Hacker News Reader

Comment by regularization | Hacker News Reader

Who does not have a market? In the USSR people went to markets to buy radishes, just like we do here, except paying with rubles not dollars.

What was different was not the market but the production, or control over production. In the US heirs own the majority of the Fortune 500 and thus control it, their things worked differently.

So why is production not discussed but a market? Or not even a market but a "free" market - I suppose to be in a free market you buy radishes in a market with dollars and not rubles.

View on HN

Gets a nod though:

>“freed markets” would naturally tend toward far less concentration of wealth – a world of small firms, worker cooperatives, self-employed artisans, and peer-to-peer production.

And quoting Proudhon

>Property is freedom

Imho insurance networks are also politically agnostic:

  to each according to his need, from each according to his ability

Interesting to think about how insurance "markets" can _support_ production... (Not just distributing the means thereof, eg how to insure group owned GPUs? Is there a timeline in which GPUs do not depreciate? Do we have to bet on different rates/architectures? There aren't more than a handful)

How is control over production not part of the market?

State control over production means instead of letting the free market decide what’s worth producing, the central planners believe they know better than the market (and the 2nd, 3rd order effects) what to produce and how to allocate and price resources and production. It very much removes or diminishes the “market”.

I don’t believe central planning is strictly a requirement of communism. It’s just lumped into it because the USSR did both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com