If manufacturing wages have been steadily increasing throughout the past decade, where geographically are those increases located and how can my sorry father, who can no longer take overtime (because it is no longer provided) at the factory as a salaried machine technician, cash in on that prosperity?
I don't mean to be anecdotal. We're an Ohioan family.
Also, not only in these parts are less hours available throughout the aforementioned factory to the floor workers, but wages have not been rising and the yearly bonuses have been culled back significantly in the decade my father has been employed there. Corporate profits, however, have continued to rise and all salesmen remain with both heafty bonuses and commission; housed in the same building. It seems like the national figures on compensation don't take into account that compensation is shifting demographics based on any number of things. "x" proportion of floor workers see "y" compensation while "a" proportion of salesmen see "b" compensation, all equal to "c" over "d" while is the national real compensation per hour.
Furthermore, maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't the inflation-adjusted rise in energy (electric, gas, etc.) expenditures and energy costs extremely detrimental to your claim that there's a significant problem with arguing real wages as falling? This person talks about the demand for ethanol driving up corn prices:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-rising-food-prices-are-eating-more-of-your-paycheck
Do eggs really speak for the food industry? I hardly ever buy eggs, but I use many pre-processed foods with eggs in them already.
Chart 41 says that food, clothing and housing expenditures have declined. But if people's median income per household is rising, how is that necessarily indicitive that workers as an average are seeing the prosperity that is obviously occuring. Also, how is that indicitive that they're spending it on necessities like food, clothing and housing? What's the most expensive thing in America that the largest % of the population spends on average the largest % of their wealth on?
<a href="http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/"><img src="http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/wheredidthemoneygo.jpg" alt="wheredidthemoneygo"/></a>
http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/
You need to provide evidence for your manufacturing statistics. I don't know if manufacturing wages are increasing. I don't know if the industry is even growing. I don't even know if it is a free market.
I will tell you that if you want money, or other goods and services, from your fellow man, you should try to find some way to convince him to give it to you. If you attack him, he'll fight back. If you win, capital will fly from the country.
No system built on coercion can stand the test of time, ala Romans.
Someone should do one of those money charts and show where tax dollars go.
liberty student:Someone should do one of those money charts and show where tax dollars go.
That would hurt the government's campaign of anti-interpretivism on the minds of tax payers.
While I don't doubt the stats that krazy kaju posted, I believe a lot of the so-called improvements in standards of living has mostly to do with the ease of taking on large amounts of debt. That is mainly due to the nature of the fiat system.
If everyone borrows the new fiat money, how do they obtain an advantage in relative purchasing power?
Assuming all the other major economies are performing similar stunts with their money supplies, treasury securities and bonds, my opinion is there is absolutely no advantage whatsoever other than prolonging an otherwise sudden death of capital's value and trade volume.
I'm starting to think the G20 didn't stimulate to recover, but stimulated to acquire time in which to negotiate how to turn entire countries into gated communities.
OP: Commies and other wacko leftists often like to claim that real wages are falling in the United States, and that this fall is due to "free markets." Theoretically, of course, this claim is bunk
OP (10 posts later) : Real wages have fallen
--------
Yeah, you really squashed that one, eh?
I think it's pretty silly to compare xx years ago and today, especially with computers. What is that going to tell you about capitalism vs socialism? Gee, I guess the Soviet factories didn't have robots eh? Nor GM foods? Nor modern fertilisers and pesticides huh?
It's a silly comparison. And as you admit, real wages have fallen.Rather than just glibly accept you are contradicting your own claims made in the OP, why not face the challenge thrown here to lefties and explain the apparent failure of capitalism to bring about the benefits you originally claimed it had made? (and which you suggested lefties had to explain)
Such arguments also ignore the bigger picture of econo-political relationships, such as american power in regulating and acquiring oil supplies, negotiating trade 'agreements' for raw materials etc. A relative gain could easily be achieved in USA by forcing down prices of its suppliers - but what is the overall effect ie including the wages of 3rd world raw material suppliers etc?
A friend of mine works for the major UK food retailer - he knows from experience they hammer farmers to obtain extremely low prices, often reducing sellers to tears/bankcruptcy. Where do those tears feature in your charts?
wouldn't let me edit last post.....I wanted to add:
And this thing about socialism as 'coercion'? Could you explain how I am free from coercion under a capitalist private property system? Do I have a choice not to live under capitalism and markets and private property?
Please realize, TLNL, that posters here are universally against the current system. If we speak of capitalism positively, we do not mean the "capitalism" that exists today. The market today is very heavily regulated and distorted by the state; and yes, the state is greatly influenced by the rich. We are against American political power regulating and acquiring oil supplies just as much as you are.
And I believe the OP meant that it is bunk to blame the fall in real wages on free markets. The fall in real wages in the US has coincided with rising intervention by the state. Economic theory suggests that this is not merely correlation, but that government policies are causing capital consumption and a fall in real wealth.
hehe - that sounds so like the old socialists - shall we call it "really-existing capitalism" then?
If it's the case that really-existing capitalism is so different from your theoretical model, how can it be used as evidence for the superiority of pure capitalism as attempted by the OP? This seems a major problem to me, an inescapable one perhaps.
I think we're much further from socialism than we are from capitalism. But anyway, shouldn't Miseians accept the lack of a pure capitalism as indicative of how idealistic and prone to corruption their position is, just as socialists are supposed to accept (and adjust to) the supposedly unavoidable corruption of socialism (a la USSR, say)?
Likewise that it isn't very popular? I'm a socialist, which means a democrat - I accept the world isn't especially socialist, so I have to lump it. Do people here accept the same about their 'pure' capitalism? That it's unpopular (else it would be)?
Also that whilst the market may very well be regulated, and somewhat imperfect, all in all it provides the best we can get - or at least, the best we can reasonably agree upon? I mean, one can't ignore one's opponents. I tend to loathe capitalism but I respect the fact the world is not agitating for socialism. Pure capitalists should recognise the fact too from their own perspective too?
Does the current system look anything like the "capitalism" promoted by Mises and others, other than the fact that both are called capitalism? "We" were not saying in the 80s, "The framework for our capitalist utopia has been laid - everything that happens in the next 30 years will be due to our ideal capitalist system!" Mises spoke out repeatedly against the interventionist system that existed in his lifetime and that has only intensified today.
If it's the case that really-existing capitalism is so different from your theoretical model, how can it be used as evidence for the superiority of pure capitalism as attempted by the OP?
In the post where he admitted that real wages have fallen, krazy kaju said, "The reason for this is that the monetary system itself is just one factor in the whole economy. Our markets here in America are stronger than the inflationary forces the Fed creates." I don't think that's a horrible way to phrase it. The market is hampered, but not abolished. Private property is not entirely secure, contract is not without stipulations, money is not very stable, etc., but they still exist to some degree and still encourage the accumulation of capital.
I think we're much further from socialism than we are from capitalism.
It is not a binary relationship. I don't think it's even coherent to say there is a range in which socialism is on one end and capitalism on the other.
But anyway, shouldn't Miseians accept the lack of a pure capitalism as indicative of how idealistic and prone to corruption their position is
The problems are not inherent in the free market, but in the institution known as the state. The problems of socialism are inherent in the socialist program, which neglects the importance of incentives and suffers from the inability to coordinate production. For the Misesian, the obstacle is physical and easy to spot: the state. For the socialist, you have a whole bunch of intractable problems.
And obviously the free market is not incredibly popular right now, but so what? Economics is a science, and Mises and others have made the case that 'capitalism' is the best system to satisfy our material condition. Heliocentrism wasn't popular etc. etc.
That's basically a tautology.
Yes, if you don't know you're a capitalist, you are probably a socialist. It seems to be the default position for humans.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
I read a study on primates recently that higher-order of the animal kingdom often are given an experiment that might provide inference on human social order's, well, socialisticness. The study found that when 2 fruits were given to this particular primate, it would more commonly share the fruit with a relative or another primate it was familiar with. The study seemed to indicate that charitable acts have a positive social benefit, obviously to a laymen.
But not charitable acts to strangers, another obvious deduction. Hence socialism's plight on a sociological level.
Humans are well wired to understand 'in this together' and direct cooperation. Indirect cooperation, especially ones involving basically amoral self equilibrating mechanisms which are not dependent on intentions, are both confusing and offensive to normal morality. This is why markets alienate them, and also why customary law just doesn't click in their heads. The latter is true of many libertarians, too, who get into silly 'angels on pinhead' arguments over natural law, etc.
Non-propertarian systems tend to bulk into empires which tend to eat their own capital base. However, if they keep their expropriations low somehow they can last indefinitely. Even when they do collapse they are just as often replaced by something equally bad or worse as anything better. Certainly anarchy rarely comes out of anarchy. Most anarchist societies were pre-political (tribal Germanies, Cossacks) and only rare accidents seem to have propelled significantly political societies into significantly propertarian-contract societies (Somalia, Feudal Europe).
Re: Vichy Army,
<blockquote>Humans are well wired to understand 'in this together' and direct cooperation. Indirect cooperation, especially ones involving basically amoral self equilibrating mechanisms which are not dependent on intentions, are both confusing and offensive to normal morality. This is why markets alienate them [humans],</blockquote>
What makes you think markets are amoral? You're right in that they're not dependent on INTENTIONS, since they depend on purposeful action, but that does not make voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions "amoral."
They are not dependent on any moral inclination; only a general preference for civil order and the benefits of cooperation over fighting it out. Thus they are amoral.
Mises spoke out repeatedly against the interventionist system that existed in his lifetime and that has only intensified today.
intensified interventionism? only in some ways, whilst in others it has dramatically reduced eg Thatcher's abolition of credit controls, reduced barriers to capital movement, privatisation, anti-unionism. You won't find much support from socialism for the idea that interventionism has increased, rather that it has reduced and has been handed over to anti-democratic forces of private capital. What interventionism there is seems dictated by the forces of capital, not of labour, not of socialism, not of democratic will. 'Rolling back the state' was and is a mantra. You seem to represent the forces behind such a movement as socialist, or at least anti-capitalist. I can't see that at all, though I can happily concede we (thankfully) don't have a Miseian world.
In the post where he admitted that real wages have fallen, krazy kaju said, "The reason for this is that......"
Sure, but such a statement completely contradicts his claims in the OP. The opposite argument can be put that despite "the market is hampered, but not abolished" it fails to achieve what you(?) and the OP believe it should and does do. Accepting the OP, we could argue that supposedly increased wages are a product of (what you claim is) increasing regulation.
It just seems that you are committed ideologically, and all evidence is rationalised along such lines. Fair enough, but, let's not pretend otherwise? I mean, the OP claims wages have risen because of capitalism and free(ish) markets, and yet later admits wages haven't risen and blames it on socialism! This is just shifting the goalposts and re-rationalising the conditions each time to support capitalism, isn't it? It looks like it to me.
I don't think it's even coherent to say there is a range in which socialism is on one end and capitalism on the other.
Maybe the OP and other commenters need telling this ? I see capitalism and socialism as anti-thetical. IMO we have an essentially capitalist system - markets, private property, profit. The essence of socialism is public ownership of means of production - something we really do not have. On that basis, we're capitalist, not socialist. In such conditions, to see extreme 'pure' capitalists implore us onwards to greater purity reminds me of Stalinist liquidation of the Kulaks - "We must intensify the class-war!". I find it really quite disturbing tbh, but....I'm a socialist, so I would, wouldn't I? ;)
The problems are not inherent in the free market, but in the institution known as the state.
So you say. Such views seem to ignore the reasons state came into being and the functions they fulfil. Also, there's a (imo false) belief in perfectionism amongst this 'pure' capitalist stuff - all the failures are blamed on the state, lack of perfection in markets etc. There seems to be a lack of appreciation that perfection is impossible and the state (handily enough for anti-state ideologues) gets the blame.
The problems of socialism are inherent in the socialist program, which neglects the importance of incentives and suffers from the inability to coordinate production.
Granted, the price mechanism is a great transmitter of information. But now we have IT and computers and potentially near-perfect knowledge of demand/supply. I'm also atagonistic to the notion that the market should be handed primacy over human production and distribution, even if it were provably the "best" way. (The 'best' way is determined by one's own wider belief system - there is no objective measure)
For the Misesian, the obstacle is physical and easy to spot: the state.
Doesn't that strike you as a little simplistic? I mean, why did the state evolve at all and so pervasively if it is so inherently and obviously problematic?
Interestingly Marxism and anarchists and Miseians converge here - on the abolition of the state. For Marxists the state will eventually wither away as social institutions and conventions develop to replace it - organically and on a material basis. It isn't an ideological wish, it's a description, whereas for anarchists and Miseians it's simply a wish based on the view that the state is the essential source of all problems? [Which begs the question why did it evolve in the first place if it is so damned dysfunctional?]
For the socialist, you have a whole bunch of intractable problems
Maybe. :D Ideally we could run experiments and have a socialist bloc and a Miseian one, or whatever else. And just see what works, and what happens? I'm with Bertrand Russell and Einstein on that. It isn't as if there's no good grounds for a belief in socialism (though I know this board is vehemently against it)
What are you talking about? Of course they are dependent on a moral inclination - that of voluntary exchange versus THIEVERY. The decision to exchnge is a MORAL decision. You simply WANT to believe it is not, but that's only because you're an ignorant fool.
lol. Nice psychologizing.
"Ideally we could run experiments and have a socialist bloc and a Miseian one, or whatever else. "
But that's exactly what a Misesian world allows for - free association. So all the socialists can get together and essential form contracts or their equivalent and start their own thing. The Misesian, decentralized world results in a variety of experimentation and polycentrism. On the other hand, socialism relies on force which prohibits experimentation and decentralization, because power congregates upward to higher and higher levels of government.
Currently, we could have 50 state experiments in the USA. Unfortunately, socialists have nationalized many services into the federal government, and now the signal has been diluted - everything the federal government does applies fairly equally to all states. It's easy to see how socialism prevents the decentralist experiments from being run.
So it's ironic for someone to basically say 'I don't just want the libertarian scenario, i want experimentation.' Uhh, THAT IS THE FREAKING LIBERTARIAN SCENARIO.
yes, it's well known in evolutionary studies that altruism has a positive evolutionary impact. I've seen it argued that much of the belief about capitalism 'better reflecting human nature' (nature red in tooth and claw) came about because we discovered Chimpanzees before Bonobos - chimps being far more aggressive, competitive and hierarchical as compared to more social (and sexually uninhibited) bonobos.
the basic premise seems to be that aiding another leads to aid provided for one's self. also, helping relatives promotes survival of group genes. and similarly, the antagonism to definite 'others' arises from the same basis.
On the other hand, socialism relies on force which prohibits experimentation and decentralization, because power congregates upward to higher and higher levels of government.
I don't share such a view at all. Interesting about Miseian diversity etc though - I haven't ever seen it put like that, usually it takes the form of pretty-extreme anti-socialism in my experience.
It's not. It's a logical conclusion. Thinking that an interaction between two humans where property is peacefully exchanged is "amoral", is an indication of of foolishness. Thinking that people only engage in such exchanges just to avoid confrontation is inidicating ignorance. So, you're an ignorant fool.
Your idea that your biased definition of 'peaceful' and its extended concept throughout the social order is some sort of moral default is hilarious.
As you've been told elsewhere, stop looking at the labels and focus on substance, and realize that it is not simply socialism vs capitalism.
Accepting the OP, we could argue that supposedly increased wages are a product of (what you claim is) increasing regulation.
If you were only looking at a narrow set of raw data, sure. With the aid of economic theory, however, we can determine what causes wages to rise and what causes them to fall. It is not about rationalizing the data to fit the ideology, but using theory to understand the data.
I see capitalism and socialism as anti-thetical. IMO we have an essentially capitalist system - markets, private property, profit. The essence of socialism is public ownership of means of production - something we really do not have. On that basis, we're capitalist, not socialist.
Do you or do you not think this is an extremely crude view of reality? Why must we be either capitalist or socialist, and not something else?
Your head must spin at the idea of a hermaphrodite.
But now we have IT and computers and potentially near-perfect knowledge of demand/supply.
What? What do you mean near-perfect knowledge of demand/supply? Knowledge of the concept of supply and demand, or the actual "amount" of supply and demand for each commodity and service?
I'm also atagonistic to the notion that the market should be handed primacy over human production and distribution, even if it were provably the "best" way.
The market has no hands. It is not a thing. It is a process. People retain primacy over production and distribution; the market coordinates what people should produce.
I mean, why did the state evolve at all and so pervasively if it is so inherently and obviously problematic?
Because it is not obvious.
Old Mexican:What are you talking about? Of course they are dependent on a moral inclination - that of voluntary exchange versus THIEVERY. The decision to exchnge is a MORAL decision. You simply WANT to believe it is not, but that's only because you're an ignorant fool.
I would disagree. Voluntary exchange may result from a simple cost/benefit analysis. If I rob you instead of trade with you, you may swear revenge, get your clan involved, even injure/me if I botch the robbery. Now why would I go through that trouble if I could just exchange some good or service that I had lying around? I don't think morality neccessarily has to enter into the desicion making process (although it may for some).
Yes, making social order and indirect cooperation dependent on morality is not only contrary to the social sciences but it is patently false; given that most people's moral views undermine their own de facto behaviour.
MY biased definition? Vichy, the decision to ENGAGE in peacefull exchange IS a moral decision. The thinking that is some sort of automatic, amoral (i.e. mechanistic) decision IS laughable.
Morality never enters my mind when I decide to pay for a soda and not shoot the clerk.
Re: Jackson LaRose,
I would disagree. Voluntary exchange may result from a simple cost/benefit analysis.
I can make THOUSANDS of cost/benefit analysis until the cows come home, that would not justify my actions (I consider Utilitarianism pure quackery); the fact is that engaging in peaceful exchange versus thievery IS a moral decision.
If I rob you instead of trade with you, you may swear revenge, get your clan involved, even injure/me if I botch the robbery.
Possibly; or you may not care, being a person that's not good at confrontations, like Marty McFly's father. Who cares? If on the other hand you believe that thievery is WRONG, that is EVIL, then you won't have to bother with such calculations.
I don't think morality neccessarily has to enter into the desicion making process (although it may for some).
You're confusing morality with culture.
'Justification' is nonsense; your definition of 'thievery' is arbitrary (and has nothing to do with its meaning in customary law, which says it is an actionable tort, not a moral wrong).
The fact that you can't tell the difference between subjective value and the social theory of utilitarianism paints you as pretty silly to argue with. Utilitarianism IS a moral theory.
Would it have to? Because I don't think about it either, but I know the actions that I take are moral if I do not trespass on someone's property rights or freedoms. I don't have to think it over every single time ["What should I do? What should I do?"], I just don't commit evil acts. If I had to THINK about it every single time, I would have to be a very troubled individual.
Okay, this is obviously outside the box you are comfortable in.
You think thieving is NOT wrong? Who cares what lawyers call it, what do YOU say?
The fact that you can't tell the difference between subjective value and the social theory of utilitarianism paints you as pretty silly to argue with.
What does ONE thing have to do with the other?
Utilitarianism IS a moral theory.
Did I say it was not? I just argue it's pure quackery, not that it is not a moral theory.
Mexican, you are obviously unfamiliar with the soul-eating tyrant I am. Morality is ridiculous nonsense; it's not even logically possible to get away from arbitrary personal preferences.