Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Efficiency or inefficiency, which is better?

ASU2003 · 06-23-2009, 06:16 PM

Is the capitalistic economy better off with inefficiency?

For example, when computers were new they took people with lots of education to program them and they didn't do very much. Now people can download an open source program and have it do far more than what computers in the past could do. It used to cost companies lots of money, and they had to hire lots of people. Now, most users are getting smart enough to take care of their own computer and once a network is setup it doesn't require much oversight. It is much cheaper for companies, but there aren't as many jobs as there used to be. I would argue that the first option is better for a capitalistic economy.

Even saving gas or electricity is hurting the gas/power company and they will lay off the workers before any bonuses are cut.

Making cars last 20-40 years is easily possible (use stainless steel screws, aluminum, carbon fiber, LED lights, and plastic), but it kills car companies, dealerships, and mechanics. Car companies that can't sell any more cars because their previous customers still have their cars and are happy with them won't give any more money for the same product if they don't need to. Consumers need to be as efficient with their money as they can be. They aren't always efficient and the capitalist economy benefits from this. I am at a place in my life where I don't need to buy anything new to put in my house, I only need to buy replacements if something breaks (which isn't very often).

In a socialist or communist countries, efficiency is key. And it is what is missing from the failed or bad communist economies. If the USSR had computers, robotics, GPS, internet, electric cars, autonomous public transport, renewable power systems/nuclear power, touchscreens (ATM like), they could have a workforce of 30% providing all the services that they would want or need. It's just like how we now have 2% of our workforce as farmers, yet they provide all of the food 1% is military and they provide all of our defense forces. In a capitalistic economy, the rest would need to find a new job. In the 'ideal' and 'peaceful' communist/socialist economies 'the state' (small workforce that is compensated with better goods, land, and services) would provide what people would need. They would be able to do what ever they wanted to do after that. They would need to promote innovation with rewards of some sort that might not always be money.

At least that is my take on it, do you think it is wrong?

What would you think a high-tech, small efficient government, socialist state would look like?

Was the stimulus package government manufactured inefficiency? Are regulations, rules, and laws all inefficiencies that help the economy (as long as they don't kill the market for that product), but hurt the owners and stockholders?

06-23-2009, 06:16 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Efficiency or inefficiency, which is better? Is the capitalistic economy better off with inefficiency? For example, when computers were new they took people with lots of education to program them and they didn't do very much. Now people can download an open source program and have it do far more than what computers in the past could do. It used to cost companies lots of money, and they had to hire lots of people. Now, most users are getting smart enough to take care of their own computer and once a network is setup it doesn't require much oversight. It is much cheaper for companies, but there aren't as many jobs as there used to be. I would argue that the first option is better for a capitalistic economy. Even saving gas or electricity is hurting the gas/power company and they will lay off the workers before any bonuses are cut. Making cars last 20-40 years is easily possible (use stainless steel screws, aluminum, carbon fiber, LED lights, and plastic), but it kills car companies, dealerships, and mechanics. Car companies that can't sell any more cars because their previous customers still have their cars and are happy with them won't give any more money for the same product if they don't need to. Consumers need to be as efficient with their money as they can be. They aren't always efficient and the capitalist economy benefits from this. I am at a place in my life where I don't need to buy anything new to put in my house, I only need to buy replacements if something breaks (which isn't very often). In a socialist or communist countries, efficiency is key. And it is what is missing from the failed or bad communist economies. If the USSR had computers, robotics, GPS, internet, electric cars, autonomous public transport, renewable power systems/nuclear power, touchscreens (ATM like), they could have a workforce of 30% providing all the services that they would want or need. It's just like how we now have 2% of our workforce as farmers, yet they provide all of the food 1% is military and they provide all of our defense forces. In a capitalistic economy, the rest would need to find a new job. In the 'ideal' and 'peaceful' communist/socialist economies 'the state' (small workforce that is compensated with better goods, land, and services) would provide what people would need. They would be able to do what ever they wanted to do after that. They would need to promote innovation with rewards of some sort that might not always be money. At least that is my take on it, do you think it is wrong? What would you think a high-tech, small efficient government, socialist state would look like? Was the stimulus package government manufactured inefficiency? Are regulations, rules, and laws all inefficiencies that help the economy (as long as they don't kill the market for that product), but hurt the owners and stockholders? Last edited by ASU2003; 06-23-2009 at 06:19 PM..