The Crisis Of Capitalism In 11 Minutes

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbL3zRgZUBo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbL3zRgZUBo[/url]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331797610' post='2401014']
His pinnacle of the consumerist/capitalist is walmart. That says a lot. It was an interesting lecture though. Genuinly, he seems like a fun guy.
[/quote]
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.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331817296' post='2401072']
So for this guy, government using force to uphold special favors for banks, overseen by a central bank with magical powers bestowed upon them to inflate, is capitalism?
[/quote]
Arturo is angry.

[url="http://elblogdelpelon.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/more-on-the-austrian-school/"]http://elblogdelpelon.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/more-on-the-austrian-school/[/url]

[indent=1]"[color=#373737]There is a very interesting critique of some of the premises of the Austrian school of economics [/color][url="http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/bukharin-on-the-subjectiveobjective-value-debate/"]on the Kapitalism101 blog[/url][color=#373737]. There, the author corrects Bukharin in stating that the main divide between bourgeois and Marxist economics is not between objective and subjective, but between dialectical and abstract thinking. That perhaps is the ultimate critique of the Austrian school, and by extension, bourgeois economic thought: the starting point of the former lies in the abstract consumer devoid of any historical and social context, while for the latter the starting point is the concrete process of production well within history..."[/color][/indent]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331834966' post='2401256'] Is the creation of "wealth" and "prosperity" a human good? Obviously, it's an economic good, but is modern economics human? I suppose the real question is whether "society" is natural or human. Would anyone work at burger king if they weren't compelled to by their status as lower working class? [/quote] 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]What is capitalist class but the attempt to regulate uneven power statuses? I don't think communism necessarily does any better...trying to abolish class probably leads to even more problems than trying to regulate it. But is any of this "natural"? The essential idea behind socialism seems right to me: an independent authority is better entrusted with things than various individuals whose only true motive is not the state or society, but their own profit. Capitalism is better at that kind of freedom, it seems, because it opens up the possibility for each man to be his own king. But when that competition of kings eventually gives way to superkings, and eventually power gets concentrated in a few (the infamous 1% to borrow OWS slang). But, at the same time, even though the attribution of power to the state in socialism theoretically makes sense, it makes it easier to get what you got in the 20th century...totalitarian states. So I guess capitalism fits America's protestant conception of authority and freedom, but I don't know that America would still be around if capitalism were allowed full reign. There's only so many kings the market can bear...and when the peasants get restless, it leads to trouble, a lot of which was diffused in the 20th century through various movements that demanded things of the state (labor movements, civil rights, etc.).[/quote]It is the natural order of things that people have a CHANCE to be rewarded for the time, efforts, abilities, skills. Not everyone is born (or created as you would say) with the same talents, wants, abilities, skills. It is very demanding to start a business. It is very difficult to be a manager, or owner, and have the associated responsibilites. Not everyone wants, needs, desires, or chooses to deal with those burdens. People and personalities are different. Some are leaders, some are satisfied to be followers. Even a pack of wolves have a 'natural' hierarchy. Human society makes attempts to balance the power of leaders with the need to have them with limits to keep it from being unduly oppressive.
[quote] Anyway, I don't know what I'm saying. Carry on. I guess my real point is that our economics is not "natural." It is a theoretical system, which helps tame and direct passions and tendencies and desires and goods, but it is not something that is somehow "inherent" to us. I don't think capitalism is inherent to how we are naturally than a suit and tie is...we could just as easily (and perhaps more comfortably) wear a toga. [/quote]Generally, capitalism is inherently natural. Like all things in human societies, there needs to be checks and balances to allow people to choose to pursue their needs and wants with the reality of what individuals are willing and/or able to do.

[Nihil Obstat]

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.

[4588686]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1331835963' post='2401272'][color=#373737] Bukharin [/color]
[/quote]



КОБА, ЗАЧЕМ ТЕБЕ НУЖНА МОЯ СМЕРТЬ?

[color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]Koba, why do you need my death? [/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif](Koba was Stalin's old alias from his days in Georgia)[/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]The opening sentence to Bukharin's letter to Stalin, begging for his life. [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]Always stuck with me. [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif]Poor Bukharin. [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif] [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif] [/font][/color]

Edited March 15, 2012 by Hasan

[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?