Economics Questions

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

gotlucky — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 06:51:42 GMT

Thescout:

A critical thought for Clay, gotlucky, Malachi, and others. Ours is most certainly not a system of beautifully paternalistic plutocracy, geared for benevolent "job creators" looking out for the welfare of the workers whom they use and commodify. Rather, it's quite distinctly a system oriented toward profiteering and the empowerment of capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. Rudely strip away all of the free-marketarian rhetoric and ideology that you use to rationalize your support for capitalism and this is indeed essentially what you're defending, a system that's fundamentally and entirely about capital accumulation and capitalist supremacy, and whose crass attitude is democratic and humanistic values be damned. Well, this is precisely the "commie" rudeness that I'm guilty of, and precisely why you find me to be such an annoying bete noire. Be this as it may, and despite your open detestation of my constructive efforts at sharing a critical point of view, my hope for you-all is that one day your intellectual and life journey will take you to an honest awareness of the unlovely nature of capitalism, and of the subconscious psychological motives behind the staunchness of your support for such a thoroughly unlovely system. Mm-hmm, as I'm fond of saying, hope springs eternal, and I will always continue to sincerely hope for your enlightenment, regardless of how much petty ad hominem invective you spew in my direction.

Okay, I'll just repost Sowell's questions and patiently wait for your retort:

Those who believe that "basic necessities" should belong to people as a matter of right ignore the implication -- that people are to work only for amenities, frivolities, and ego. Will that mean more work or less work? And if less, where are all those "basic necessities" coming from that the government is supposed to hand out?

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Meistro — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 03:08:41 GMT

It needn't necessarily be a total disconnect from the demands of consumers - although this would no doubt frequently occur as the consumption preferences of bureaucrats were deemed more important than the consumption preferences of the proletariat at large - because these demands are displayed through choice. An increase in demand for, flour, is shown in the depletion of flour from the common store. The problem lies in capital goods industries.

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

gravyten577 — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 02:49:02 GMT

Irwin Schiff in his book "The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing you" made a good point that even in a socialist society it would still be capitalism because capital is needed to produce things.

Think about it. In a socialist society the central planning board would be striving for capital accumulation but there would be a total disconect with the subjective value judgements of the consumers.

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

shackleford — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 02:48:12 GMT

He fails to realize that by creating wealth and satisfying the needs of others the business owner is satisfying his own needs. He seems to not understand that in a transaction everybody wins. Everybody is better off. Maybe he is confusing free market capitalism with crony government (otherwise known as the misnomer of "crony capitalism").

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Meistro — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 02:44:36 GMT

can you condense all your commie nonsense into like 15 words or less? It's not that I'm against hearing what you have to say, per se, but I don't really want to invest a serious amount of time to parse it all. Can I get the coles notes version of your rant?

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Thescout — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 02:04:35 GMT

A critical thought for Clay, gotlucky, Malachi, and others. Ours is most certainly not a system of beautifully paternalistic plutocracy, geared for benevolent "job creators" looking out for the welfare of the workers whom they use and commodify. Rather, it's quite distinctly a system oriented toward profiteering and the empowerment of capitalists at the expense of the rest of us. Rudely strip away all of the free-marketarian rhetoric and ideology that you use to rationalize your support for capitalism and this is indeed essentially what you're defending, a system that's fundamentally and entirely about capital accumulation and capitalist supremacy, and whose crass attitude is democratic and humanistic values be damned. Well, this is precisely the "commie" rudeness that I'm guilty of, and precisely why you find me to be such an annoying bete noire. Be this as it may, and despite your open detestation of my constructive efforts at sharing a critical point of view, my hope for you-all is that one day your intellectual and life journey will take you to an honest awareness of the unlovely nature of capitalism, and of the subconscious psychological motives behind the staunchness of your support for such a thoroughly unlovely system. Mm-hmm, as I'm fond of saying, hope springs eternal, and I will always continue to sincerely hope for your enlightenment, regardless of how much petty ad hominem invective you spew in my direction.

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

shackleford — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 02:03:04 GMT

Maybe he should read How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes by Peter Schiff.

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Meistro — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:56:50 GMT

dude that obama phone video is the funniest thing i have seen in a long time

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

gotlucky — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:02:17 GMT

Thescout:

Ah, yes, this assumption comes from the logic employed by apologists for capitalism. Behold a right-libertarian egoistic individualist reductionistically dismiss the social-relational nature of human beings and their existence, their social morality, and their capacity for altruism and heroic solidarity as a herd mentality! What a bleakly atomizing & alienated, materialistic & spiritually-philistine "libertarian" lebensphilosophie in which every man is an island entire of itself, cut off from the continent of humanity, untouched by and unwilling to reach out to his/her neighbor, and interested only in being a wealth-overaccumulating junior capitalist.

Ah, yes, the pseudointellectual completely ignores the questions posed. I didn't see that one coming.

Thescout:

Capitalism is the organisation of social labour as value, so it necessarily reduces all social production to a single, homogenised abstract, exchange value, and present all social products as packets of value first, and as heterogeneous objects of utility only secondarily. Apologists for capitalism, taking as their axiom that greed and egoism embodies some universal, tranhistorical rationality, assume that any rational form of social production will likewise hinge on a homogenising abstraction. The possibility of such a reduction can thus be employed as a test to determine whether any given historical system is rational. But if the axiom is not valid, and it's not self-evident that it is, then the test doesn't function, and that line of criticisms becomes void.

Others have already addressed this ridiculous paragraph.

Thescout:

Got a response, gotlucky?

Yes, I do. How about you actually respond to Sowell's questions. I'll repost for your ease:

Those who believe that "basic necessities" should belong to people as a matter of right ignore the implication -- that people are to work only for amenities, frivolities, and ego. Will that mean more work or less work? And if less, where are all those "basic necessities" coming from that the government is supposed to hand out?

Maybe you can stay on topic this time, but I won't hold my breath.

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Michael J Green — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 22:34:58 GMT

The result, the result of group selection and phenotypic plasticity operating over a hundred and fifty thousand years of hunter-gatherers actually living the ethos of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is that our basic social phenotype and makeup is such as to make us fitter for an egalitarian-communalist form of society that cynical pro-capitalists would like to admit.

Nope, that does not follow. Let's say the first part is true: human beings evolved to express communistic sympathies. But again, these were small tribes connected by blood and shared experience. It does not follow that such sympathies function in cities of tens of millions or nations spread over thousands of miles. Rather, as classical liberals have argued since Adam Smith, these sympathies may be innate and work in our local relationships - we will share with our family and close associates - but our sympathies are less, non-existent or hostile for people outside these circles. Civilization progresses and humanity achieves such wealth through this interconnected web, with people relying on their natural conscience locally but bourgeouis values for trade and economic organization. This 'phenotype' still functions, but as one factor of a greater whole. (while, unfortunately, leading some people to think our natural sympathies alone would suffice to manage a modern society)

Your narrative also completely ignores intertribal trading. Tribes did not just run into each other and meld into a larger communistic tribe, sharing whatever each needed. They would often war. If they did trade, they did it according to the self-interest of the group (as a man may choose his job in accordance to the self-interest of his family, not merely himself), not out of benelovence for these weirdos. The success of this system, with groups trading with each other, occassionally warring, specializing in some goods and relying on imports for other goods, etc., suggests that the 'social phenotype' is insufficient for, well, civilization. Hayek builds this narrative very persuasively in The Fatal Conceit.

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Malachi — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:55:32 GMT

"Yes, a socioeconomic system that pursues the equalization of every citizen's welfare is not at all as farfetched a vision as we're conditioned to think."

whats astonishing is the conditioning that allows you to consider the idea of a socioeconomic system "pursuing" an end.

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Bert — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:47:02 GMT

Capitalism is the organisation of social labour as value, so it necessarily reduces all social production to a single, homogenised abstract, exchange value, and present all social products as packets of value first, and as heterogeneous objects of utility only secondarily. Apologists for capitalism, taking as their axiom that greed and egoism embodies some universal, tranhistorical rationality, assume that any rational form of social production will likewise hinge on a homogenising abstraction. The possibility of such a reduction can thus be employed as a test to determine whether any given historical system is rational. But if the axiom is not valid, and it's not self-evident that it is, then the test doesn't function, and that line of criticisms becomes void. Got a response, gotlucky?

Did you just say that value is organized labor? That in the process reduces all production to a single abstract exchange value? That also the value is first while the utility is only secondary? Yes, if you want to strawman labor as a single value, which it's not. What's the value of labor? Can you say to anyone at any given time? My labor, your labor? It's abstract, enough that it cannot be reduced to single exchange values.

"But what of money?" you'll proclaim. The value of money in relation to labor/service/product is subjective between the two individuals involved in the transaction and how much they value said exchange.

Yet, we're not reducing labor to single values to test whether historical systems are rational, but what is the axiom? Is the axiom subjugating labor to single units, or whether value is subjective and that humans act? What line of criticism is void to an actual accepted axiom (humans act) and not one you've just made up to strawman an argument that doesn't exist?

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Buzz Killington — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:45:13 GMT

Theoscout:
Ah, yes, this assumption comes from the...

How so?

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Thescout — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:19:01 GMT

Those who believe that "basic necessities" should belong to people as a matter of right ignore the implication -- that people are to work only for amenities, frivolities, and ego. Will that mean more work or less work? And if less, where are all those "basic necessities" coming from that the government is supposed to hand out?

Ah, yes, this assumption comes from the logic employed by apologists for capitalism. Behold a right-libertarian egoistic individualist reductionistically dismiss the social-relational nature of human beings and their existence, their social morality, and their capacity for altruism and heroic solidarity as a herd mentality! What a bleakly atomizing & alienated, materialistic & spiritually-philistine "libertarian" lebensphilosophie in which every man is an island entire of itself, cut off from the continent of humanity, untouched by and unwilling to reach out to his/her neighbor, and interested only in being a wealth-overaccumulating junior capitalist.

Capitalism is the organisation of social labour as value, so it necessarily reduces all social production to a single, homogenised abstract, exchange value, and present all social products as packets of value first, and as heterogeneous objects of utility only secondarily. Apologists for capitalism, taking as their axiom that greed and egoism embodies some universal, tranhistorical rationality, assume that any rational form of social production will likewise hinge on a homogenising abstraction. The possibility of such a reduction can thus be employed as a test to determine whether any given historical system is rational. But if the axiom is not valid, and it's not self-evident that it is, then the test doesn't function, and that line of criticisms becomes void. Got a response, gotlucky?

Re: The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie.

Thescout — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:13:57 GMT

And there it is.

Also, yes, our prehistoric predecessors may have had success with a more communal system of rules. But success for them was merely surviving and procreating, and they lived in squalor for millenia until the dreaded Agricultural Revolution. Communities today that try to live by similar rules either still live in squalor or import comforts from capitalist societies (they don't get their khakis and cotton shirts from communal farmers). And, of course, large polities that try to work with that ethical system continuously devolve into totalitarian nightmares, as constant moral pressure to keep people contributing, without recourse to local and self-interest, proves insufficient and requires brutal coercion (and the calculation problem doesn't help). Prehistoric communism may have worked well enough when there were 1 million people spread across the globe, and it may work well enough today in small tribes scattered around the world. We have no reason to believe it could work with a complex economic system sustaining 7 billion human beings of increasingly diverse tastes.

So no thanks. "It worked for our incredibly poor ancestors, who were shorter and died young!" is not a great argument.

Well, it's simply biology 101 that the formation of what I'll call a social phenotype is determined by the interaction of individual members of a group and by their social environment. Now then, the evolution of the social phenotype of Homo communist (communist man) was promoted by the equalitarian economics and enlightened interdependent interpersonal relations that prevailed in hunter-gatherer bands. And individuals with this socialist social phenotype of course survived and passed on their genes, and individuals who attempted to express greed or a will-to-higher-status were purged and frequently did not reproduce.

The result, the result of group selection and phenotypic plasticity operating over a hundred and fifty thousand years of hunter-gatherers actually living the ethos of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is that our basic social phenotype and makeup is such as to make us fitter for an egalitarian-communalist form of society that cynical pro-capitalists would like to admit. Yes, a socioeconomic system that pursues the equalization of every citizen's welfare is not at all as farfetched a vision as we're conditioned to think. It's actually the atomized individualism of capitalism that's unprecedented and that's proving itself to make for a socially and morally and ecologically unsustainable society.

Mm-hmm, our species has been wading through history up to its neck in a gene pool filled by communistic ancestors, repeatedly devising socioeconomically symbiotic and collaborative forms of community that reflect our communist hereditary legacy, humankind most definitely has the right deoxyribonucleic stuff to grow beyond capitalism into a more fraternally equitable, classless, and synergistic way of living together and in the world. We merely need to open our minds, shaped to be cynical as they are by living under capitalism, to such an optimistic possibility.

P.S. Now no doubt all of this is going to provoke some here to reply only to tell me what a communist clown I am for entertaining and advocating such an unconventional vision. But consider some of the fringy views being put forth here by some of the pro-capitalists, i.e., that "humanity" and "society" are merely abstract concepts that we should dispense with, that we should think only in terms of atomized and amorally self-interested individuals, that drug dealers should be allowed to ply their trade and perform their service to their customers in a "free market" without being subjected to our moral judgments and interference, that wheelchair salesmen and drug dealers are morally on a par, that operating a motor vehicle on public streets shouldn't be seen as a privilege, etc. Yes, consider these views of some of my "libertarian" libelers who are as far outside of the mainstream of social and political thought as yours truly – of course I'm off on the left bank of the mainstream and so-called libertarians are to be found in their own little kooky corner of the right – and pardon me for saying that if I'm a communist clown, then they're fit to be called libertarian loonies.