...

To oversimplify: Some nations/leaders support inequal power as a mean for distribution. Others prefer democracy. Then there are those who use the first under the pretence that they represent the latter... But you knew that already, right? ...Right?

Oversimplified: liberal market theories claims that rose button issues will spontaneously be expressed through increased market demands. Recent theories focus on controlling decision making. In other words, the purpose is to convince you that you have rose button issues regardless of the matters at hand...

Again oversimplified: Demands are not determined by supply according to Marxist theory. As Marx famously put it: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

In reality these theories has a different meaning, though... Where i live these things are controlled under what's called a mixed economy. Remember that we are discussing oversimplifying theories. Reality is more complex and nuanced.

But greed is FUN!

"..fun fun fun till daddy took the t-bird away.."

but porks, i'm not understanding how this production is organized, what makes it work, or how it deals with scarcities.

- what if one roommate uses too much ass paper and the others have to use crumpled notebooks? how is that regulated?
It's free.

my experience with free things is that people abuse them. what's keeping users of free asspaper from taking so much there isn't enough to go around? also, even without abuse or waste, if people use unrestricted asspaper, there will be corresponding restrictions elsewhere: eg, less wood pulp (or whatever resource) available for other uses like printer paper, or magazines, or postcards. or less transportation available for goods other than asspaper-- say, mattresses have to stay longer in storage because the trucks are busy delivering asspaper. how is the demand for resources regulated between competing demands? who decides how much wood pulp goes into each product? who decides where the trucks will make deliveries today?

A communist society is not one where people stop producing. It just means, again, that everyone owns what's needed and is produced. And it's most definitely not an anarchic system.

okay, let's say that we all own beachfront lodgings collectively.and there's not enough beachfront for everybody who wants it. in a market economy, price determines who gets to have the beachfront (whether it be purchased or rented). how do you decide in communism who gets the beachfront lodgings?

You would be living in a system where the finest of the finest is available to you for free. That's the whole point.

but the finest of the finest always comes at the cost of something else. the finest of asspapers comes at the cost of the finest postcards. the finest steak uses resources that could have produced the finest goat cheese. how can you have the finest of everything all the time?

my question i guess is how you deal with scarcity-- the fact that there's not enough of everything to go around in the amounts that everyone wants. in a market economy, that's regulated by prices--you get premium "tissue", you get the cheap asspaper, you get old newspapers if you can't afford that, and if people start to buy more than there is available the prices go up until demand stabilizes or production goes up to meet demand. what about in this system?

We don't deal well with abundance of product already. I can't see humanity not being able to cope with supply when mass unemployment would be totally inexistent. The proletariat is the most numerous (and ever-growing) class there ever was.

there is an argument that the current abundance of product is due to the efficiencies produced by the incentives of capitalism. previous socialist economies have had to deal with bread lines, lack of soap, lack of toothpaste, etc., not because of lack of natural resources but because of gross inefficiencies in the system.

how does your system guarantee a high level of production? if i already own everything, and have access to all i want, then why would i even want to work? why would anyone want to work in the first place?

@mcdude - yes, i live in a mixed economy and am familiar with that. i'm not asking about liberal social democracies, but rather, utopian alternatives to (also utopian) free market theories. the book im reading presents a 100% rosy view of free markets-- i'm looking for a non-Keynesian alternative viewpoint just to fuck w/ the book's author. because the fucker is convincing me of everything he says, and it's a little scary, ha ha ha.

the veiled point you're making about consumer manipulation through advertising: we're not all imbeciles. people can see through marketing gimmicks and seek good return for their money. which is why pet rocks are no longer sold.

you're asking to police the mind and the desires of people. that's spooky.

consuming more than we actually need: here we are, typing at computers we don't "need" in leisure time outside work. should we jail ourselves? all kinds of work come from people wanting more than they actually need-- cars, haircuts, clothing, musical instruments, books, art-- nobody "needs' them but we want them. is that greed? who decides what is enough?

robbing-- that's a different story. though it's been culturally acceptable in some times and places.

human nature IS hungry. you've never heard a baby cry for breastmilk? we're all fucking hungry. and yes, we collaborate in groups, but that doesn't take away the fact that hunger is very very fucking real.

poor little tyke.

weird story from this book i'm reading: price controls and trade barries cause famines, allowing "greedy" merchants charge what they want during famines actually increases supply of food and prevents hunger. i'll quote you the page later if you care to hear about it. the fucker is blowing my mind.

ps- that's a disturbing photo but it lacks an appropriate argument

You can twist anything into any theory. I don't mean you, I mean people who twist theories... .

you know what i think
because people don't stop the overpopulation
i have see no other way for childeren to stop dy'n before age 5

who is responsible?
1.the parents that make the child
1.a parents that have no food for themself and make 3 to 5 to 10 childeren

the place they live give no food for the natural food chain
it's not that the natural food chain is going to follow the needs of 1 specie in particular
when there are more people > more food is need to be produced

again if the people are informed with media that there is no food or medical help available
that they accept the reality around them and make no child

the reality is when it is too late
you have 5 doctors to rescue 100 childeren
and 10 childeren can survive that day

prevention is the best way to go
instead of sending doctors and food for a short time

the people of haiti haven't seen much from all that money
where is their money
what for a system is that
and other places in africa they send food
the people get only 40% of the food
the rest of the food get stolen by the poor 'thieves' who sell it again to the poor for money

did you send food or did you created an underground economy of tha poor?

you see these are all dubble things
the dubble bad luck of the poor people who are already in a weaker state

you don't have to look for fair play

europe were i live is also dubble old vs modern

90 of 100 childeren dy'n
i want to say make no childeren
like i would like to say
- stop killing whales
- stop cutting down the amazone forest
- stop tests on animals
- stop weapon factories
- stop nucliar facilities

Meh. Babies are disposable. Hell, they're not even real people until, like, 8 years old.

Like motherfuckers. But how is that relevant to our discussion?

LOL

disposable? you sound like mister death himself
you are probably high on cafeine is that true?

Hey, learn to spell and use proper English grammar and correct punctuation, and then I might talk to you.

how there
someone is getting serious lol

just makes me go whaa...?

my spelling? what's next my skin color?