Me: Would you rather earn $100 a day and have the cost of living be 90% of your income, or earn $0.10 a day and the cost of living be 80% of your income? Him: Anything to avoid capitalism. Me: In your opinion, what is wrong with capitalism? Him: The fact that 8 out of 10 people lose their jobs and become slaves to the two others left? Me: Got any real-world examples? Him: My family? Our company was nearly bankrupt (and I think we'll be shutting it down, if we don't get some help), which would make us lose it completely and then work in someone else's. Me: So working for someone else is slavery? Say, did your family employ anyone; were they slavemasters? Nonetheless, we haven't had free-market capitalism for the past 96, since the creation of America's third central bank, the Federal Reserve. Instead, what we have had is a mixed economy; that is, an economy that has had a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic elements.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
That's it?
C'mon man, I was expecting more fireworks!
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Haha, that's awesome. So true, every failed capitalist is a socialist at heart.
The question is, do they fail because they are really socialists, or do they become socialists because they fail?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
krazy kaju:That's it? C'mon man, I was expecting more fireworks!
It takes him a while to respond. Here's the link to the convo:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwc8XUIJPQkYes, it's on YouTube, but it's the first time I haven't gotten into flamewars with someone on there.
liberty student: Haha, that's awesome. So true, every failed capitalist is a socialist at heart. The question is, do they fail because they are really socialists, or do they become socialists because they fail?
Either. I've talked to employers who say that they don't want to lay off people; instead, they will give them whatever random job the employer can come up with. In other words, say you employ a stonemason, but you no longer have a need for the stonemason's services. Therefore, what the employer does is employ the stonemason as a janitor. I find a huge problem with this. The stonemason's services could be used by another employer, but the stonemason is being "underemployed".
Also, to expand my example, say another employer employs a janitor, but no longer requires the janitor's services. So, this employer give the janitor the job of stonemason. Thus, what we have is that the stonemason is being employed as a janitor, and the janitor is being employed as a stonemason. Furthermore, suppose the two employers laid off the both workers, then the stonemason and the janitor would enter "free agency" (for lack of a better word). If that happened, then the employers would be able to find the workers they need. Hence, the employer who no longer requires the services of the stonemason, would lay off the stonemason and hire the janitor for janitorial services. Likewise, the employer that no longer requires the services of the janitor would hire the stonemason for stonemasonry serivces. However, by not laying off the workers, the employers are under-utilizing their resources.
Note: With respect to subjective value, I am assuming that the stonemason would do a better job as stonemason than would the janitor, and that the janitor would do a better job at janitor than would the stonemason.
Daniel: Also, to expand my example, say another employer employs a janitor, but no longer requires the janitor's services. So, this employer give the janitor the job of stonemason. Thus, what we have is that the stonemason is being employed as a janitor, and the janitor is being employed as a stonemason. Furthermore, suppose the two employers laid off the both workers, then the stonemason and the janitor would enter "free agency" (for lack of a better word). If that happened, then the employers would be able to find the workers they need. Hence, the employer who no longer requires the services of the stonemason, would lay off the stonemason and hire the janitor for janitorial services. Likewise, the employer that no longer requires the services of the janitor would hire the stonemason for stonemasonry serivces. However, by not laying off the workers, the employers are under-utilizing their resources.
I used this argument on revleft a few months ago and received several responses. The jist of their rebuttals went something like this:
In a communist society one may be temporarily be assigned a position of underemployment but as soon as the need for their speciality service arises they would reclaim their speciality position. In a capitalist economy unemployeed workers remain unemployeed thus unproductive until a new employeer demands their services. While looking for new employement the worker struggles survive.
I wasn't sure how to respond to this other then saying the state is innefficent and it would be impossible for a central planner to keep track of every working man and women at any given period in time. Any other ideas?
socialdtk:Any other ideas?
Workers could get insurance against unemployment. Thereby paying for services that involve checking to see the company is liable and will be for the future etc.
Whilst that person is assigned a position of "underemployment" another person has been directly affected by that action. They work less now, to compensate for this person working for the alloted time.
There are insentives to save for the rainy day. To not become unemployed in the first place. Welfarism (theft) and parasitism kill this notion.
That's what savings are for...
To darkness I condemn you...
Interesting idea for unemployment insurance. I've never thought of that before.
Conza88:Whilst that person is assigned a position of "underemployment" another person has been directly affected by that action. They work less now, to compensate for this person working for the alloted time.
Possibility, using Daniel's stonemason/janitor example:
In this scenario the only person that has been negativity effected is the stonemason who was forced to taken up a new profession.
In most cases I would agree with you. Depending on how long the person has been employed and how long it takes him to find another job the persons saving might not be enough to cover his basic cost of living.
In this scenario private charities or Conzo88's unemployment insurance suggestion would have to come into play.
Without the Fed at least savings would not be utterly devalued. I think this is the obstacle that hinders many people visualising savings as a shield against hard times.
Jon Irenicus: Without the Fed at least savings would not be utterly devalued. I think this is the obstacle that hinders many people visualising savings as a shield against hard times.
Which is one of the responsibilities of the evil Fed: to dissuade people from saving so as to make them reliant upon the government. This is why, in my opinion, the maniac Keynes hated those people who saved.
The guy in the video is an idiot. Especially since he presupposes an ethical argument as an economic one. Also, his understanding of issues of market systems (human ecologies) is flawed for the simple fact that he still has an implicit reference to the idea of "market equilibrium." Which of course doesn't exist.
I pretty much sent a video response explaining my view on it, but I'll summarize here. Committee based 'economies' will fail for the simple fact that there are no signals for alternative ideas, deployment of ideas, and alternative assessments/analysises of ideas. Or in simpler terms: there's no wide range of strategies employed for success. Things like Project Venus, which are referenced in the video, often lead to bad ideas being implemented based on cognitive errors that cluster in undivided social groupings (committees, peer groups, and etc) as such groupings lead to groupthink and risky shift (as per studies found in cognitive and group psychology studies).
In contrast, why capitalism and market based economies are more often successful isn't in any one strategy employed, but because all possible strategies are employed. In some ways, a market economy is like a big bag of genetic algorithms, in which the resources to 'compute' the possible solution paths is divided up based on many factors (objective and subjective) and each possible solution path is explored (even very similar ones based on different strategies to explore the same solution could lead to a success/failure). Thus, when solution paths are found to be successful, those paths can be exploited to find similar ones based on them (further refinements of a path, or discovery of new paths which can succeed/fail and/or be refined). Which restarts the cycle of solution path competition again. (So much for "summary" LOL!)
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
socialdtk: ... In this scenario the only person that has been negativity effected is the stonemason who was forced to taken up a new profession.
...
How so? The stonemason can go do stonemasonry work for some who needs it. He would worse off being employed as a janitor.
socialdtk: Daniel: Also, to expand my example, say another employer employs a janitor, but no longer requires the janitor's services. So, this employer give the janitor the job of stonemason. Thus, what we have is that the stonemason is being employed as a janitor, and the janitor is being employed as a stonemason. Furthermore, suppose the two employers laid off the both workers, then the stonemason and the janitor would enter "free agency" (for lack of a better word). If that happened, then the employers would be able to find the workers they need. Hence, the employer who no longer requires the services of the stonemason, would lay off the stonemason and hire the janitor for janitorial services. Likewise, the employer that no longer requires the services of the janitor would hire the stonemason for stonemasonry serivces. However, by not laying off the workers, the employers are under-utilizing their resources. I used this argument on revleft a few months ago and received several responses. The jist of their rebuttals went something like this: In a communist society one may be temporarily be assigned a position of underemployment but as soon as the need for their speciality service arises they would reclaim their speciality position. In a capitalist economy unemployeed workers remain unemployeed thus unproductive until a new employeer demands their services. While looking for new employement the worker struggles survive. I wasn't sure how to respond to this other then saying the state is innefficent and it would be impossible for a central planner to keep track of every working man and women at any given period in time. Any other ideas?
The whole thing is null without context. Too many unclear ways in which the speakers might be assuming from each other. For instance, why can't they find a job. Secondly it shows they have no incentive to pick fruit from a tree. They stand around and wait for a boss to tell them to pick the fruit. Why do they need somebody to tell them what to do? Just go and pick the fruit and remind them that stealing somebody's else's fruit is a criminal act. And if it purely a lack of motivation, and they need spoon feed then that's a whole other story all together.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Jon Irenicus: In a communist society one may be temporarily be assigned a position of underemployment but as soon as the need for their speciality service arises they would reclaim their speciality position. In a capitalist economy unemployeed workers remain unemployeed thus unproductive until a new employeer demands their services. While looking for new employement the worker struggles survive. That's what savings are for...
Exactly, which means a store of capital, meaning a-la capitalism.
ladyattis: In contrast, why capitalism and market based economies are more often successful isn't in any one strategy employed, but because all possible strategies are employed. In some ways, a market economy is like a big bag of genetic algorithms, in which the resources to 'compute' the possible solution paths is divided up based on many factors (objective and subjective) and each possible solution path is explored (even very similar ones based on different strategies to explore the same solution could lead to a success/failure). Thus, when solution paths are found to be successful, those paths can be exploited to find similar ones based on them (further refinements of a path, or discovery of new paths which can succeed/fail and/or be refined). Which restarts the cycle of solution path competition again. (So much for "summary" LOL!)
Yeap freedom allows anything and if within the law, society is pursuing happiness and not suppressed into narrowing each other's free-will and thereby skewing each individual from contributing reasonable, creative dynamics.
Update:
Leveer: Free Market capitalists are like religious fanatics. They call anyone who is not like them the "evil" thing "over there". Surprised he hasn't called you a "Commie" yet. Socialism AND Capitalism fail because they are both monetary systems. Leylaqq: Blessed be, Leveer13. ;-) Me: Fail. I haven't called anyone "evil". Nice ad hominem, however. Venus project makes me LOL. The flamewars have commenced! Leveer13: No, but you somehow assumed that we were socialists. Or that we suggested that it was a solution. Which we didn't. If anything that is an Ad Hominem on your part. It makes you LOL because you don't know anything about it. Clearly. Like I said, come to my show sometime and we can talk about it. Leveer13: You kind of missed the point didn't you? 96 years ago we didn't have machines that could eliminate millions of jobs, and allow the outsourcing of more still. Capitalism requires cyclical consumption, and that is breaking down steadily. You must live somewhere with a good economy if you still believe in the dinosaur of capitalism. Pretty soon it will go from Dinosaur to Unicorn, or Dragon, or Fairy. Me: Oh noes! It wasn't millions of jobs! But we did have machines that "eliminated" thousands of jobs. What is "cyclical consumption"? Again, we are not living under a capitalistic economy, therefore, you fail. Leveer13: If you don't know what "Cyclical Consumption" is then you just proved that you know nothing about the Venus Project you ignorantly "LOL" at. Me: I've read the some of the web pages on the official website, but I have the courage to admit that I don't know everything about it. Hence, the reason why I asked "what is 'cyclical consumption'? ". Leveer13: Yes, working for someone else is slavery. Ask all the people who live in third world countries that are already slaves. And as outsourcing and automation drag down the standard of living for anyone who depends on selling their labor to survive, this trend will only continue. You don't listen too good do you? Me: Settled: laylaq's family are slaveowners. Leveer13: Everyone in the monetary system is a slave to it. Leveer13: Real world examples? How about the state of Michigan bud? Me: Lol. Government-backed unions are not part of the free-market capitalist economy. You fail again. Leveer13: Right, because we should have no way to organize when employers ask us to work in inhuman conditions. Declaring that I "fail" really proves nothing other then that you are a troll. Try again. Me: Of course it doesn't prove anything; hence, the sentence before "fail" in my response. Care to try again? Leveer13: If you came here to troll the Venus Project and you don't know what Cyclical Consumption is then you have "failed". And you should certainly "Try again". Stop trying to be snarky and contribute something valuable.
Those people are insane. I especially enjoyed his "blinding with terminology" fallacy:
If you don't know what cyclical consumption is, you can't argue with me!
The Venus project is the new Scientology for the Anonymous crowd.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap