The Crisis Of Capitalism In 11 Minutes

[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.

[Nihil Obstat]

I figured Somalia would be brought up again sooner or later, so I bookmarked a couple articles.

Et voila:
[url="http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=722"]http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=722[/url]
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/getting-somalia-right-this-time.html?_r=2"]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/getting-somalia-right-this-time.html?_r=2[/url]

I don't remember what they said, but I'm sure I bookmarked them for a reason.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Anarchy rules.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331857379' post='2401530']
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]
Because free market means free of legalized violence. Corporatism might creep in from a state of free markets. In fact, with human corruption, it is inevitable that systems will corrupt.


[quote]Deregulation caused the collapse in the first place. systemic risk and all.[/quote]
Which regulations removed caused the collapse?

Misregulation, certainly. A history of insuring losses, certainly. But "de"-regulation?


[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]
I'm not attempting to model anything. I'm advocating leaving people alone, and not favoring one business over another. I'm not offering you lollipops and sunshine.


[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.
[/quote]
Thus the term German socialism. Yes, they are different. That doesn't mean it's not central planning. Subsidies are a form of central planning. Legal tender laws, central planning. A private bank that controls the money supply, central planning. Manipulation of interest rates, providing "low income" loans up to 938K, all central planning.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331857988' post='2401539']
I figured Somalia would be brought up again sooner or later, so I bookmarked a couple articles.

Et voila:
[url="http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=722"]http://www.economict...net/blog/?p=722[/url]
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/getting-somalia-right-this-time.html?_r=2"]http://www.nytimes.c...-time.html?_r=2[/url]

I don't remember what they said, but I'm sure I bookmarked them for a reason.
[/quote]

The first one quotes the second. It is an interesting read but I don't see how it really addresses my point. First of all the article notes that Somalia has had long periods of existence eithout a state. And this is true. And stateless societies have existed all over the world. And indeed, most human being who have existed have not lived under a state. But these were not libertarian societies. The absence of state does not bring about libertarian communes, it brings about tribalism. At least when we look at the empirical record (that I am aware of). I don't have any doubt that anarchism can function. The problem I have with individuals with individuals like that fellow from the Von Mises institute is he imagines something with no precedent: a large scale, corporatist, urbanized society which is also anarchic. I don't see how that would produce anything other corporate dominance. And corporations are not and never have been adverse to using violence to pursue their ends.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331858775' post='2401558']
The first one quotes the second. It is an interesting read but I don't see how it really addresses my point. First of all the article notes that Somalia has had long periods of existence eithout a state. And this is true. And stateless societies have existed all over the world. And indeed, most human being who have existed have not lived under a state. But these were not libertarian societies. The absence of state does not bring about libertarian communes, it brings about tribalism. At least when we look at the empirical record (that I am aware of). I don't have any doubt that anarchism can function. The problem I have with individuals with individuals like that fellow from the Von Mises institute is he imagines something with no precedent: a large scale, corporatist, urbanized society which is also anarchic. I don't see how that would produce anything other corporate dominance. And corporations are not and never have been adverse to using violence to pursue their ends.
[/quote]

My idea of a functioning libertarian society is pretty fluid. That does seem to be where Jeffrey Tucker leans. These days I'm thinking a sort of city-state system like in ancient Greece might be the most likely.