Economics Questions

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Merlin — Sat, 07 May 2011 10:33:20 GMT

Well, no point in bringing quotations form anthropological work here. I just find it absolutely incredible that the full concept of private property, not just a partial realization (if the Israeli tribes had not had a partial realization of private property they would not have been as extremely successful evolution-wise as they proved to be) has been achieved anywhere on earth. My thoughts anyway.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Bearchu. — Sat, 07 May 2011 02:16:51 GMT

I remember the phrase as "thou shall not covet thy nieghbors wife." And intuitivley, this suggests that you own people. In tribal societies, fathers "gave" away thier daughters.

I understnd i am equating people with property, but the point is to demonstrate that the concept of possesion, and doing what you see fit with it is not forgien, but instinctual to humans.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

JackCuyler — Sat, 07 May 2011 02:16:26 GMT

I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention trade. Trade was certainly not prohibitted by religious tenets or custom in Israeli tribes. In fact, it happened. But again, you asked for an example of tribal people having the concept of private property. These tribal people knew about private property, at least in concept. People had possesions that were theirs and theirs alone, and it was generally believed that it was wrong to steal others' possessions. This is private property.

What others in the tribe say one ought to do with one's property, what you call "social pressure" is irrelevant, as long as the individual could ignore said pressure and choose to do what he wanted with his property, which of course was the case, or there would not have been any golden cows and such.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Merlin — Sat, 07 May 2011 01:35:18 GMT

Not enough, I’m afraid. Can they trade it away freely? Is there social pressure on its allowed uses? Private property is much more than just knowing that X belongs to Y, even where such a concept exists at least for tools.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

JackCuyler — Sat, 07 May 2011 00:47:59 GMT

Merlin:

Hm, I really think that’s an egregious stretch of the concept of ‘covet’ to fit what we know now to be moral, but perhaps we are indeed dealing with a mistranslation, and I do not wish to go into a religiously-laden discussion. Perhaps tribes did have full private property, though I find this unbelievable. Anyways, those were my two cents on the issue of capitalism being natural to man.

I certainly don't want to get into a religious debate. My point was that the operative phrase in that "commandment" is "belongs to your neighbor" and not the word covet. That is, for our discussion, it dosn't matter what the rule is saying the members of the tribe were or weren't allowed to do with others' property, simply that the rule illustrates the concept of stuff belonging to people.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Merlin — Sat, 07 May 2011 00:05:25 GMT

Hm, I really think that’s an egregious stretch of the concept of ‘covet’ to fit what we know now to be moral, but perhaps we are indeed dealing with a mistranslation, and I do not wish to go into a religiously-laden discussion. Perhaps tribes did have full private property, though I find this unbelievable. Anyways, those were my two cents on the issue of capitalism being natural to man.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

JackCuyler — Fri, 06 May 2011 22:44:35 GMT

See, we agree. The problem is that, while you can clearly ‘handle’ having different relation, most people cannot, and would like to be treated by the bank as they would by a friend. Do not take your easiness on this matetr lightly, forits appearently a matter of greta uneasiness fopr most people.

I just don't see that, sorry. People simply do not expect to be treated the same by strangers as they are by friends. When you're in a bar, it's most likely quite common for a friend to buy you a drink, or vice versa, but unless you're a (pretty) girl, or it's some special occasion, it's fairly unlikely that any stranger in the bar will. Your friends will go to the movies with you; random people on the street will not. I could go on and on, but I think my point is made. NO ONE expects strangers to act the same as friends. It's actually part of what it is to be a friend - you act differently than a stranger.

And when he ordered the very same folks not to melt the jewels they had into whatever form they liked, on pain of great punishment, was this included in his private property inspiration?

But even taking his words at face value, if you shall not covet other people’s stuff, it means that you cannot exchange, which was indeed the case for most societies back then. The few things that where yours where yours forever, and you could not exchange them. Heck, they even buried you with your stuff!

In no sense does "covet" imply "exchange". To covet is to envy or desire wrongly. On the other hand, many scholars now believe "covet" is a mistranslation, and that it properly should be "take".

In any event, the concept of private property was clearly part of the religion of the wandering, tribal, Israelites, which is what you asked for an example:

do you believe that tribal societies knew such a thing as private property? Find me a single, and I mean one single instance of private property in tribalism

Your neighbor owns goods. They are his, not yours and not all of ours. You are not allowed to envy them or steal them. That there were limits on how said property could be used is notable, but does not contradict the fact that the concept for private property was there. It merely illustrates that property rights were not entirely respected by "God's" servants.

Replace "God" with "government" and the statement is true today, but would you argue that there is no concept of private property today?

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Merlin — Fri, 06 May 2011 22:00:13 GMT

If we consider rational a system created by human action in an indirect manner, i.e. with no single actor actively seeking to bring it about, than I agree with what you write.

Now, we could get into a complex and ultimately pointless discussion of when does the food I was given to eat become my own. All I am trying to say is that the concept of full private property, i.e. of each man being sovereign with his own property, and being seen as having the full right to dispose of such property as he best sees fit without general resentment (otherwise a revolution is around the corner), is very new and in no instance has it existed fully in any society, past or present.

We learnt that this method is the best solution in efficiency terms, but we were not born with that knowledge or even tradition. All social interactions man seems to have built-in, with family and friends, speak of socialism, or at least heavy restrictions on what can one do with his property and still retain social acceptance. In this sense capitalism is ‘unnatural’ (or should we rather say, counter -instinctual).

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Fri, 06 May 2011 21:05:52 GMT

Let me refine my temrs: capitalism is not unnatural. It just is not built in, but has emerged naturally though the pains of trial and error and societal competition. It did not emerge rationally, because folks sat down and thought the most rational way to solve scarcity.

Well, it emerged rationally in the sense that all human action is rational. The society we live in today was not built in a day, but it was built step-by-step over a long period of time. Anyways, to assume that our society today was 'built-in' is to assume that there is no such thing as human progress, so any such assumption would be absurd. However, the basic tenet of capitalism -- economizing, rational man -- has existed since at least the first homo sapien, if not sooner.

No, but those who stumbled on some private property concept transmitter their culture, and the others didn’t.

It's true that private property 'rights' have evolved to different degrees in different societies (although, I'm not sure what an unwillingness to raise prices has to do with private property rights -- it has to do with some moralistic consideration, which as I wrote before is also a byproduct of economizing, rational man [it's ultimately self-serving]), but all societies have had private property to one degree or another. How can you eat if someone is objecting to your ownership of that food? Even socialistic wealth redistribution policies have an underlying degree of respect for private property, since it's assumed that the person who receives the redistributed wealth is now the owner. The same is true for a purely communist society, where goods are distributed according to one's needs -- upon receiving the goods in question you are the owner, until you consume them or they're taken away from you.

Without property rights -- at a very basic level -- human life would be impossible. Property rights aren't some artificial construct someone thought up one day and decided to impliment. Property rights developed naturally through the means-end framework of rational economization.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Merlin — Fri, 06 May 2011 20:23:29 GMT

@ Jonathan

Let me refine my temrs: capitalism is not unnatural. It just is not built in, but has emerged naturally though the pains of trial and error and societal competition. It did not emerge rationally, because folks sat down and thought the most rational way to solve scarcity.

In the Japan thread some time ago someone mentioned how Japanese groceries where reluctant to raise prices for very scarce goods due to social considerations, causing those goods to be in very, very short supply. There we have it, in the XXI century, in one of the richest societies on earth, people that trade for a living do not find the rational solution to the scarcity problem en masse. Did savages and herdsmen find it? No, but those who stumbled on some private property concept transmitter their culture, and the others didn’t.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Merlin — Fri, 06 May 2011 20:16:33 GMT

You would resent you friend if he didn't lend you money? Seriously?

If I was losing my house to the bank for a couple of grands which I would receive within a month, he had the money sitting around and didn’t give it to me? Would you not resent him, seriously?

I have a different relationship with my friends than I do with my bank. Don't you? That property is privately owned has nothing to do with the difference.

See, we agree. The problem is that, while you can clearly ‘handle’ having different relation, most people cannot, and would like to be treated by the bank as they would by a friend. Do not take your easiness on this matetr lightly, forits appearently a matter of greta uneasiness fopr most people.

Around 1000 BC, rules to live by were carved into a couple of tablets by a Jewish guy who was a member of tribe wandering through the desert. Among those rules, roughly translated:

You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

And when he ordered the very same folks not to melt the jewels they had into whatever form they liked, on pain of great punishment, was this included in his private property inspiration?

But even taking his words at face value, if you shall not covet other people’s stuff, it means that you cannot exchange, which was indeed the case for most societies back then. The few things that where yours where yours forever, and you could not exchange them. Heck, they even buried you with your stuff!

So, covet whatever you like but do not steal, this would be private property. Do not covet other people’s stuff would seem some Buddhist acetic and/or caste system stuff.

Look, I’d like for an idyllic private property society to have existed in the past. The simple fact is that it didn’t, and it still doesn’t. But again, if you can find any counterexample, real ones please, I’ll take everything back.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Fri, 06 May 2011 17:16:25 GMT

Well, to repeat my point, does anyone here ask for interest when lending money to a friend?

Capitalism and the market is a product of economizing man, not profit-seeking man. The former does not necessarily imply the latter, even if many individuals do see profits as one of the ends they'd like to attain. So, whether you would ask for interest when lending to a friend, or charge your children for your parenting, is frankly speaking, completely irrelevant.

What part of such reasoning is unfair?

It inaccurately suggests that these are what we define a market economy and capitalism by. By the way, since all these catallactic forces are a product of economizing man, they are necessarily a product of human action which reflects human nature.

It is not a pessimistic scenario at all, but I can no longer bring myself to imagine that man was born capitalist. We made ourselves into capitalist for our own good.

You're abstracting the concept innaccurately. Man wasn't originally born into a society with the economic institutions which exist today, but that these institutions didn't exist sometime in the past doesn't mean that man wasn't born 'capitalistic'. These institutions were developed over time as a result of rational, economizing man, not some unnatural process of market development.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

JackCuyler — Fri, 06 May 2011 16:32:10 GMT

Merlin:

JackCuyler:

A better question: Do you own what you lend to your friend? If so, that is private ownership. Do you feel good about lending your friend money? If so, you have profitted from the loan.

The charging of interest is certainly not a defining characteristic of capitailism.

Come one guys, I’m not saying that lending money to a fried breaks praxeological laws. But how would your friend feel if you, fully within your rights, denied him a loan? Would he resent it? Of course! Would you feel he has reason to resent you, if he’s been your friend for a long time and you have the money he needs? Sure.

You would resent you friend if he didn't lend you money? Seriously?

Merlin:
Now do you think that client can rightfully resent a bank that denies them a loan? Do you think capitalism could flourish under such conditions? You see, its no the same standard we apply.

I have a different relationship with my friends than I do with my bank. Don't you? That property is privately owned has nothing to do with the difference.

Merlin:

And to drive the point further: do you believe that tribal societies knew such a thing as private property? Find me a single, and I mean one single instance of private property in tribalism and I take back everything I’ve written here. You wont. Private property too is a late development.

Around 1000 BC, rules to live by were carved into a couple of tablets by a Jewish guy who was a member of tribe wandering through the desert. Among those rules, roughly translated:

You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

Merlin — Fri, 06 May 2011 12:45:52 GMT

JackCuyler:

Merlin:

Well, to repeat my point, does anyone here ask for interest when lending money to a friend?

A better question: Do you own what you lend to your friend? If so, that is private ownership. Do you feel good about lending your friend money? If so, you have profitted from the loan.

The charging of interest is certainly not a defining characteristic of capitailism.

Come one guys, I’m not saying that lending money to a fried breaks praxeological laws. But how would your friend feel if you, fully within your rights, denied him a loan? Would he resent it? Of course! Would you feel he has reason to resent you, if he’s been your friend for a long time and you have the money he needs? Sure. Now do you think that client can rightfully resent a bank that denies them a loan? Do you think capitalism could flourish under such conditions? You see, its no the same standard we apply.

And to drive the point further: do you believe that tribal societies knew such a thing as private property? Find me a single, and I mean one single instance of private property in tribalism and I take back everything I’ve written here. You wont. Private property too is a late development.

Re: Capitalism as man's natural state?

JackCuyler — Fri, 06 May 2011 12:35:58 GMT

Merlin:

Well, to repeat my point, does anyone here ask for interest when lending money to a friend?

A better question: Do you own what you lend to your friend? If so, that is private ownership. Do you feel good about lending your friend money? If so, you have profitted from the loan.

The charging of interest is certainly not a defining characteristic of capitailism.