efficient allocation of Labor then you know there's no guarantee that that people's incomes will be optimal to buy stuff and there's no guarantee that they'll have you know happy lives or that kind of thing so the question is if we want people to get their incomes from jobs how much efficiency in the labor market we want to sacrifice in order to in order to boost incomes in order to create jobs that kind of thing to get money because once you're doing that you're kind of by definition some degree making people do work that the economy doesn't really need them to do yeah so is it okay if someone really doesn't like to work in there staying home playing xbox I think in an efficient labor market if you don't need the people who really don't want to work if you don't need them to work then that's an okay thing and it's actually more efficient yeah yeah so my mom said there are plenty of companies with employee stockholders are those companies socialist so so that's an interesting question and you can ask the same thing about companies that really you know provide benefits to their employees above and beyond what they would need to do to get them to work so I think you could you could characterize those companies as socialist and something to some extent and to some extent in our society we a lot of us want corporations to be socially responsible to take care of their workers and that kind of thing and that raises the question should it really be the responsibility of private companies to kind of go above and beyond and do that or is it or should it be more the responsibility of the government who's really designed to represent the collective interest of the people in the first place so I would say that by expecting by expecting companies to do this to kind of like take care of the workers instead of the government taking care of the people the government is somewhat wasting its responsibilities on to the private sector well in the u.s. the government expects the companies to well most of the time to provide their health insurance yeah which makes it difficult to search for another job if they because the benefits are not transferable and they're like benefit there are some goals around they're being floated around to you that you paid to like a fund and it's there so that the benefits are transferable like you know unemployment insurance and the health care and whatnot yeah yeah and I think I think there's a lot of stuff like that whereby by pushing this stuff to people through employers well one you're forcing them to work and another it makes it it really hard to be mobile within the labor market yeah so can I can I think like you know you mentioned two sort of things companies that were partially worker-owned like an employee stock ownership plan or something and then companies that you said took just took social responsibility on themselves to provide for their workers in also in my head those are completely unrelated things socialism like from a classical Marxist perspective socialism is workers owning the needs of production it would be owning the company not only part of it but the entire thing that would be a socialist company and a company that provides for its workers this field capitalist it might be friendly capitalists but are ultimately capitalist capitalism at least from like a classical Marxist perspective is about who has power and the people with power would be the people who own the company regardless of what they choose to do with that power I think that's right so you're saying that you know a company that's just in pluck that's just providing employees with benefits above and beyond they still have all the power so they might be using that power but never no benevolently but it's it's not as socialistic as right well like from a tactical marketing it's simply not socialist yes yeah recently music there was a locust sprite again you know launching the search engine which was keeping in mind that firewall to sort of Shannon said they disobey against that and eventually influenced the decision that he bought you in the world that the later postponed the launch of the social search engine challenge and if you search for this come to a simpler was in Brazil I guess a computer than anything they had a very democratic system because system those decisions are we taking democratically these Sharon's to be better company but then the workers were voting for decision for strategy so that again you know they they have the power at the end the other power but if the profits are not going to dip citizen boy stock options but then again the decision was negatively taken by the from right from CSIS to the group owners say they can't even vote for the CEOs job and sometimes he actually got voted out – he was actually I want to learn the speech it's kind of funny because eventually they said oh yeah this year we would like to fire a meal instead yeah that's that's our conclusion for this year okay but this I think this is some of distinction so if the US government on Google and that you must provide this level it's all pay any insurance better about heart metrics I would say that's more closer to something of them because a Garmin the important policy that makes the copy that provide this certain type of services sure if the company doesn't provide the service themselves I use a vanilla pod they do have the option to withdraw that so yeah I got something so I agree with you that you know if the government says companies have to do that that might be a little bit more socialistic because the you know government is representing the people collectively but does nothing mean the company is more socialist they're just following whether it's like this is I don't know you can oh yeah I mean the society would have a more social as a culture of comma the Nordic model that is the Nordic model actually because the copies still are capped are based on a Kabbalistic structure what the country some taxes and legislation have a pretty heavy policies well I think that's that's kind of the distinction I'm getting at that like from in in modern usage I see the word socialism used to mean something very similar to the Nordic model where we have some sort of very robust welfare system or something like ubi universal basic income where we're providing security for people that's not what the term socialism has conventionally meant up until fairly recently that's not what Marx or Rosa Rosa Luxemburg or angles or Lenin or any of those people would have meant by the term we can go down at Jared Jared so at the beginning I asked people whether they thought basic income more aligned with socialism or more aligned with capitalism and I want to hear your thoughts on that that's an interesting question that's actually one of the reasons I came because I saw that on the solicitation but I don't have an answer to that I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts okay I I think if probably in in a soft sense gives more power to the worker insofar as people with cash to spend have more freedom over their daily lives and can therefore take more political action but I don't I don't I don't consider to have a strong bearing either way even though I live there and study oh so this basic income is neither it is related to humanism if you want but it's in the capitalism nor socialism and in a certain sense it makes capitalism a little bit more palatable to the person and it makes socialism even less attached by the way you saw that just recently died elasticity they started polishing papers about videos also the mini six yes you know not a breakthrough like they said but an important part of this which if you if you look at those things only from the theoretical economic point of view you can design various models and everything but it completely leaves out the human relationships in the Soviet Union for instance the nationality played a major role regardless because there was a hierarchy of ethnic groups if you want and no matter what your capabilities what your merits are you may not get anything the principles of socialism as we were taught that she was that number one the means of production in the hands they said of the people but of course in reality it was in the hands of the company the usual you cannot get well if you if you own 50% of the stock of the company of course but if you own like point five percent it's not it doesn't make you it doesn't provide any power it doesn't make the company socialist because the decision making is still in the hands of somebody else life in the Soviet Union eventually they say ethically means to that no workers now have some our quarters it's led to load so one thing simple was and I said like the means of production who owns the means of production the other principle is every labor I should say every piece of paper should be tasteful and there was a famous caricature like they show the first picture like there is a flat ground and a worker with a shovel comes and digs a hole release at the second picture and that at work accounts and who puts all that soil and exactly to the hole so this surface was as flat as a lot both of them must be paid because they get the usefulness of the result was never considered so what is useful be to the corrals labor I mean could turn into four years and therefore dirty depression same thing happening here that's a new deal that's Ashley's 50% of the New Deal which is basically rolls of all say you've got no job they're not going to pay you for starving so I'm gonna borrow against you know the Treasury and I'm gonna send these people out and make them literally make them take a ditch all right that's another crew and put the ditch off and most of those team comp a so the important thing here is not economic die in this for Charlie for things that their family got that starving for the record I'm unaware of their ever actually being an instance of Roosevelt doing exactly that I know people were put to work like in the National Park Service in other places doing jobs which otherwise probably we wouldn't have bothered to put money into doing the Soviet Union there was it say among the people was socialist Marxist principle they pretend they're paying us and we pretend we're working and it happens all the time like I worked at the Research Institute there were some people who were interested in doing some research some development for what of I'm sorry don't want to sound sexist but lots of women ladies they would come they would pick up the meeting and they would stop doing that the whole day okay so if imitates the socialist system as it was implemented at the Soviet Union it was extremely inefficient because nobody had real interests except of a couple of people and even without low productivity a small group in other words Communist Party and its functioning even that would have more productivity the whole country which is huge and has lots of natural resources are grant used so much and their small people will read the moon like everybody else was on the brink of hotel although these days when they say it's capitalism in Russia people live much more maybe not every many people lived in much more so when I get back to what we're talking about the 1930s and so I think you know there's if there was any literal digging hole to fill in the back in again I think that would have been a very small negligible part of what was being done but it's also true that anytime you're creating jobs for the purpose of paying people rather than for the purpose of work for the ultimate product for for how useful the work is anytime you're doing it for the purpose of giving people money there's some amount of kind of inefficiency there and waste there's a job guarantee pretty much right so you hear about I mean we have like people talking about the Green Deal now which is which is kind of funny because they want to they want to work on fighting climate change and good things for the environment but at the same time they're creating jobs as a way of getting people incomes which is which is wasteful of resources if you want to if you want to have green infrastructure and green technology you want to put that stuff in place using you know as little resources as possible and that includes using as little labour as possible and labor has extra now these two when people commute that that causes the emissions and you know like we would want to you know like I think that I think you're really good at it's like separating different bowls that we have really camp a crew that we can meet each one as effectively as possible here I might say that we would have the goal to invest in green energy we would have the ball to invest at heart rate but we would also have the goal of getting money to people but if by separating them you can do you would argue you can do each one of them better but you remain towards work efficiently invest in the parks and you can efficiently give people money and some of that they would you know if you're if you're if you're spending on the infrastructure that kind of thing that will naturally create jobs how many jobs well we'll find out based on how much work we've done instead of I want to create extra member of jobs let's find some work for them to do does that make sense a family is like a good example from my own experience when they came to this company in a couple of years we almost 25 years ago something like that and I was insulting to what society and I was talking with their Quality Manager like how they : anyway and I said to him like Haley if you do that without them you would be able to produce your product with smaller workers and that was stuff my kids reaction because I really didn't mean anything bad to the portrait but they said no no no no we have no way of knowing that I didn't kneel there I'd meant that okay you can started another product thread can do something else but that was his immediate reaction when I said that you can use to what you were saying about separating concerns like it it sounds like the two concerns we're trying to separate here are almost there there are people with time on their hands and we should find productive things for them to go do and completely unrelated that also people should have like food to eat and places to live in things once we give people money I would wait and see how much people need maybe they wouldn't I mean I mean let's not get entirely utopian there there are things society needs done right like if if streets have to be swept I'm not waiting to find the person who yeah and I would say that it's less that there's people who are available to do labor and recent finds of it for them to do and it's more that you know consumers want to buy certain things and that's naturally going to activate a certain amount of labor and if consumers are buying everything they need or we reach some resource limit in the economy such that we're using up all this one thing but we still have extra labor like that might be an OK thing right so so the state is paying for all the infrastructure and everything that it needs and then the market is is responding to all the consumer demand that's there assuming we have the maximum possible basic income for people and you know the economy's maxed out it's still possible that there's people aren't working and you know maybe those people are sad or something so we figure out then how to spend resources on you know making their lives more interesting and fun and that kind of thing that could be related to academics or sports or you know like maybe there are some people out there where literally you have to make a useless work for them to do and force them to do it happy but I don't think that's a lot of people house yeah question after you're popping up them yeah question number one can we sync United States right now it's a countless country or something it is like what would you be measuring but I think as Jared was saying it's about who controls the music production so you know there are certain things that are being produced in the private economies that's being incentivized by the private markets and there are certain things that are being produced and provides a for depression yeah well I think it's hard to say what I think the balance should be but I do think we need more of both we need you know we need to give people basic income to stimulate the markets and and have more private production but we also need the government to be paying for more infrastructure yeah well I want more yeah by the definition of these things right yeah what I want more well first of all like yeah so we make sense when you break it down in the details so for example under Alex's you you give people a basic income the labor market can actually be more capital because they have people are relying on it for their income so some people aren't paying anything or some people are pay $50 an hour that that's fine so that's in a way that it would be more capitalistic but at the same time you could want the government to spend more on the infrastructure or the government Chris was saying that you know it's a zero-sum game that the important thing missings fictionally the few pennies definitions yeah so can i buy by a conventional Marxist definition that's not what capitalism is but I kind of want to address that definition as is because I don't want to start injecting random things into this but but by that standard the historically the largest group of socialist and communist parties in the world have always been a narco communists have always been people who consider themselves both anarchists and communists and people who wanted and a completely free market didn't want there to be a government so if what we mean by capitalism is a free market and if what we mean by socialism is worker control of the means of production not only can you have people who want both I think historically those people are the majority of people who have ever called themselves socialist large numbers people like the CNT in Spain you need to read more history I'll just there's the philosophy of communism and socialism and then there's the politics and and and how things have you know emerged you know when you try to apply some of these philosophies that you know maybe a pure communist having Chris I'm moderated yeah good good to you in a second so so there are some people who you know would say that you know when when the philosophy of communism has been attempted to be applied in certain regimes then it ends up being not not pure communism there's too much government control to mention thorat arianism that kind of thing so there's kind of like little C communism and Big C communism you hear that kind of distinction sometimes so looking at history if you know a communist who's philosophically communist might say well communism has never existed in the world even though there are parties that call themselves communists and countries they call themselves countries is that accurate yes most of the Asian countries and right the culture they're not looking they're not looking to you like garment that leader in canvas it's not there's another culture in the history of the based on so no matter what kind of garment they have they're always looking for control top-down control and stability yeah absolutely agree with you Brazil does respect to the work no any day any nation in the common country you can just take them and you reveals as well yeah so ever cusses yeah I mean that's the biggest thing I'm happy you came out those two things or than the common comments fall it's actually about absolutely the Garmon this house about absolutely control it without your consent which is not the same as government please look Karl Marx's you know plant to write the second volume of despotism he never completed in the first volume he presented and more or less developed model we have a theoretical model of the capitalism that existed at that time John Kenneth Galbraith in this new industrial state developed that and he showed thousand but Marx never was able to write anything about the political economy of socialist he just didn't want to even though he wasn't a fool by any means a natural pairing that has on this no I don't know maybe I'm sorry because I was late so maybe I missed it but I so fine didn't hear one thing about socialism that was never mentioned centralized plating yeah centralized planning and very rigid planning and at the same time and the same in the solitude the practice was they realized that so that was a huge like a huge building in the in downtown Moscow which was which is named boss plan State Planning Committee it was at the level of a ministry and when they didn't have computers they used all those how to call the Chinese they tried they try to plan everything up to production of buttons for your shirts and at the same time they realized that they cannot 100% precisely to that so they encouraged people like a particular fact that is a plan to go beyond that plan and the result what happened there is one factory making bolts and there is another factory making making knots and they both were given plans so that the number of boats and not match each other but because they were encouraged the canonical encouraged they would get some extra payment bonuses for making more so one factory would be a little bit more productive so they would make lots of books and for those bonds there's no that so it was completely wasteful products and one thing that I caught myself from an economy most Bible says like training and the guy was at that time it was even before girl by job equality destroy counts but she is sounded very kind of liberal and revealing and she said that the soda factory built by fear to make cars of the Soviet Union dose after bath she said the depth that that huge plant was a tumor on the body of the Soviet industry why because it was designed by Italian engineers and they assumed that each part is produced at the time when it is needed not early enough later and everything was like there everything everything should be coming in time in the quantity that is required not makes absolutely no sense make more business but there are no cylinders wound up as a result the whole industry of the Soviet Union was supposed to work for that particular plant because other factories work differently sometimes they had more cylinders authentically it ruined the whole thing so that plant even though it was built apparently mortician it was very harmful for the industry in the home on the centralized plane the Baltic republics among other like ethnic issues and everything one thing that bugged them terribly they were known in the Soviet Union for making good like Kane is the pastry is all that stuff right if they develop a new recipe for these things they have to give an approval in Moscow so you can imagine how long it – so it completely ruined the production of commodities and the consumption stopped the metallurgy where I worked it was a different story mythology is a different story like ordinary people don't give a damn about still but the government which is concerned about making things and what else you know they cared about still and as a result the Minister of how with the 3/4 each and every capacity each and every furnace because they use very old fashioned fergus's they built understand they built huge plans but at that time it was a huge step in here but by that time in the West everybody went to converters the converters are much much smaller but they allow to control the process and to produce steel of much much higher quality and to prepare a flexible you can switch if you need like you are making now those folding knives you need one kind of steel you are making like cannons you need another kind of side take it very quickly change it with those huge Ferguson's with now and the means the order that each furnace should work for production only and the Institute I work for we had absolutely no capacities to test our research project like somebody invented something and we need just one furnace to try how it will work because one thing is working in the day in the lab and the totally different thing good because the minister doesn't come out so this is one of the things socially yeah and especially central planning it's really hard to know what what's the efficient stuff to produce if you don't have a market and it was wrong is it smaller like for instance this year maxi skirts are in fashion so the fact that he making fabric was planned to produce a certain number of square meters of that fabric suddenly somebody came from France or from where wearing a miniskirt and everybody like these cords but the factory is planned to produce the same and they keep working and working and working what they're produced a bunch of milk in Kamchatka which is by Alaska and they have to ship it all the way over to around Moscow and by the time it reached Moscow is spoiled so they're gonna do sort of nobody makes any milk and oil and they had to buy computers really badly because but one thing is that the question would we want more chemicals socialism yeah Gil Berridge explained under contemporary capitalism capitalism contemporary at that time it was in the 60s he published if you look at any large American when he developed the company so planing and the capitalism using a mathematical terms becomes piecewise each country does have lots of weight but there is no centralized planning for the whole country and industry and their planning based on information and what they believe will generate the most products or the water yeah if you try to centrally plan everything then you lose all these all the market information so let's move on to another quote from the article so a cap so this is I don't know how many feel where the article but this says a capitalist nation is dominated by the free market which is an economic system in which both prices and production are dictated by corporations and private companies in competition with one another and places a heavy focus on private profit property economic growth freedom of choice and limited government intervention in competition with one another which is particularly strange because you might have princess dictated by a monopoly company but if companies have good competition like you would the president be set by others anyway and the market is well like we said there's no there's no there's no fully free market economy and there's no fully centrally planned economy and it's always going to be right two issues it's no got company and the free market so the so the question is and I kind of want to ask people especially people who have had a chance to speak very much yet what kinds of things do we feel should be a centrally planned and centrally managed and what kinds of things do we feel to be left up to the markets I guess it was a bigger area semester I'm going politics what blowing through this database like the Pope he mentioned national defense of highways but I think in some cases private markets so let's help you out throw out an example so let's talk about utilities let's talk about you know the water supply to a town do you want you know like you probably don't want two sets of pipes going to each neighborhood right that's step pretty inefficient and you know those kinds of things are what we call natural monopolies in the sense of that it's just more efficient more effective to have it be done by so there can be a market aspect to it like who gets to be the one who manages this infrastructure well you can also you're more likely to win the auction with a lower price and you're more likely to be offer a lower price quality but I guess not to discount the big that wasn't for you but I see it more the problem of the implementation for example maybe you should subtract during a better contract like if you do the responsibility maintaining that for a few years maybe then yeah it's relevant to the highly thing that like that there's a problem like planned obsolescence be like built into capitalism of like that it's kind of hard to figure out it's like okay you may be like hey that's people built their really big highly to maintain it like what kind of maintenance you actually need this out of line with the kind of things yeah so they're actually well just to you I'm going to be really hard and see you end up with just like oh well if we just have to make a new my way every five years though there's still I wait companies it gets in what fiber-optic cable they have different companies but they all use the same cable and so that's well how it could be both at the same time yeah what do it the government this includes depends healthcare in the certain cells even UVI although and this time it's more like in the national forum not necessarily giving people money but rather making sure that people are kill bike and when we speak when we say that capitalism makes company is more efficient yes it's more efficient if you look at the company as an entity but then the question is that efficiency how is it get it almost a single owner what's the point of the deficiency so the government should be concerned about their not by dictating maybe they own what to producer by taxing right and then redistributing it not to make everybody rich this is a possible but make the society running because if there is no health insurance and I lose my job and I have young children and God knows when I'll find another job and even when I find it that health insurance kicks in only in a few months yeah if it ruins the whole thing but I certainly agree with you that the responsibility of the government should be to ensure the prosperity of the people and provide the infrastructure and resources the basic level thank you yeah well you know ensuring that everything you know everything works to the benefit of the people to the extent that the collective interests of the people need to be represented in the society and in the economy that's the government's role so that includes you know making sure the markets work as effectively as possible and something like a basic income to help with that yeah so this is one of my crepes with everyday a tankini for people who are familiar andrew yang is a presidential candidate who's running as a Democrat at 2020 on a basic income platform so fundamentally what makes consumer spending possible is that the economy has the capacity to produce in response for that spending so what makes basic income possible is that people have something to buy with the money so by taxing production with a VAT tax what you're doing is you are disincentivizing the production of goods so you're actually reducing the amount of basic income you can afford does that make sense so so if you just filled as a bat of 20% you have a basic speaking of $10,000 it's automatically reduced to $8,000 well I don't know if those those numbers in what the numbers are in particular but if your economy has a certain amount of productive capacity and and you know there's there's unused productive capacity that could be activated by additional consumer spending you can pay a basic income to people to activate consumer spending so they can buy the stuff and activate the productive capacity but if you start taxing production now you're disincentivizing production production becomes less profitable and people might make more financial investments instead or try to find something else that's more profitable and actually producing stuff for consumers so now the amount of room there is for additional consumer spending has decreased so Andrew yang is proposing a basic income of $1,000 a month and it's unclear I I doubt that the VAT will prevent will prevent a $1,000 a month basic but if you're just asking what's the maximum possible basic income we can afford the fat is going to reduce that amount she's gonna take tomorrow basic increment you pushing them you know prices of cars you know various factors right so so in general the the average price level in the economy is not going to decrease so it's not the case with the price of everything is going to come down and the reason for that is because of monetary policy is going to prevent it so we will have you know monetary expansion to to prevent prices from the increasing but really what's happening is that the technology is making us capable of producing in more with the same amount of resources so if you have technological advancement instead of prices going down and that allowing people to buy it more we can do is you can increase the amount of the basic income and that's what a lot about more so the so the thing still cost the same amount with now you get more money and you can buy my stuff so the role of defense these things are so big and it's got like exciting right so that cannot really solve something any kind of insurance that you have you can become privatized all kind of like government subsidy because it can come Cabot eyes you know private just be gone I mean you can purchase on the marketplace because everything I'll just give you enough UVI and then you can make your own choices yeah now if you choose to go buy buy hamburgers and versus like cottage ones you can do that yeah so I mean it depends on what what's gonna be optimal for people so I think with super things like health insurance we're just the catastrophic thing that comes up every once in a while it usually makes sense based on people's behavior that they're not going to plan through those catastrophic think that might not even happen to that it could be a very low chance of happening to anyone you get in person so things like insurance for that kind of stuff it actually probably doesn't make sense and when you want it to be in the free market and we've some pieces and health insurance has to be one of the cases that even in immense academic economists if they should be centralized because it's partly because of this catastrophic thing so it's not actually necessarily like individually optimal for individuals to see the appropriate amount because it might not happen but then you still want the insurance to be there so it kind of I don't think look I don't think you can change the original and I'll tell you why I think they're answering the question like the economic argued is risk management more than it is right yeah and then there's flood insurance which incentivizes people to keep to go in risky places like right next to the shore yeah so I would say that you know something like flood insurance it it might not make sense for the government to provide that directly because of what you just said Richard one but certainly if there's businesses out there and they think they can make money selling flood insurance people then you know they're welcome to do that you run into the risk of they actually you know are not able to handle a disaster like we solve the California wildfires recently and you know I guess Pacific Gas and Electric what the people – there's something where they they didn't anticipate the amount of damage actually about the gross they're not doing hard I mean they're doing it because they want people the governor of the state of Florida or royalties and I need to increase my what insurance and deputies because without it nobody will come right and build a house with it they'll come and build it and then while I'm in office I'll get the squirrels yeah I mean there's there's nothing economic it's not an economic optimization it's more of a solution yeah I mean I mean there's there's various incentives throughout the system that can kind of like mess things up in one direction or another but yeah it can be tricky to fight to to figure out what what the government should provide what they shouldn't provided I think like Robert was saying some things are obvious and some things just aren't we kinda have to figure out I think one thing that it's one thing that excites me about basic income is that once you have kind of the maximum possible basic income in place you then can look at your society and look at your economy and say okay what do we still need and then you might have a clearer view of what kinds of things should still be provided by the government or maybe you have a clearer view of what kinds of things can be eliminated like if you have you know minimum wage or various kind of social safety net program and stuff like that to provide people money after the basic income is in place you might realize well nobody's really using this thing as there needs to Steve Gordon if so your new single second clue is you know has more such a positive benefit then you said it's inefficient yeah I mean I think these are the kind of models we would use to make these kind of decisions but it's not necessarily that easy to figure out the variable like solution you know if it's a diffuse cost with an individual incentive to contribute to the cost you're not going to I think the usual people well this is a good segue into our next cook on the article so they're talking about capitalism it's all based on the principle of supply and demand and then capitalism consumption that's king so what do we think about that I mean I feel like consumption is what what what should be king it should be about what people can get out of the economy economy exists for the benefit of the people but certainly there's side effects to an externalities to economic activity the interesting thing kept I I would totally agree with that cat in capitals and consumption is King to an extent capitalism is also very self-defeating in the sense that it can reduce overall consumption like that one of the points of having something like ubi is because people who don't make a certain amount of money will not spend it because they don't have it and it will eventually Drive down consumption as long as as long as there's money flowing more in one direction than another you get sort of if you imagine it as like a a water system and get these reservoirs of money in the economy and a a healthy economy is typically measured by more flow than it is actual size sorry I don't think I heard this basically what comes down to is like you can you can almost think of poverty as like a negative externality in economic terms any individual company has an incentive for the populace writ large to be wealthy because a wealthy populace will buy their product I agree with you but also they would they would much rather other people contribute to the populace being wealthy than they do it because them doing it cost them out of their own pocket so so my question is do you feel that the consumers having insufficient incomes to to buy all the stuff do you feel like that's a defect of capitalism or if you feel that it's more because I I would point you it as a defective capitalism I think that so that the way I typically think of capitalism anyway is in terms of capital and like the classical sense capital meaning investment right the capital for a venture is the money you put down to begin that business venture also thinking about well money but money used to buy that right so so yes kind of but when I think of capitalism capitalism to me is a system in which there are investors and business owners who control the means of production as opposed to socialism where it would be in the hands of workers if it's if it's business owners who control the means of production it's at some point in their incentive to get more money for themselves that's not any sort of moral judgment on them that's just how incentives work and because they have power because they own the means of production that is a form of economic power in their hands they will tend to be able to get more money for themselves and the more money they get the more they will a be able to invest and get more productive resources which means more power which means more money I consider this in physics we have this notion of static versus dynamic equilibrium or a static equilibrium is a system that will reset itself if perturbed and the dynamic equilibrium will just fall to pieces of perturbed I consider capitalism of a dynamic equilibrium where the the unbalanced in capitalism will only unbalance itself further to the point where you get this effect I think you I think you would I think you would have you would have somewhat of a ceiling on it that would be the point of universal basic income you would have you could you could deprive people of wealth but only up to a point because there is a seat there is a ceiling to the poverty you can create because you're just giving people a flattened algorithmically by the highest amount of consumer spending that the economy can proactively respond to rather than it's like some basic minimum standard of living like that's how I think about this which is a typical thing you might I talk about it as being a calibrated basic income rather than a subsistence basically because it's calibrated to the productive that's a big that's interesting I don't think that affects my statement but that's interesting tonight and then and then another question we might ask is to what extent do we care about who controls the means of production and should we be caring about that or shouldn't you be caring more about who has how much access people have to the product so we're gonna go to Richard first actually fruit decade companies haven't been really into investing in themselves like I already been down much lower than it has was like 30 years ago and like for instance like pharmaceuticals they don't really produce in research much of anything anymore just like iterate on what they already produced like the former drug is like it we're going to make it so as what it transforms into in your stomach or something and so they've just been doing like stock buybacks and things like that so whatever how would you interpret stock buybacks and whatnot I'm not trying to send the question it's privately control yeah but I made them in the derrick because in the history of mankind you know there's never been a process so that's all we've gone back to life I'm gonna interrupt you again Chris because I think in to some extent you're talking past each other a little bit because Jared is talking more about theory and I think you're talking more about like how things are being put into practice which Jared would argue is probably oh that whether they make one point Siri is only good if you have any evidence in a path that supported so you had the key of Awesome's into the example or a basket also in luck in physics when we talk about evidence we mean like a repeatable experiment I'm unaware of the existence of a repeatable experiment in economics give me give me a lab large enough for an economy and I'll get back to you on that but they and they have that they have all the power but they turn out to be something very different and actually you know try to involve technical other countries they all turn up these none of them actually based on the experience the prior country you know came up to the solution so let's just say that property control you know to say because what you say to the distinction here is that you said when you say the resource control by the workers how would you define the worker do dependent worker by that the particular hunger worker in working that factory or do you define that worker to be the entire population because in being a what I call is so clothe and controller standing actually it's the entire population that's the definition so it's once you once you get back to it never gets to my say oh I'm making a widget so I can control the resources that never that's never in the intent of any doctrines that's all wrong so if I'm saying a lot of Siri I want to prevent on the correct that particular Siri because that seer is not based on any type of social zone data I'm so well I mean to kind of bring the two threads together a little bit I think there is this this issue that we've seen come up time and time again throughout history where when people try to apply socialism or communism to real world situations it ends up not being like the ideal that the people wanted to want to have in place in terms of what they were thinking about as communism and then that could be and I think it's very likely that this is a flaw in the theory well no let's be careful of going about names of things to like people often will cite to me North Korea as an example of socialism because they call themselves socialist right North Korea also called themselves a Democratic Republic I don't think anyone here would call them a democracy right and the Nazis call them so socialists do so the Union was supplying all of heavy military equipment in fact according to the China right and they were charging the server mouse in none / money by also in even Goods and laborers and then it's not the turn right at a certain point mouth doesn't seem this is their capital to come into play with in two commas countries that this is not a good deal burning I don't want to pay you it I don't want to pay you the same amount of good that you know like Cal gonna be when I'm cooped up set focused screw you you can fill your own you know having fermented that Norfolk woman's I'm gonna stop shipping to relish it Cubans that Justin are you common is it we're gonna move on to the next quote though and this will be the last the last one for tonight so in a capitalist country the focus is on profits over anything else in a socialist country the public is seen to be more important and social welfare is a major priority so I kind of want to whip that quote I want to go around and get everybody's thoughts about that particular quote yes I think I'm going to go back to what we were saying in the beginning which is I think that sort of since you're proponents of these different symptoms I'll believe it let me ask another question and on top of this which is what is the difference between profits and social social welfare great well that's kind of where I was going which is I think that people who see the value of the free market probably some things would say that the beautiful thing is that it produces a lot of wealth which can then be for the benefit of social welfare pretty dramatically and and I think that that I agree with that but I think also that there's a need to align yeah I would say probably generally not but I have been noticing like some people seem to pick up on certain threads about for example whether the individual needs to earn the money which is actually sort of true to both I wanted to to raise one other question just in terms of how both theories of the key things which is if we were to imagine a society that didn't need most people's labor to run efficiently no how would we think of that in terms of these two theories because it just seems like over and over again they're going to be predicated on I'll find the food very accurate the book concerning capitalism I would go to the very beginning of the debate I think you mentioned something about social was reading right yeah you know about socialism when you said that socialism does not offer any individualism and I find that very true and I find that as something that is bad for the walther of society if there's no individualism because obviously we're all you need this people so I think that uniqueness can be better to represent the capitalist state than our socialist state but overall yeah way of brushing means the magic if you do it in that sense I think we might you know get to a little bit of mystical Chris this part of the thing just on 18 May yeah I think this person needs to actually both visit China and to a lesser extent Indianapolis versus wouldn't learn the folks like say 20 years ago or 30 years ago because I will say right now China based on pure tablets definition is part of more Kabbalistic than those days like that because people that doesn't have health insurance people didn't have retirement fund and all social and no so we're saving that just don't call themselves company and every six probably every since pocket driven did the whole and people are extremely proper conscious much more to hear and so I just their depth the definition that Kim has loved all intended is very simplistic you know you know Internet's that statement in term of what defines Apple them and what defined socially I think at the end of the day was based on what you said also this is what he have next back right now and and say it was about I think probably was American grit I think probably the distinction in this quote is that capitalism self-interest greater good but I think okay the definition of capitalism as like this as being a problem so for everything else feels really right to me and to the eighth guess it's your call back to some of what it's being earlier work I can go like oh there's never been a successful took this country I was wearing like okay looks like how would we define a successful capitalist country like there's the no true Scotsman argument like well there's never been a totally free market that's we've never had a truly populous country but then there's also the question of like how would you define make a successful whatever and so make a lot of people will point to all the poverty and hapless hundred they woke up Elizabeth Philly saline these people is doing is a oh it's Akina as a capitalist economy because there's also not the profit that's doing the thing it's supposed to have a capitalist economy but if we want successful countries in like we want well-being for people like how would be defined that like our the capitalist country that actually doing that in a way that we can and feel good about giving all of the poverty and all the other terrible they haven't like I'm not saying like oh it's better or worse than Richard let's take a specific industry like call Cara again before huh well Alex said it was like a like a catastrophic thing where if you plan it centrally and people benefit and working that they don't want to pay into something with that might never happen to them but if capitalist economy like there's a pre-existing health conditions or they want to exclude someone or they because of that or they have captain's have a high deductible it's been up to $5,000 in a year and or else you don't get anything from it or all these specific things and so you the people get excluded purposely made needs desperately and so they have to go into bankruptcy year or if it's been years paying off the $30,000 or Leverett for their spending a week in the hospital work so the question is what do you think about this quote and then also on top of that what is the difference between profits and social welfare profit ha I couldn't use a quote I think it's tears that profits of the individual like I am getting profit I am good with it I don't care whether the masses like all other people my neighbors or other people like who live in this very town with me get profit on that like I'm getting profit I'm good now socialism and social welfare it's about culture isn't like we profit as a community like everybody will get something for sure that is the difference and about socialism and capital and capitalism like at all capitalism is good in producing goods because it knows how to efficiently produce when and in the scale cetera like as we understood tonight but socialism is better healing just distribute distributing is good yeah so that is the the best answer for this I think is the some mixture of capitalistic capitalism and socialism like capitalism and socialism Street capitalism and strict socialism and communism is like a 20th century thing maybe even nineteen century thing today we must like think more about the most efficient mixture of both without like tentatively yeah a few points point number one forget about communism it never existed and if it's questionable even can exist because the principle of communism communism is from everybody by his or her capacities and to everybody by by his or her needs so I can go and grab because III need it and that communism and economically its its consumer there is no concept of profit and socialism because everything is planned centralized so it's not about profits at all sample to decide what kind of clothes I'm going to wear what kind of color what kind of time what kind of socks and they plan it and then pretended the factory doesn't care about profits the factory doesn't care give what they make will be sold for profit or without profit they only care about to produce as much stuff as they were ordered to produce or more and this starts heating up the whole system okay now capitalism I don't know maybe I was indoctrinated because I believe yes it is about profit but there is a big danger and since you referred to some stuff in physics I permit myself to refer to some stuff in mathematics there is the mathematical theory of control in the depth theory it's a new thing the contradiction they we call it referring to that normal the problem of fathers and sons and what it means is you have a system which consists of a relatively independent part and every system contemporary like that so if you optimize efficiency of each particular every particular part it doesn't necessarily mean that it will bring you to the optimization of the system as a whole so there is a contradiction we want optimize the system is one if you want optimize your particular Department is a totally different and by the way many of those things are discussed in John Kenneth Galbraith the new industrial society which I strongly recommend to leave after you have read Carl Barks because he how he developed ok yes that to that very ethical II socialism is concerned more about like distribution what you say that is concerned about the public it shouldn't be the public is not a collection of you you you me and there is a no they viewed as some entity which has no elements they don't care about the parties were member of that public in general this public they give the population of the shelfs union they need like I don't know 150 million tons of wheat fine these days they make bread not of the brands of wheat which are developed for making bread they they use wheat which normally was supposed to be fed two together if you will make bread of more quality less protein well not on these days in this country the most valuable anyway the protein whatever so so this is how they player they say well I won't have it in 50 million table that's it pity what kind of it's in the second question that they don't care about each particular individual you want a miniskirt or you want them we don't give a damn we have plenty and that's what we make okay so but again read Gilbreath because he shows an element of socialism necessarily get implemented in the capitalism so contemporary capitalism society Karl Marx when Karl Marx did develop his problem capitalists they just simply ate all right they consumed more just something every dinner today because of the development of Technology the agriculture in this country can feel but so the point is the point is that you have to take into account development of technology which contains everything and don't be concerned too much about finance because otherwise money per se in the last in the last chapters it very gives provides a very clear example why I think you have been imbued by a completely undemocratic process of the last word here even more and the question was what we thought of the difference between profit and social value so profit at least according to like the labor model of value profit is like you you have a worker who does something creates value by doing labor of some kind and some percentage of that is overhead that feeds the system that allows him to do that labor and some of that is the the stuff that that worker is given which could be the entire product of his labor if he's like a person doing something for himself or typically we think of it in terms of wages it's some percentage and then profit is kind of what's left over past that which from this standpoint is very much the the enemy of a socialist system it's well what a a socialist under this framework wants is to remove that element of the workers labor which isn't going to the worker if that's what we call profit then I would say the difference between that in social welfare is it's like night and day they're unrelated they're antithesis almost okay yeah so I think it's tricky because you know different people in different circles are going to define the term profit differently like most economists would say that that profit is just an increase in utility or something like that so there's profit at the individual that's the individual is better off then there might be a profit of a company and that means the company is better off based on you know something that happen that kind of thing so according to that definition of profit social welfare it just means an increase in source of welfare just means everybody profits so that's that's certainly one way to think about it but I also think that company's profits kind of the incentive to earn profit kind of drives the productive process in a market economy and obviously we want things to be produced for people so I think you know it's it's true that the capitalist economy is very profit oriented and to the extent that the markets can be efficient in in determining what people want based on what they're willing to pay for a basic income or ensuring that consumers have spending money at all times or have an optimal level of money kind of makes that that more efficient and more optimal so I guess that's it this is a great discussion everybody thank you all for coming out everyone had great stuff to say and oh my mom said some things she said social welfare can't really be separated from money what social welfare can we have without being able to pay for it she's not sure about a quote so I think that's I think that's that's right I think there are things that that money can't buy obviously that's the cliche but there are things that people need that that money that's the way to get it and I think that's really important too so thanks everybody today we're talking about economic growth

1 Comment on "Boston Basic Income #40: Socialism vs Capitalism (Poor Audio)"

  1. Its market socialism. most people think that markets are inherently capitalist, so basic income confuses people because it is a market compatible program, but it is socialist in nature, just more in the lines of a mutualist or anarchist line of socialism.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *