Capitalism Is Perfect Or Not?

[RC Patriot]

I'll go back to my question about working a low skill job. The idea that lowing the minimum wage will help anyone get their foot n the door is silly. Those jobs have almost no future. Maybe if you stuck with it and did great you'd get a managerial position where you'd get guaranteed a little over (paid) 35 hours a week (while also being on call and actually working much more).

Why is it silly?
They aren't the jobs that are meant to have a future. They're the jobs that are meant to build a work ethic, so when you want to go from sweeping the floor to cashier, you can show you're reliable. And when you show you can be trusted with money as a cashier, you go get a job somewhere else. Poverty is not static. The jobs are, but the people generally aren't.

[NotreDame]

Hasan,  are you generally interested or just being argumentative? 

[arfink]

So, I've ignored the past 6 or so pages at this point, so please just smack me if this has been asked already:

 

What about distributism? I am not a Chesterton expert nor a brilliant economist, but why wouldn't that be superior to both capitalism and socialism?

 

Rather than allow the state or corporations to own capital like equipment, only individuals would own capital. If it was something that an individual could not own, it would be owned collectively by those who operated it. So companies that owned capital equipment would be owned by their employees.

 

It would seem to me that this would reduce the dual socialist and capitalist problem of workers having no economic power or control due to having no access to capital.

 

EDIT: I said subsidiatiry when I meant to say distributism. My bad.

Edited March 15, 2014 by arfink

[NotreDame]

What's the distributism theory on the business cycle?

[arfink]

What's the distributism theory on the business cycle?

 

You're gonna need to help me out here and define that a little for me. Like I said, not an economics guy.

[4588686]

Why is it silly?
They aren't the jobs that are meant to have a future. They're the jobs that are meant to build a work ethic, so when you want to go from sweeping the floor to cashier, you can show you're reliable. And when you show you can be trusted with money as a cashier, you go get a job somewhere else. Poverty is not static. The jobs are, but the people generally aren't.

 

 

Lol, so I'm guessing you haven't worked a lot of those low skilled jobs recently either?  FYI in a place like that 'floor sweeper' isn't a job.  Employees like the cashiers perform basic janitorial tasks plus usually they contract out the heavier duty cleaning.  I haven't seen lot of jobs that are looking for somebody who has proven that they can be trusted with money via their years of experience working at Burger King.  

[4588686]

So, I've ignored the past 6 or so pages at this point, so please just smack me if this has been asked already:

 

What about distributism? I am not a Chesterton expert nor a brilliant economist, but why wouldn't that be superior to both capitalism and socialism?

 

Rather than allow the state or corporations to own capital like equipment, only individuals would own capital. If it was something that an individual could not own, it would be owned collectively by those who operated it. So companies that owned capital equipment would be owned by their employees.

 

It would seem to me that this would reduce the dual socialist and capitalist problem of workers having no economic power or control due to having no access to capital.

 

EDIT: I said subsidiatiry when I meant to say distributism. My bad.

 

http://www.amazon.com/review/R353KJO6WNGME0

 

"Theodore Burczak is Professor of Economics at Denison University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts, where rigorous training in traditional economic theory and econometrics was linked to an equally rigorous training in "political economy," by which was meant the analysis of the politico-economic dynamics of social systems. I was privileged to teach in this department at the time Burczak was there, and indeed in the acknowledgements, Burczak says that I "showed how to transform traditional economics into political economy." So the reader is warned---I am not an unbiased reader of this book.

Many reasonable people believe that capitalism, for all its myriad of weaknesses, is the best possible economic system. This is a highly defensible position, given the abject failure of all attempts to create viable alternatives over the past two centuries, and especially after the spectacular collapse of the Soviet Union, the failure of European socialism, and the bitter extinction of Third World Socialism. Personally, I believe capitalism is the best system we know of, but it is very important to have some smart and committed people around who spend all their time and energy in devising workable alternatives. Burczak lies squarely in this tradition, and Socialism after Hayek is a very creative and thoughtful work that deserves to be widely read and evaluated.

The most salient fact about Burczak's defense of socialism is his wedding a model of market socialism with democratically run, worker-owned firms (Lange, Lerner, although Burczak uses arguments from the contemporary Austrian school, which fits well with Hayek) with a welfare analysis based on human flourishing (Aristotle, Sen), and perhaps most uniquely, a defense of markets inspired by the extremely right-wing, Nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek. This potent mixture of ideas is a welcome alternative to the usual contemporary defense of socialism, which is based either on know-nothing populist sloganeering or reliance on the ancient German philosophers of socialism of the Nineteenth Century---especially Marx and his brainy intellectual followers, whose obvious Hegelianism reverberates nil with the modern mind (Marx said that he was "Hegel turned on his head." What he forgot was that an upside down Hegel is still Hegel, just upside-down, just as an upside-down chicken is just a chicken, upside down).

In Burczak's Lange-Sen-Hayek trinity, traditional economic theory is used to defend market socialism and democratic worker ownership (Samuel Bowles, John Roemer, Pranab Bardhan and I were working in this area when Burczak was working on his doctorate at the University of Massachusetts), to defend egalitarianism on the basis of Sen's notion that human welfare depends on developing capabilities, not on simply getting material things, and to defend a Postmodern philosophical position on the basis of Hayek's theory of knowledge.

Burczak's treatment is highly sophisticated, but I am afraid I am not persuaded. The absolutely central and bottom-line problem is that an economy consisting of worker-owned and democratically controlled firms would impose a significant static efficiency loss on the economy and would severely retard scientific and entrepreneurial innovate. I say this with pain and regret, because I and my colleagues work for almost ten year to devise a workable market socialism, but my final conclusion (I'll let the others speak for themselves) is that our models are more applicable to promoting self-employment of poor farmers in developing countries (see Pranab Bardhan, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, "Wealth Inequality, Credit Constraints, and Economic Performance", in Anthony Atkinson and Francois Bourguignon (Eds.) Handbook of Income Distribution (Dortrecht: North-Holland, 2000):541-603).

The main problem facing democratic worker control of firms is that the workers must be residual claimants on the profits and losses incurred by the firm, or the workers will have no reason to adopt efficient technology and work practices. Lenders will not willingly lend to worker-controlled firms because they cannot maintain sufficient influence over the firm's policies in this case (Herbert Gintis, "Financial Markets and the Political Structure of the Enterprise", Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1 (1989):311-322). John Roemer and Pranab Bardhan (Pranab Bardhan and John Roemer, "Market Socialism: A Case for Rejuvenation", Journal of Economic Perspectives 6,3 [Summer] (1992):101-116) worked out a sort-of "pari-mutual" betting plan that would direct public funds to the most promising firms, but it is implausible that such a plan, were it workable, would not succumb to political forces in a way to which private capital markets, based on the inviolability of private property, are virtually immune. Moreover, firms based completely on outside finance are extremely overleveraged and would inevitably collapse when even small threats to their viability arose.

The conclusion is that democratic firms must be almost wholly worker-owned, meaning that virtually all of the firm's capital stock is owned by the workers. However, there are severe problems with worker ownership. Most important, the capital per worker in the average firm is greater than the total wealth of the average worker in that firm. If the worker were given a share in the firm outright, he would prefer to sell it to diversify his asset holdings. Indeed, all the workers would prefer to sell out to a capitalist enterprise so they would become less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the market. Indeed, there are several cases in which land redistribution to the peasants failed because the peasants sold the land right back to their previous landlords! Of course, this could be prevented by law, but the economic inefficiency of having a workforce of highly exposed individuals would be extreme. Moreover, if the workers own the firm, they will not want to expand employment in the firm, because the new workers would get a share of the value of the firm. Of course, new workers could be forced to buy a share in the firm, but few would willingly do so. Finally, the idea of worker ownership might be feasible for some highly stable and technologically developed sectors, but a vibrant economy is based on entrepreneurial innovation, and this is incompatible with workplace democracy.

If the contribution of workplace democracy to social welfare were sufficiently great, perhaps some of these severe problems could be overcome. But in fact, workplace democracy and popular ownership of capital are not fundamental values, but rather are instrumental values. Of course, in the minds of truly committed socialists they become ends in themselves, but I do not think such an idea can be sustained, even using Sen's notion of capacities. Socialists talk of "wage-slavery," but working for a boss is not slavery by a long shot. There are good and bad bosses, good and bad workplaces, but there are also good and bad teachers, and this does not imply that all authoritarianism should be abandoned in the educational process. Market socialists like to compare workplaces to communities, asking why we should have democratic communities but not democratic workplaces. This is a good question, but the fact is that our democratic communities work because we have a traditional market economy to draw upon. Moreover, while it is clear that a liberal democratic national constitution is a must, it is not clear that there would be something completely unacceptable about having corporations run communities, as they now run some schools and prisons.

I think the most creative insight in this book is the relationship between Hayek and Postmodernism. I love Hayek and I am deeply put off by Postmodernism, so I am certain that the melding of the two must be carefully executed to maintain continuity with Hayek's thought. But it is interesting food for thought, one of many Burczak offers us in Socialism After Hayek.

[NotreDame]

Lol, so I'm guessing you haven't worked a lot of those low skilled jobs recently either?  FYI in a place like that 'floor sweeper' isn't a job.  Employees like the cashiers perform basic janitorial tasks plus usually they contract out the heavier duty cleaning.  I haven't seen lot of jobs that are looking for somebody who has proven that they can be trusted with money via their years of experience working at Burger King.  

 

I asked if you were serious because the value and dignity in work should be self-evident.  Also, as someone that is current unemployed, simply having a job greatly improves one's employability.  And apparently, there's a big need for low-skill jobs at the moment:

 

 

There's really no need to get personal on this like you are doing ("have you worked those jobs?") either.  Also, please don't turn this into one of your tangents where you pick three words from someones post and rathole on it for 5 pages. 

[NotreDame]

http://www.amazon.com/review/R353KJO6WNGME0

 

Thanks for that.  In case you are wondering, it appears that this whole "distributism" concept was born out of Belloc's "The Servile State":

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Servile_State

[4588686]

I asked if you were serious because the value and dignity in work should be self-evident.  Also, as someone that is current unemployed, simply having a job greatly improves one's employability.  And apparently, there's a big need for low-skill jobs at the moment:

 

 

There's really no need to get personal on this like you are doing ("have you worked those jobs?") either.  Also, please don't turn this into one of your tangents where you pick three words from someones post and rathole on it for 5 pages. 

 

 

 

It's a completely legitimate question when you and RE Patriot are providing a defense of these jobs based on some postings that bear little or no resemblance to what actually occurs in that portion of the labor market.  If you say 'hey, here's what's ok with these jobs, because this can happen!' and your hypothetical shows a complete disconnect between what occurs in that sector of the labor market then it is completely legitimate to point that out.  

 

Work can get bring you dignity.  Not all work does, however.  I worked with a woman who worked for Wal-Mart for 19 years before they fired her with no notice and nothing to show for her time there.  She was working on the unloading docks with us however she clearly wasn't able to handle to strenuousness of the job.  When I left they were pushing her out by cutting down her hours.  There isn't a lot of dignity in that situation.  

[NotreDame]

It's a completely legitimate question when you and RE Patriot are providing a defense of these jobs based on some postings that bear little or no resemblance to what actually occurs in that portion of the labor market.  If you say 'hey, here's what's ok with these jobs, because this can happen!' and your hypothetical shows a complete disconnect between what occurs in that sector of the labor market then it is completely legitimate to point that out.  

 

Work can get bring you dignity.  Not all work does, however.  I worked with a woman who worked for Wal-Mart for 19 years before they fired her with no notice and nothing to show for her time there.  She was working on the unloading docks with us however she clearly wasn't able to handle to strenuousness of the job.  When I left they were pushing her out by cutting down her hours.  There isn't a lot of dignity in that situation.  

 

I'm not sure what you are saying... low paying jobs are bad and we should get rid of them?   I also think you are reading more into what I've said than is actually there and/or misunderstanding it - especially my point about "foot in the door" relative to min wage.

 

To be honest, you seem to be resorting to emotional appeals in the above and you are smart enough not to have to.  I'm willing to have a reasoned conversation on this, but I don't want to get pulled into one of these tangents where you get all emotional and self-righteous, regardless of whether it's real or feigned.

 

Going to the beach now, but I'll try to get back to you guys tonight (including Arfink.)

[havok579257]

I believe that creating a strawman out of  a partial quote and spreading it to every voting person affects voting outcomes even more. I'm still skeptical that this was even said, and I'm having a hard time finding any mention of it outside of the generic Huffington Post article. Obviously, you know the details better than I do, and the burden of proof is on you as the accuser. Give me a link or something....

 

 

I said the government supports Planned Parenthood and condoms through redistribution of income, which we call taxes. Don't you see that this is "essential services" to those in power? Ultimately, my point is that you're going to need to come up with a different excuse for taking other people's money than "essential services," because those words are being abused.

 

 

I'd love to hear what your vision for the country is, if you think both parties are ruining the country. My thinking is that if you're going down the freeway in the wrong direction, you have to turn around. "Compromise" isn't going to get you anywhere. But seriously, look into your sources. It didn't take long for me to find these:

 

Sarah Steelman was the Tea Party chosen, not Todd Akin

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-express-endorses-sarah-steelman-u-senate-212100508.html

 

Democrats spent $1.5 MIllion to help Todd Akin win the primary... gee, I wonder why....

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Dems-Spent-1-5-Million-to-by-Rob-Kall-120821-873.html

 

I smells of elderberries when your own party doesn't support you, eh?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/todd-akin-on-today-this-is-not-about-my-ego/

 

To his credit, he tried to take it back. "Apology not accepted," said the media which controls the mass of votes.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/todd-akin

 

Todd Akin, not exactly the "face of the party."

 

go to Kansas city star and look for the article.  I don't have the time to search for it.  if you want to read it its there.

 

planned parenthood is not essential.  you accused me of saying it was essential.  now your trying to back track. 

 

compromise is not going to get you anywhere?  well then good luck tea party.  the tea party will never hold the presidency, the majority of the senate and the majority of the house, so unless they compromise they will do nothing of not in the country other than grand stand like ted Sen. Cruz.  if you don't compromise this country will go no where.  unless your delusional in thinking the tea party can get a super majority for years.  if not then we are left with the disaster they have left this country.  refusing to compromise, shutting down this country for nothing because in the end all it did was make democrats look better and saying stupid things like Palin, Bachman and Akin do all the time.

 

also he did not initially try to take it back.  only after so much of his party distanced themselves from him did he try to take it back.  also it was all his ego.  had he dropped out another republican would have won easily but his ego kept him in the race when there was no chance of winning .

 

also the democrats put money into akin same reason republicans do the same.  they hope a loser wins the election and that got it right there.

[havok579257]

I asked if you were serious because the value and dignity in work should be self-evident.  Also, as someone that is current unemployed, simply having a job greatly improves one's employability.  And apparently, there's a big need for low-skill jobs at the moment:

 

 

There's really no need to get personal on this like you are doing ("have you worked those jobs?") either.  Also, please don't turn this into one of your tangents where you pick three words from someones post and rathole on it for 5 pages. 

 

 

hasan does have a point.  this theory that because your reliable at mcdonalds being a cashier means you'll be promoted to a managerial position because you can be trusted with money not how the world works now.

 

there is a human diginity to working but there should also be diginity is providing someone a living wage with the church agrees with.

[havok579257]

So, I've ignored the past 6 or so pages at this point, so please just smack me if this has been asked already:

 

What about distributism? I am not a Chesterton expert nor a brilliant economist, but why wouldn't that be superior to both capitalism and socialism?

 

Rather than allow the state or corporations to own capital like equipment, only individuals would own capital. If it was something that an individual could not own, it would be owned collectively by those who operated it. So companies that owned capital equipment would be owned by their employees.

 

It would seem to me that this would reduce the dual socialist and capitalist problem of workers having no economic power or control due to having no access to capital.

 

EDIT: I said subsidiatiry when I meant to say distributism. My bad.

 

 

I brought up distributionism. it would be much better than capitalism or socialism.

[Pliny]

Work can get bring you dignity.  Not all work does, however.  I worked with a woman who worked for Wal-Mart for 19 years before they fired her with no notice and nothing to show for her time there.  She was working on the unloading docks with us however she clearly wasn't able to handle to strenuousness of the job.  When I left they were pushing her out by cutting down her hours.  There isn't a lot of dignity in that situation.  

 

Nothing to show for her time there?  For 19 years she worked for free?

 

What else was she doing during those 19 years?  What was she studying or working on so that she could step up to a better job somewhere else?