<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 8 2006, 12:45 AM) [snapback]235098[/snapback]</div>
Quote:
|
Factories are hard to build without money. In your pooled economic theory, for all the lead time between turning the the first shovel full of sod to the initial startup, none of the workers are contributing anything to the pool, yet they must be allowed to continue drawing from the pool, or the factory cannot be built. Even worse, if the factory produces more than can be used locally, there must be some uberpool that all communities can contribute to and draw from, but that extends the freeloader problem.[/b]
|
I think this is a fault with capitalism, not communism. In a communist system, as Midget is describing, the people building the factory will be working (and so will have access to the pool); whereas, in capitalism, there is no money to be made from building a factory so the people building the factory will either have to be already rich, or willing to go into major debt in order to build the factory.
This is a major problem with capitalism as it is a disincentive to invest in new fcotories (and other factors of production), in Communism, however, people get access to the pool whether they are making new factors of production or consumer goods, so more investment is likely.
And I'll state again; money is not a factor of production. It is not necessary for the building of a factory, what you need for that is bricks, mortar, builders, etc. You are confusing the common meaning of the word "capital", where it means "wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business and human resources of economic value", and the Economics definition: "Goods used in production that are not used up it the process of production, ie machinery". By this economic definition, money is not capital, nor is it any of the other three resources (land, labour and enterprise).