silversoul7 said:

I'm just going over the FAQ right now, and already this system is making me cringe.  I notice this guy completely shrugs off the whole field of economics as "propaganda," so that his version of economics can stand on equal ground with established economics.

---

Hmm where do you read him doing this? (certainly not saying he doesn't say it, I just want to know where you are reading so I am not commenting out-of-context).

In my reading of Albert's book Parecon (i posted the link to the full-text above), I don't think he shrugs off the field of economics. He seperates economics into a few key dynamics and institutions - namely "ownership relations", "allocation institutions", "division of labour", "remuneration", and "decision making". While the majority of the book is focused on an alternate vision (as that is the point of the book), the first third does explain very basically how these different dynamics and institutions function under market-capitalism, market-socialism, and centralised socialism... any "shrugging off" of the current acceptance of market-capitalism may stem from this phrase, "And finally, to judge a type of economy one should ask how its features and aspects impact on human outcomes and prospects and whether we like the impacts or not." (Parecon, pg 27). Albert expands on these "human outcomes and prospects" in defining 4 economic values that he sees as worthy of investigation - "equity (how much should  people get and why?), self-management (what kind of say over their condition should people have?), diversity (should paths to fulfillment be diversified or narrowed?), and solidarity (should people cooperate or compete?)". I think these are questions that are raised in "traditional" economics - and Albert gives a fairly decent summary of the way they are traditionally answered. Let me know the exact FAQ you were referring to, and I'll see what I think...

---

Quote:

Also, this guy has way too much faith in the will of the majority.

---

Well, I don't think Parecon is a system based at all on a "majority rules" philosophy. One of the main propositions is that people, if properly educated and properly empowered (by their employment, societal role, etc), are capable of running their own lives. Something that (I believe) Parecon has in common with Libertarianism... Another quote from Parecon, "Participatory economics does not institutionally prejudge what procedures should be used for decisions made in workplace or consumer councils. It does not say you have to use majority rule or consensus or any other particular procedure. It could be that in a real parecon, workers and consumers opt for consensus decision-making all the time, much of the time, or rarely. That is a choice for them. What parecon prescribes is that people should ensure, as best they are able withut investing excessive time and energy, that each actor has an impact on outcomes in proportion to how much he or she is affected." (Parecon, pg 94-95)

pinksharkmark said:

The system described as "parecon" or whatever else they choose to call it is completely unworkable. Anyone who has ever had any experience running a business will reach the same conclusion.

---

Quote:

Rather than post a dozen articles for you, I suggest you read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. Your library should have it.

---

actually my bookshelf has it. I have read it (actually twice), but I believe Friedman makes many, many errors in his reasoning. ( i know it sounds crazy to hear a 20-year old student question a Nobel Laureate, but hear me out...). Firstly, what about the issue of inherited wealth? The basic model of remuneration in market-capitalism is remuneration according to the contribution of each person's physical and human assets - ie you get paid in accordance to how much work you put in, how much talent you have, and how the productive-assets you have contribute. Fine and dandy - but what about the fact that the grandson of a very rich person will, by this norm of remuneration, make much more than a hard-working daughter of a peasant? No matter how "free" the markets are, stratification of wealth will result in a class of people who, from day one, are in a position to "earn" by no input of their own - and, if one looks at the historical stratification of wealth - in a (maybe i overstate it, but i think not) vast majority of cases, by no input of any of their immediate lineage. In the words of Edward Bellamy, "You may set it down as a rule that the rich, the possessors of great wealth, had no moral right to it as based upon desert, for either their fortunes belonged to the class of inherited wealth, or else, when accumulated in a lifetime, necessarily rpresented chiefly the product of others, more or less forcibly or fraudulently obtained."

i know, i'm supposed to go to sleep - but just a few comments...

pinksharkmark said:

What about it? Whose money is it? It's the money of whoever earned it -- in this case the parent (or other relative). The guy who earned it has the right to decide where he spends it, no? If he doesn't, tell me whose rights trump his.

---

Quote:

If I decide to give my money to my kid or to my friend or to my wife -- either before or after I die -- what am I doing wrong? Who have I harmed? Who has the recipient harmed?

---

Quote:

What if that hard-working daughter of a peasant buys lottery tickets with her spare change and hits a $300 million jackpot? What has she done wrong? Who has been harmed? How does this differ from me inheriting a bunch of cash from some batty old aunt I never knew I had?

---

Quote:

I ask again, who has been harmed? People who inherit wealth and are then able to live their lives without ever competing for a job harm no one and in fact it can be argued they help a hell of a lot of people. For one, there is one more job available which they would have filled had they not been economically self-sufficient. For another, such people tend to consume more than the average person, hence they provide demand for goods which otherwise would not be produced. How many people worldwide work for Rolls Royce, Ferrarri, Moet et Chandon, Givenchy, Tiffany's?

---

Quote:

"Stratification" of wealth is inevitable in any society, free or not. It's just that in free societies, the common man has an excellent chance of moving from one stratum to another. In non-free societies it is only the political elite which occupy the top strata.

---

Quote:

Finally, there is the old clich? "From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". It became a clich? because it is seen so often. A man struggles all his life to amass a goodly sum to leave to his son. The son fritters it away and his son is left to start the process over again. Spending money is easy. Making it (and even in some cases just keeping it) is not.

---

pinksharkmark said:

Define "exploitation".

---

Quote:

Who is stopping them from gathering together and creating their own? Didn't you say there are already many businesses running under parecon principals? Why don't those workers apply for work at one of those places? How does the existence of MacDonald's prevent a parecon "ParDonald's" from going into business?

---