You'd think you could at least show a bit of respect to some people, especially when they have argued with you many times in the past.... *sigh*...
It seems like you think everyone should hold exactly the same opinion that you do, no matter what.... Remind you of anything?
I do not like it when people turn to Utopian or illogical and irrational arguments, it just irks me. If you call me condescending because I do not like your use of rhetoric and Utopian fairy magic to prove your point, then yes I am extremely condescending. Also, I do not jump to irrational conclusions, I don't need any of that to make a point. I do not want to or intend to chase people away, in fact I'm trying to be as simple as I can in my arguments and use of words, I can be much more complicated but some people accused me of arguing from verbosity. I offer to explain every single argument, term, sentence, or word that the opponent does not understand. I am thus not ashamed at all to ask my opponent to do the same if there is something that I do not understand. If I'm debating someone and I suspect that he does not understand a term without him saying so (say a first reply to him) then I would generally link to the terms in question for an explanation from Wikipedia.
Moreover, I do show respect, I'm a lot nicer outside of debates, but this is a debate. I argue against arguments, not people. I don't show respect for arguments. It would be preferable if people held the exact same opinion as mine, but since that isn't possible (and shouldn't be and must not be forced either) I really cannot do anything but try to explain to them and debate them to prove my point. If I'm wrong then I learn something, that's how I became a Marxist, and if I'm right then I learn as well from researching what I'm saying and I even can teach others from the debate. And no it does not remind me of anything? Do you mean Stalin? Not at all the same thing. Again, I don't deal with respect and friendly exchanges during debates, everyone knows that. A debate is a serious matter that must be "objectively" decided without the interference of relations or authority. If I'm irritating because I argue against every point I find a conflict with then I can change that when debating you if you so will it, but I doubt I'll be able to offer the same arguments, counter-arguments, and any explanations at all. It would just be a few short paragraphs as a general reply to your posts.
Which you have to point to any as the ones in your previous post weren't strawmen as I had explained and showed. Oh and just do remember that I wrote a lot, I could have made such a mistake after reading and writing all those posts, but I haven't seen any as of yet from the ones you have pointed out.
(And yes, I use the term "your" loosely as the only means I have to reference the system by shorthand... give it a break already)
They are fundamentally two completely different systems which can not actually be measured together.
For example, someone receiving 50 food credits, 50 housing credits, and 50 entertainment credits would NOT receive 150 general credits in "your" system.
Rather, the 50 food credits are evaluated on a totally different scale that entertainment credits are measured on. They account for separate systems and how each one is currently functioning, working, and producing.
In a generalized system these are measured on an equal basis and then generalized... They can not possibly be separately defined or evaluated, because in doing so you essentially admit my system works better. Rather they are based on some merit of "labor" which is arbitrarily measured, either through production (and therefore generalized) or through resources available (and therefore generalized), or based solely on commune decision (and therefore completely arbitrary, ignoring production and demand).
I already explained to you. You are comparing the two systems to each other, you are supporting your system by claiming that people use their wages for entertainment credits (50 credits) and they would receive free food (50 credits) and housing (50 credits) credits while in my system they would only receive, according to you, less than that:
"In your system it would be the same thing except they wouldn't even have the opportunity for those extra credits at all. And in either case neither system allows them to be used...
In a basic credit system people would not be given 50 food credits, 50 housing credits, and 200 entertainment credits, but a somewhat incomparable amount such as 250 'general' credits. The difference being that people in my system are issues entertainment credits based on work, meanwhile getting food and housing basically 'free'."
You take it for granted that in your system food and housing would be offered in exchange for free credits, while in my system you remove these extra credits that are to used and instead leave people in my system as 250 instead of 300, as in the case of your system. You are basically offering a loaded comparison between the two systems, you are adding 50 more credits to your system which would be needed to pay for the same things in my system, but the difference is that in your system they can get them and in my system they cannot get them, according to you. However, basic economics again, people need to pay for food, housing, and entertainment, even if you do not divide your credits into those categories. If you do not offer them food credits then they still are going to spend on food, they still are going to spend on housing, and they still are going to spend on entertainment, but the difference is that in a general credit system they spend their credits rationally, logically, without waste, and to maximize the bang for the buck while in your system they would just abuse the free credits to the maximum.
Hell when you say "they are fundamentally two completely different systems which can not actually be measured together" you are essentially arguing against yourself when you used certain examples to show the difference between the two systems, you concluded that since your systems offers people free credits then your system is preferable. I argued that you cannot offer free credits out of thin air unless you use magic. I then showed that people will still receive the same amount of credits, but what I failed to specify (since I thought you would have understood this from context) is that in the comparison examples we must take them as having the same amount of purchasing power to theoretically compare them to each other. People in your system may be give 50 food, 50 housing, and 100 housing credits. You claim that in my system they barely are paid 100 or 150 credits. I claim that this is nonsense and explain that in your system food and housing is being paid for by free credits, and that since my system does not do that then people would still have to pay for food and housing and thus they have would to receive enough extra credits to pay for food and housing, ergo why I claimed that in such a comparison with the same purchasing power (which is default) that you cannot add anything to the credit amount. Credits, just as any currency, are based on the reproduction of labor-power, you need people to at least receive enough credits for them to be able to sustain themselves. That means that general credits would need to include pay for food, housing, and then since it would not be in a crisis as it is theoretical, and for entertainment. In the case of general credits you do not solely include pay for entertainment, but food, housing, and entertainment but without the division your system creates.
Of course general credits cannot be separately defined or evaluated, that is not even necessary at all. In such a system based on general credits, instead of measuring the amount of credits spent from each category, which would be DISASTROUS in its implications especially after people maximize profits from the credits (spending and waste since they will be reset by the end of the month, they can't purchase anything else with them, and they can't accumulate). You would basically be overproducing goods which would have otherwise not been demanded or produced if you had a general credits system because in such a system people would not receive credits for free, they would have an exit ability (unlike your restricted food and housing credits), alternatives, accumulation possibility, no monthly reset, etc. By overproducing and having this overconsumption, you either must return to general credits or see your system or Earth turn be destroyed. Nevertheless, of course, general credits cannot be separately defined or evaluated, but the way economics and statistics works we really do not need to separately define or evaluate anything. What we can do, and what is the whole point of this credits (points) system is, is to allow consumers to assign points/votes (credits) to products which they want. This would allow the central planners adequate information (along with feedback) to rationally alter production, distribution, and even create a consumption rate pattern. The planners would know what people value most by the amount of credits spent on a specific product or category of products. This would result in optimal choice. There is not need for separately defining or evaluating credits because that can be done more effectively and without all the hassle if you merely measure the amount of credits spent on goods.
In other words, when fluctuations diminish the credits allotted and basic needs are being met first... they therefore diminish the value of all other production through loss of demand, despite what area of production the fluctuation actually occurred.
Go ahead and explain... I'm listening.
Prices on products can be set beforehand after altering them after exiting a Capitalist economy, then more alteration takes place after the economy proceeds according to supply and demand. Labor would enter into the fray by allowing money to be paid based on labor hours spent and products made. The number that labor produces? I do not use magic, I cannot look into the future, but I can theoretically give an example, of course. 3 laborers exist in the economy, 2 produce 10 widgets in 3 hours, 1 produces 10 widgets in 9 hours. The socially necessary labor-time to produce widgets is then 10 widgets every 5 hours. Anything under than that is efficient, anything over that is inefficient. Pay would be received according to sales to the state (under socialism) when compared to the amount of labor hours spent to produce these goods. For calculation and explanation, see: http://wspus.org/in-...economic-model/
Also note that the article mentions the energy calculation method which can definitely be used to calculate prices in a Socialist economy, this being much more environmentally-oriented. While calculating labor-hours spent, you can include difficulty (to be rated by people, workers, or a committee specialized for this), energy spent, and any other factor can be included into the equation. This isn't really much of an issue, when a revolution takes place and people need to decide on what system to use and they use such a system then they are going to play it out themselves and gradually building up on it as time goes on. I already referenced this book before, give it a read, it concerns Socialism and planning while answering the economic calculation problem as well by using calculation based on labor-time: http://ricardo.ecn.w...book/index.html
Hopefully that gives you a basic idea of the number that "labor" produces for you.
Also, give this a read: http://en.wikipedia..../Labour_voucher
See also Parecon, which I like certain aspects of it such as the credits system, consumer feedback, etc. I don't like the lack of existence of a central planning agency (they replace that with participatory planning) and the lack of existence of a state.