The intuitive idea that appeals to socialists is that Capitalism wastes resources because it creates useless products for the comfort and satisfaction of petty wants for those who have money while there are people in the streets who do not even get their basic needs satisfied. So therefore, the government should control the means of production so that resources will be allocated to fulfill basic needs of everybody before going into wants.
Now I am somewhat already familiar with the calculation problem so I don't need to be told socialism doesn't work. But how do you counter the particular socialist perspective the capitalism satisfies petty wants instead of providing for everybodies needs first?
All's well that ends well. :)
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Kenneth: is that Capitalism wastes resources because it creates useless products for the comfort and satisfaction of petty wants for those who have money while there are people in the streets who do not even get their basic needs satisfied.
At the very least it cannot be stated that the resources are wasted. Had they been wasted then they wouldn't even be consumed by petty wants. Wasted resources are idle unused resources, or resources that were used to build things no one desired. If people are using the resources then they cannot be said to be wasted.
It's really a side point but calling it being wastful is a mischaracterization of their argument, though they don't realize it. They just have to word it differently to flower up what they are really saying. What they want is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
When you expose their argument for what it really it is, it becomes a bit more trivial.
Also who decides what wants and needs are and how the taxonomy of those two items is done? An elite dictatorial body of men? Or are individuals allowed to make those decisions based on their situation and preference?
Ultimately who decides what is a good resources and a bad, is it the individual man working in concert on the market? Or a omniscient being up in a castle somewhere making these decisions for us?
The problem being discussed is, as far as I can tell, the issue of merit goods (merit bads). Goods that are, by some value judgement underprovided (overprovided) by the market, but do not necessarily fit into the category of public goods.
Brennan and Lomasky have an interesting argument in favour of government provision, although they admit that it is somewhat problematic and inconclusive, I forget the exact nuances so if you want to read it you'll have to pick up a copy of their book. Essentially the argument is that there are different types of wants, some which might be described as more moral others which may be described as more base. Depending on the institutional framework we will choose to indulge different types of these wants. Invoking the concept of akrasia they point out that market actors aren't very good at satisfying those wants that they recognise to be morally good due to the high initial cost of fulfilling them. I suppose one example might be smoking, another could be giving to charity. Many people feel that they should quit smoking for the good of themselves or those around them, but when the time comes to it they still end up lighting up the cigarette because the withdrawal symptoms are too painful.
Granted, because of the lack of immediate profit and loss signals and the winner takes all nature of the political market, politics is a poor means of providing most goods. However, the political arena is far more capable of providing merit wants since the cost of voting for a smoking ban is essentially zero (because of the low probability of ones vote being decisive) and as such akrasia is not as problematic. In fact, people gain positive utility from expressing certain kinds of preferences - usually those preferences they believe to be moral..
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Kenneth: But how do you counter the particular socialist perspective the capitalism satisfies petty wants instead of providing for everybodies needs first?
But how do you counter the particular socialist perspective the capitalism satisfies petty wants instead of providing for everybodies needs first?
You don't counter it. You change it. Someone who is interested in helping the people in the streets does not just up and fabricate this superfluous edifice of junk about petty wants and useless products. That junk comes from a contempt of the post simple life. If "basic needs" fell from the sky, the petty wants would still be petty and useless products would still be useless and professors would still write about the evils of consumerism. Minus the gobbeldeegook, the issue is stated as, "Some people are rich, some people are poor." Now, it is apparently about equality.
Ask them the difference between a need and a want, and who is granted the authority to make that decision on behalf of others.
Wow. I never expected an exciting debate to happen. Thank you all for your intelligent answers. Now to be more specific about what socialists mean by needs. These are for example health care and education. South East Asian countries with fanatic leftist politicians and intellectuals want to socialize health care, they want everybody to have health care and education no matter how low quality and inefficient it is. But I'm still divided whether to move to ethics or stay with economics. I'm guessing the shorter route is to move to ethics but it's more riskier since they might not be interested in libertarian ethics and think that libertarian economics is inefficient.
If I stay with economics I'll have to show why there is a mismatch between the production of 'petty wants' and production of needs like health care and education. In which case I'll have to point out to government regulations and taxes as the cause of expensive health care and education in the market.
I'm leaning towards economic arguments for now.
I've always wondered what people's criteria were for calling things a need...
Kenneth:they want everybody to have health care and education no matter how low quality and inefficient it is.
Then suggest that the government prints a healthcare card for everybody and that's it. No medical services will actually be provided due to low quality and inefficiency.
I'm dead serious by the way.
Only when they choose to put efficiency and quality back on the table, can you continue to maybe have a rational conversation with them.