The Crisis Of Capitalism In 11 Minutes

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331836910' post='2401288']
Are you serious? I can't fathom what you mean. There are various types of jobs that have different requirements. Who wouldn't want a job they can perform at home, in their spare time, with little effort, little time required, and make a wage that pays for all your needs? But who's going to build your house? Pick crops, plow the fields, feed the cows, drive the delivery truck, etc. I've got to ask, do you work for a living?[/quote]
The idea of "jobs" is an artificial construct created by economic theory. It works within that theory...just saying that it's not some "natural" thing. Who's going to build your house? You can. Who's going to pick your crops and plow your fields? Your kids and your slaves. Why are you going to do it? Because it's part of life, not because it's a "job" and you are part of the "employment rate." The idea of "employment" is the best example of how economics is unnatural...as if because you don't go do something 9-5 for $15/ hour you are "unemployed." Doing things that benefit you only means "unemployed" in the context of an imposed economic system where you're only useful if you're serving the "economy."

Those things (building a house, plowing fields, and a whole bunch of other stuff) CAN be turned into "jobs"...that has its benefits (creation of "wealth", etc.) but also has its negatives (mainly the creation of "homo economicus," where everything man does is defined and measured according to its impact on the "economy").

Edited March 15, 2012 by Era Might

[4588686]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1331835890' post='2401271']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbL3zRgZUBo[/media]


I've been a fan of Tucker for years (came to know of him through liturgical/sacred music blogging) but I don't share even a hint of his love for the Austrian school or big business. Still, I enjoy hearing what he has to say.
[/quote]

I think your video really highlights my objection to extreme libertarianism. The moral problems is highlights are real and it's proposed ethical solutions (at least as classically conceived) are praiseworthy, but so are Marx's. The problem is that neither really correspond to reality or are capable of providing a wholesale feasible solution to the social problems of today. Politics and political economy aren't like theoretical physics, or mathematical logic, or philosophy. It's great to work out theoretical solutions to the world's problems. And Marxism and Libetarianism both have virtue in their ability to provide intelligent criticism and analysis of the current political order. But both ultimately fail as theories because they can't provide any ultimate solutions other than how the world ought to work in some idealized, abstract form. Using one or the other as an analytic framework may help provide remedies to the system, but trying to actually convert the world to one or the other would be disastrous. Today libertarianism, in it's politically potent form, only serves to empower unaccountable corporations economically and politically.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Hasan

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331838461' post='2401308']
I think we have a different idea of scarcity as well, Era. When I'm saying scarcity I'm not necessarily meaning that there's a shortage, simply that the resource is limited. Land is certainly scarce. Arable land even more so. Time is scarce, which is relevant for economic models. If, for instance, two people are stranded on a small island together, they need a system by which they allot the scarce land, and perhaps food and water as well. I think this definitely holds when applied to larger scales, it just gets a lot more convoluted.
[/quote]
Yes, I agree. My main point about scarcity, I think, is not that there are not limits to things, but that scarcity can be conceived in ways other than as a reason for, say, capitalism. One could just as easily conceive of scarcity religiously (as, for example, in gift economies).

Edited March 15, 2012 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331836910' post='2401288']I've got to ask, do you work for a living?[/quote]
Just to answer your question, no, I do not work for a living, I work for a check. I read poetry for a living, I watch baseball for a living, I post on Phatmass for a living.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331842122' post='2401341']
The idea of "jobs" is an artificial construct created by economic theory. It works within that theory...just saying that it's not some "natural" thing. Who's going to build your house? You can. Who's going to pick your crops and plow your fields? Your kids and your slaves. Why are you going to do it? Because it's part of life, not because it's a job.

Those things CAN be turned into "jobs"...that has its benefits (creation of "wealth", etc.) but also has its negatives (mainly the creation of "homo economicus").
[/quote]Jobs are NOT an artificial construct, it's a natural aspect of humans living in a community and allowing individuals to develop their individual talents, skills, and abilities in accordance with their needs, wants, and desires. Everyone does not have the abilities to build their own home or work in the fields. If they don't have these abilities, are they then destined to starve and die? What if they had another skill, such as a hunter? They could then trade the fruits of that skill to the farmer and it's a win-win scenario. Face it, humans are social animals with developed intellect and it's natural for us to work and live in a cooperative manner. oh my goodness (don't blasphemy)! Economics!

[4588686]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331842871' post='2401354']
Jobs are NOT an artificial construct, it's a natural aspect of humans living in a community and allowing individuals to develop their individual talents, skills, and abilities in accordance with their needs, wants, and desires. Everyone does not have the abilities to build their own home or work in the fields. If they don't have these abilities, are they then destined to starve and die? What if they had another skill, such as a hunter? They could then trade the fruits of that skill to the farmer and it's a win-win scenario. Face it, humans are social animals with developed intellect and it's natural for us to work and live in a cooperative manner. oh my goodness (don't blasphemy)! Economics!
[/quote]

I think he means specifically the notion of wage labor is a social construction. While you seem to be talking about social functions more broadly

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331842834' post='2401351']
Just to answer your question, no, I do not work for a living, I work for a check. I read poetry for a living, I watch baseball for a living, I post on Phatmass for a living.
[/quote]Seems to be a game of semantics for what a 'living' is. I meant do you have to put forth effort in order to obtain your necessary food and shelter?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331843093' post='2401359']
Seems to be a game of semantics for what a 'living' is. I meant do you have to put forth effort in order to obtain your necessary food and shelter?
[/quote]
I guess it depends on how you define "effort." Some stranger built my shelter as part of their "job." I just pay rent in it. And no, I don't have to put forth effort to obtain my necessary food, the supermarket takes care of everything for me, with big shiny posters to let me know what I should buy each week.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331842979' post='2401357']
I think he means specifically the notion of wage labor is a social construction. While you seem to be talking about social functions more broadly
[/quote]Wage labor is a natural outcome of human society that has developed beyond nomadic primitive man.

Edit to address Era's post above.

Working for 'wages' is the efficient way for people to trade their skills and efforts within the community for their fundamental needs while allowing people the freedom of time and effort to pursue wants and desires. What a mean and small existence humanity would have otherwise.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Anomaly

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331843380' post='2401363']
Wage labor is a natural outcome of human society that has developed beyond nomadic primitive man.
[/quote]
What's natural about it? Did Adam and Eve receive wages?

[4588686]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331843380' post='2401363']
Wage labor is a natural outcome of human society that has developed beyond nomadic primitive man.
[/quote]

edit, sorry, we actually agree, I misread you.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331843504' post='2401364']
What's natural about it? Did Adam and Eve receive wages?
[/quote]

Adam and eve aren't real. It is a natural outcome and we know that because it occurred. It's not the historically destined, preordained outcome. We could have had other systems of exchange. But it's not unnatural.

[4588686]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY&feature=related[/url]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331843504' post='2401364']
What's natural about it? Did Adam and Eve receive wages?
[/quote]Adam and Eve (wether in history or myth) were two people and were able to exist as nomads in a favorable environment. In that mythological sense, wage labor is no more natural then death.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331833086' post='2401232']
I've also noticed you doing something thay many Libertarians seem to do (no offense). Whenever someone points to actually existing problems with the (seemingly) capitalist elements of mixed economies you retort that that's not 'real' capitalism' but rather 'socialism'. But of course no purely socialist state has ever existed either. So it seems like an unfair tactic. Demand absolute purity in the model when discussing the benefits vs dangers of capitalism but acknowledging no such impurity when attacking 'socialism;
[/quote]
Well, when a "failure of the market" was due to a cooperation between government and corporate entities, it isn't free market capitalism. That's simple fact. When we look back at bank failures, and we see that special privileges extended to banks have enabled them to escape the consequences of bad (or even fraudulent) decisions, it is not proper to attribute those failures to the free market. So yes, we're going to point that out. Yes, corporatism is a form of socialism. It has repeatedly failed, and broadly, and due not to free decisions (which may be made in error), but due to rules backed by legal force. Every recession (true recession, not merely a decline in prices) has been preceded by monetary expansion. Every bank run was merely an exposure of banks that operated in a state of bankruptcy as a rule--and were protected from the natural consequences by government power. No, that isn't capitalism.

The problem with many people (on both sides) is the tendency to believe in utopias. The difference for me is that in a free market, you could set up a socialist system. It would be voluntary. However, in a socialist system (German or Russian) there is not an option for that.

"Mixed economy" is a ridiculous term. A mixed economy is just another form of central planning in which the government permits the illusion of property to exist. You would probably view Donald Trump as a capitalist. I, recognizing that he uses the power of the government to aid him, recognize him as a corporatist--a political entrepreneur. It is not a mark or a free market that a Donald Trump can get the government to take your home from you through eminent domain.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331844040' post='2401372']
Adam and Eve (wether in history or myth) were two people and were able to exist as nomads in a favorable environment. In that mythological sense, wage labor is no more natural then death.
[/quote]
I agree. Wage labor is no more natural than death.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331843380' post='2401363']
Working for 'wages' is the efficient way for people to trade their skills and efforts within the community for their fundamental needs while allowing people the freedom of time and effort to pursue wants and desires. What a mean and small existence humanity would have otherwise.
[/quote]
I agree that wages is more efficient. That's the goal of "technique" (i.e., technocracy), efficiency, standardization, etc. It has its benefits...I just believe the negatives outweigh the positives, and that we are dominated by technique. Life has become a well oiled machine, or maybe the better symbol is a well run corporation.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

I've missed your posts Era.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331844844' post='2401378']
Well, when a "failure of the market" was due to a cooperation between government and corporate entities, it isn't free market capitalism.[/QUOTE]

Why? Corporations are associations of individuals. They have a right in our current system to attempt to lobby the government to influence this the law. We have had regulations that have prevented just the sort of market failure that occurred in 2008. If the libertarian impulse continues that the convergence of corporate and government collusion will only continue. The only way this won't happen is if there is no substantive state, The only way your prescription can work, as far as I can see, is with a global revolution. Anything short of a massive and comprehensive revolution of the current global order will simply result in utter corporatism.

[QUOTE] That's simple fact. When we look back at bank failures, and we see that special privileges extended to banks have enabled them to escape the consequences of bad (or even fraudulent) decisions, it is not proper to attribute those failures to the free market. [/QUOTE]

Deregulation caused the collapse in the first place. systemic risk and all.

[QUOTE] So yes, we're going to point that out. Yes, corporatism is a form of socialism. It has repeatedly failed, and broadly, and due not to free decisions (which may be made in error), but due to rules backed by legal force. Every recession (true recession, not merely a decline in prices) has been preceded by monetary expansion. Every bank run was merely an exposure of banks that operated in a state of bankruptcy as a rule--and were protected from the natural consequences by government power. No, that isn't capitalism. [/QUOTE]

It's worked a lot better than Somalia or Central asia, which is pretty much the only society that I can imigain as being compatible with your understanding of the legitimate role of government. I'm not trying to parody your views but I don't know what empirical models you have other than those for the sort of limited government you are proposing.

[QUOTE] The problem with many people (on both sides) is the tendency to believe in utopias. The difference for me is that in a free market, you could set up a socialist system. It would be voluntary. However, in a socialist system (German or Russian) there is not an option for that. [/QUOTE]

There is a difference there ut I don't see how your model is not utopian.

[QUOTE] "Mixed economy" is a ridiculous term. A mixed economy is just another form of central planning in which the government permits the illusion of property to exist. You would probably view Donald Trump as a capitalist. I, recognizing that he uses the power of the government to aid him, recognize him as a corporatist--a political entrepreneur. It is not a mark or a free market that a Donald Trump can get the government to take your home from you through eminent domain.
[/quote]

Well by your definition I'm not sure if a single capitalist has ever existed. Also, I don't see how you say 'just aother form of central planning'. There is a qualitative difference between mixed economies of the United States and Europe and the hey days of the Soviet Union. The economies and societies are just radically different.

[4588686]

I know I compare anarchism to Somalia and other derisive thing but, whille I don't respect it as a prescriptive model, I do respect anarchic thinkers. I read Tolstoy's essay on the law as collective violence my Freshman year of college and it changed how I viewed the state forever.