Would you agree with these ?

Capt'n Midnight

Economic
1.Goods and services cannot be used or consumed unless they have been produced and made available.

2.Except in times of surplus, an increase in any one person's or group's consumption, if not matched by increased production, reduces the goods and services available for consumption by all other people in the same distribution area by the same total amount.

3.Of the total effort and resources available, a higher proportion can be devoted to investment only if a lower proportion is devoted to consumption.

4.Prices cannot be held below costs.


=========================
Behaviour
5.Man has the capacity to take in information, assess this in relation to his previous learning and choose a line of action in the light of his recognition of the related restraints and pressures. His choice usually indicates what he thinks will bring an outcome most advantageous to himself.

6.Membership of a group is both a means through which the individual achieves his objectives and also a constraint on his choices, in that he experiences pressures towards conformity to group standards and towards cooperation with his fellows.

7.Individuals, groups and organizations tend to cope with conflict by denying responsibility for their actions and passing on the responsibility to others.

8.All known systems of distribution of goods and services and of jobs are composed of two basic systems: (a) the market choice system (b)the allocation system.

9.For any one country, total outward payments (such as for imports capital investment and lending abroad) always balance inward payments (for exports and for borrowing and gifts).

10.Man feels a strong need to control those events which have most effect upon his own well-being and societies usually give him some degree of such power through ownership.

11.The more an individual has of material things or power the easier it is for him to gain the next increment of having.

==========================
Question
This description of our capitalist, consumption system suggests that we are basically selfish and self serving and accept some restrictions to our freedom (belonging to groups etc.) in order to have "things"

Do people feel this is true ?
How could we justify a system less based on "things" and given what we know of behaviour how fair would it be to impose this on those who do not want it.

PS. Point 2 reminds me of SUV's

DadaKopf

Cue inevitable "yes, I think it's human nature"/"Communism goes against human nature" comments

DadaKopf

Oh, and I don't know what your own beliefs are but, with the way that post breaks down into economics an behaviour, some might confuse you for a Marxist. Conceivably, if the conditions in the first section are altered, the conditions of the second section are altered, too.

I actually hope this discussion doesn't get turned into a capitalism/communism debate, as they so frequently do.

I personally find this area of study exciting and of utmost importance to the people of the developing world. So let's please keep it open, interesting and considered. Unless people would rather discuss violence, so take it here.

Trebor

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight

Question
This description of our capitalist, consumption system suggests that we are basically selfish and self serving and accept some restrictions to our freedom (belonging to groups etc.) in order to have "things"

Do people feel this is true ?
How could we justify a system less based on "things" and given what we know of behaviour how fair would it be to impose this on those who do not want it.

i would have to disagree with the "in order to have things" part of you question. I believe that people will do anything in the pursuit of pleasure and that for years having material possessions pleased people as it is only recently that the majority could own things. people in the third world however do not do things for pleasure they do what is necessary to survive but once they reach the stage when they become stable and safe then i believe they would then turn into what we are now.

now to the points:
1:Agree, but just because they are produced or made available does not mean they will be consumed/used.
2: not sure i get you here, an increase in consumption with supply staying static will lead to a price increase thus causing consumption to decrease as not all will be willing to pay the increase. or are you talking about something like say food, if there is only a static supply of food and consumption goes up then yes i agree.
3:don't get this one. could you try to explain it in a different way please?
4:in the long term no in the short term yes. if you know that by having lower prices you can get more customers you can then benefit from economies of scale ( the more you make of something the cheaper it is to make them ) thus becoming profitable in the future.
5:Agree
6:Agree
7:Agree
8:Agree
9: Disagree, this is rarely the case, most countries import more than the export and have to make up the difference through domestic taxes
10:not sure i understand you on this one either
11:Agree, the more he gets of either he will always want more as he will never be satisfied with what he has.

DadaKopf

One of the great paradoxes of classical economics is that, even though it posits itself as an objective theory of the individual, its units of analysis are the firm and the market - collective units.

Sounds dodgy.

bus77

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Economic
4.Prices cannot be held below costs.

We'd have no Postal/Bus and God knows what else services if that was followed.

The other economic questions feel like tricks/riddles.
And I dont like the apologists tone of the Behaviour questions.

simu

Where did you get these questions from, Capt. Midnight?

Earthhorse

In response to the original post:

1) Agreed but it's important to realise that nearly anything can be considered a good or a service. For instance if I tell a joke to my mate we can regard this as a good or service and his laughter can be considered consumption.

2) Agreed except in the case of Free goods. Free goods are things like street lights or the defence forces. If I walk under the street light I have increased my consumption of its light. If you follow suite your consumption increases but has no adverse impact on mine.

4) For emphasis I would say, "Prices cannot be held below costs in the long run."

7) I wouldn't say that they necessarily deal with all conflict in this way. They can also shift responsibility away from themselves but not necessarily onto others. For example, a member of a team can say, "I did not make the decision, the team did" thereby excusing himself even though he was involved in the decision making process.

9) This one's driving me mad. I can't remember all that economics I knew so well only a few years ago!

11) Hmmm, not sure about that. Witness the laziness of inherited wealth. Simply because people have material things does not mean they are in a position to provide the income for more material things.

I think the whole problem with your question is tied up in the word "things" which has a negative connotation in my opinion. People choose (within certain limits) what they consume, but such consumption is not restricted to material goods or services. I don't think you could justify a system less based on "things" as you put it because really the system is concerned with the distribution of these things rather than what actually gets produced (and is therefore available for distribution).

Do you have something specific in mind? And, just out of curiosity, is this a college assignment or something?

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by simu
Where did you get these questions from, Capt. Midnight?

http://jwgibbs.cchem.berkeley.edu/CFGoodeve/cfg_bio.html#or
Near the bottom of the page , the rest of which would might change the context.

A lot of it seems to ring true with other maxims, that as you grow older you tend to be less idealistica and more conservative (right wing rather than just Tory) with voting.

As for selling below cost - you can if there is a subsidy - ie. you are not selling below cost, but the consumer is paying below your costs. Economics would suggest that if a Human life is valued at €1.2m each (NRA) then subsidising essential services looks promising from a cost benefit analysis.

I've always argued that many "economic decisions" are taken on the basis of false figures, the gross cost ebing looked at rather than the nett one where you take into account all the ramifications involved. Also where decisions affect quality of life how do you measure it - can the points above be used as a basis for a better way of determining cost benefits esp. since you need to predict behaviour.
An example if the Luas was free, the simple question would be would the amount saved by not having to build more roads offset subsidised tickets. At another level, would people use it - since there would be less traffic there is less incentive to move to Luas, how many lives would be saved because of less accidents and how are they costed, how much would we save on imports of fuel and cars , and would quality of life fo up and how to apportion it..
Now if it can be shown that X lives and Y money can be saved and perhaps Z quallity of life (simple measure of travel time - perhaps call each 70 person years in traffic jams a life = €1.2m) and don't forget that some of Y money could be spent on other life saving/improving measures (hospitals / cyclelanes etc). So when does it become ethical to FORCE such improvements ? (esp. when most people in this state do not own their own cars)

Off topic Reminds me of ...
Edward de Bono wondered if you announded on the radio that you could predict with certaint that three named people would be killed in car accidents next morning on the M50, how many people would stay at home to prevent it ??

bus77

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
As for selling below cost - you can if there is a subsidy - ie. you are not selling below cost, but the consumer is paying below your costs.

Thats what I said , more or less

wheres my f***in gold star?!

McGinty

If 'things' are what is important to you, then yes, one would be selfish and self serving in order to get 'things', then again one can be selfish and self serving to not be a slave in order to get 'things'.

I guess my own philosophy to 'things', of which I like, is that if they end up owning me, I'd not rather sell my soul and time to aquire them, so I'll do without. The problem with things is that they can easily be lost, so what's the point in getting too attached.

I realise I haven't answered the main questions, some of them went over my head, with the exception of the end bit.