Left-Right spectrum

admin: Sorry - I mean, all REVENUE is normal.

admin: So are you assuming I believe everything that other social liberals or social democrats believe? In general I tend to argue with people everywhere.
That is the group you agree the most with. Of course there will be disagreements, but that doesn't mean you are not one. If you aren't then just say so.
For what it's worth, I don't believe in private ownership of production or a profit motive in absolute senses either. I absolutely oppose the imposition of a capitalist framework on the market. That is not to say however that I would not support an economy where somebody acts as a private producer or makes a profit. I simply don't believe the economy should be based on it as a framework.
You accept private property, anti-capitalists oppose it. Your views do seem different from social liberals/social democrats in these sentences.
Economics is the study of value, and specifically how value moves in markets through a process of exchange. Value can't be created or destroyed like money can - if you try to print more money, for example, the value of each unit of currency is diminished. In fact value perfectly obeys Newton's 3 laws - it also is entropic, reactive etc. Likewise if new products emerge that are cool, then older products lose their value. Since value is constant, all profit is normal (ie at cost) in the long run. In the short run a company can make supernormal or subnormal profits - this is explained by the RBV, that resources will immediately determine winners/losers in the market. Yet this is a short run explanation - long term those things normalize every time. Private ownership exacerbates that illusion because it provides the incentive for greed.
Like how socialists usually are, you seem to oppose capitalism on more moral/emotional grounds. Profit being the goal is what makes capitalism successful as an economic system.
Negative liberty = freedom from. Positive liberty = freedom to. Absence of liberty = removal of freedom. When people are put in prison that's an example of removing their freedom of movement (freedom to move, a positive liberty), to ensure the negative freedom of the rest of society. Prison violates positive liberty, not negative as you claimed. It does so by an absence of liberty. I really believe you are conflating it with negative liberty.
Incorrect, negative liberty(or freedom) is the freedom from interference by other people(free from coercion). Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of movement are examples of negative freedoms. Positive liberty is possession of power and resources to fulfill potential. Putting someone in prison I said was a violation of negative liberty since it is restraint from movement.
Things are "means of production" only insofar as they are means. When you cannot exploit them they are worthless, much like non-liquid assets are relatively worthless. So "whatever you own" isn't inherently a factor of production.
This doesn't go against my point. In capitalism, an individual can own a means of production.
Collective market socialism doesn't have common standards for cooperation. You'll never get people just agreeing to build an airport without some leadership heirarchy. Mind you, most forms of capitalism can't do that either for anything that's unprofitable yet very important. Like everyone found out during the industrial revolution.
This assumption that you NEED hierarchy is false. Large scale projects do require some coordination, but centralization is only one form of it.

Bi0Hazard: If you aren't then just say so.
I don't think the label is helpful.

Profit being the goal is what makes capitalism successful as an economic system.
That kinda depends on your definition of success.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of movement are examples of negative freedoms.
Of denotes to. You are free TO speak, free TO practice religion, free TO move. Those are positive freedoms. The difference is very important and I still think you're confusing it. Prison would be a violation negative liberty if gave others the ability to restrict your movement. Because it restricts it directly, that proves it's a lack of a positive liberty, not a violation of a negative one.

In capitalism, an individual can own a means of production.
As I said, long run, no. Capitalism is based around capital, not people, so our traditional mode of thinking about ownership is totally reversed. And immediately you see that capitalism generates inequality that makes markets non-competitive. Often the only things keeping markets going in capitalist countries is market inefficiencies.

This assumption that you NEED hierarchy is false.
What's your counter-model?

admin: I am not really trying to criticize your views(at least in this thread), I am interested to know what you believe. I am kinda confused on that now. Can you briefly explain what your ideal society would look like?
Capitalism is a pretty efficient system(economic efficiency) compared to other models, you have even agreed with that before.
As for the negative and positive liberties, are you saying that all the liberties like freedom of speech, religion, and movement are positive and a negative liberty would be freedom from murders(or poverty)? Ok, I get what you mean now, but you are mistaken.

Bi0Hazard: Ideally, in my view, society is free and equal... which is impossible, but maximizing those principles of freedom and equality sounds good.

Efficiency is a pretty meaningless metric. The thing that matters is resource allocation. Only in relatively perfect competition are resources efficiently allocated and that doesn't happen under capitalism. That's a necessary prerequisite to equal opportunity.

And that's exactly what I mean about positive/negative liberty.

admin: Economic efficiency: Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each individual or entity in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp
That is what I mean by efficiency.

Bi0Hazard: OK. By that definition capitalism is terribly inefficient. I more meant economic efficiency in the sense of "maximizing value & minimizing waste". Probably my poor choice of words then.

admin: You said before that, by that metric, capitalism is better.

admin: Ideally, in my view, society is free and equal... which is impossible, but maximizing those principles of freedom and equality sounds good.
How would the economy work? Mixed with private ownership?

Bi0Hazard: I may have misspoken ... can you show me what you're referring to? Pretty sure it's been a fairly consistent position of mine that capitalism allocates resources poorly, but in the short term it allocates them quickly, so there isn't waste etc.

A perfectly free and equal economy is impossible, too. Things are only relatively free or relatively equal compared to other systems. I don't absolutely support any given economic structure.

admin: Here: http://www.edeb8.com/forum/Society/1372
Go six posts down or your third post in that forum and you respond to me by saying this:
By that metric, capitalism is better.
You said this in response to my post on economic efficiency.

Bi0Hazard: BETTER THAN socialism, yes. Doesn't mean it's not terribly inefficient. I wouldn't support it.

Neo-Liberalism for the win.