The ism's are always the problem it seems. Jim H's definition of capitalism is one that I have not seen before, interesting that it talks about social, polictial and legal frameworks first and foremost and as almost an afterthought suggests that if the idea of indiviual freedoms is applied to economics, you get free markets. I must confess that I have always thought of Capitalism as an economic theory, after all it is Capital - ism.
Hard to argue with the rule of law and freedom. But things have not seemed to work out that way. We as Americans historically have set ourselves up as the city on the hill, the most perfect example of capitalism in the world and have credited our amazing success often on that theory and philosophy. Now that things are going down the s@&%#er, the tune being sung is that well we don't really have free markets and capitalism. The right says that we have gone socialist and the left says that we have gone fascist. Oh well. More ism's.
I would argue that the rest of the industrial world being bombed into the stone age during world war II, and the fact that we were astride a continent full of fresh unexploited resources with a country full of immigrants looking to work hard for pennies a day in this land of new oportunity had a lot more to do with it. Any governmental or social structure would have done, I have a feeling short of something demonic from hell itself.
My problem with economic theory as with most ism's is that it trys to take center stage where it has no business being. I am all for rhare's anarchistic utopia, where laws are completely unnecessary because we all woke one morning and decided to live in a society based on mutual respect and universal human dignity. I guess the bigger question is how will we get there as he suggested, perhaps the it's $24,000,000 question. Although today we need to add a few more zeros, a few million isn't what it used to be.
To quote the evil Keynes, "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of all." That has always been my view of capitalism as a social system, though per Jim's definition, that quote wouldn't really apply. It's the underlying assumptions and ism's that are the problem, aren't they? Can we sweep the table top clean, cleanse the window of perception and see things fresh. Can we challenge our deepest underlying assumptions about what it means to be human and start over again? Is that the challenge of these times are asking of us as all of current assumptions about the order of things is being smacked down by a rapidly evolving reality?
Most of the problem is learning how to ask the right questions. Can we free our minds enough from our own prejudices and distortions so we can begin to ask questions with a presence of mind, with an unflinchingly painful view of reality as it is, not as we want it to be? That is the impossible question.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe society will be "based on mutual respect and universal human dignity" anymore than it is today. It will, as it is today, be based on greed, self interest, competition. It's those qualities that keep things in check. Most of us would not willing give out money to an entity that said I'm going to take a large chunk of your wealth and use it to bomb people you don't know and haven't done anything too you, just so others can get wealthy, or I'm going to take the rewards of your hard earned labor and give it to someone who refuses to work just so I can get re-elected. The only difference is that you are taking actions based on your own self interest rather than be forced via threat of violence to act on behalf of someone else.
This does not mean you won't have compassion, and community, charity. Humans are pack animals and we yearn for companionship and company. That is where your respect and human dignity occurs - but only when it's voluntary. When it's forced it simply breeds resentment and works to divide us. Just look at how well all the forced compassion is working out today.
[quote=treebeard]
To quote the evil Keynes, "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of all."
[/quote]
I think that is completely crap. It's loaded with assumptions that acting in ones own best interest means being against the common good. I view proper competition for scarce resources as allowing us to identify what is important and valuable. It means we are better stewards of valuable things because we know they have value. Today we have a distorted world that doesn't value resources, nature, or community because we are led to believe it can all be had for nothing or very cheap. I also believe the governments we set up destroy our humanity and compassion. It lets us assume someone else it looking out for the poor or those that need help. It's leads to the attitude it's not my problem, the government takes care of it and they bill me for it.
Thank you gillbilly for explaining the idea of the narrative… and I see what you mean for sure in the words vs. actions of Jefferson.
I still believe that the reason we strive for exponential growth… which of course brings about exponential debt growth… is to be found in the nature of our money system, and the motivations of those who operate and profit off of it. Of course, exponential population growth has something to do with it also…
I find myself most in coherence with the Austrian school of economics;
The main tenets of the Austrian School are generally considered to be:
The belief that economic analysis should begin by considering the purposeful actions of individuals and then proceed to study the social consequences of such actions.[2]
The belief that aggregate statistical models are not appropriate tools with which to model purposeful action or to analyze the economic results thereof.[2]
The theory that the way in which money is introduced into circulation has real, and not only nominal, economic effects.[13]
The theory that the cost of any activity should be measured by reference to the next best alternative.[better source needed][14]
The theory that, in a free market, interest rates and profits are determined by three factors: monetary returns from a change in the sales of a good or service, the marginal rate of return on a change in production inputs, and the time preferences of the individuals in the economy.[15]
The Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which states that business cycles are caused by an unsustainable expansion of credit by banks. According to the theory, excessive bank lending, at too low an interest rate, disturbs what would otherwise be a natural macroeconomic balance between saving and investment. This in turn causes businesses to make bad investments which subsequently become unprofitable and lead to recession.[18]
Why do we need money? It's just really handy to have a type of good that we can use as a universal intermediary instead of barter... much more efficient than finding someone with a mountain bike that wants to trade it for my camera.
Treebeard mentions the Keynes quote on capitalism… and I don't disagree… unrestrained capitalism is like the law of the jungle… and you can't blame an animal for acting like an animal. The animal must be restrained… by rule of law, and by regulation. Todays mostly captured regulators hardly count. Google's Corporate credo is very telling as to how Corporate behavior needs to be restrained in light of the usual lack of self-imposed restraint; theirs is, "Dont be evil".
I don't know what a perfect economic system would be… but I would love to be part of the money subgroup working on design for the next, bankerless money system : )
Greed and self interest (where interest in the self is above any and all other interets) are equivalent to violence. It is not that they can create it or may tend towards it, they are the source and creation of it. You cannot have one without the other. They do not keep the world in check, they are the forces that unbalance it. We have projected our darkness onto the natural world and then in turn have used our corrupt view of natural systems to justify our own corruption
And the one lie that is the source of all other lies and self delusion in the world is that our own darkness creates light, that our greed and self interest creates balance. Greed and self interest are violence which in turn creates more greed and self interest and more violence that will continue to spiral out of control. We have the current condition of world as proof. Native and indigenous peoples who's world view was antithetical to ours of completing self interest have uniformly been annihilated along with the natural systems that they and we depend on when they come in contact with us.
Save the planet is the slogan of a narcissistic self centered culture, it is not the planet that needs saving but us. If we don't drop our sociopathic worship and of the individual and self and see our selves as a member of a larger community of life in the universe we will be selected out. Not because we did not develope competitive advantages over other species, but because we failed to realize that it is the species that cooperate that survive.
and to Rhare and Treebeard. All good points being made. Sorry for the last post being so long. Sometimes when I have the time to write, I work out my thoughts as I'm writing. My wife says I talk too much as well:0 I don't assume that what I write is something you haven't already thought of, so I apologize if some of it sounds preachy…just me working out my thoughts.
I still believe that the reason we strive for exponential growth… which of course brings about exponential debt growth… is to be found in the nature of our money system, and the motivations of those who operate and profit off of it. Of course, exponential population growth has something to do with it also…
I like this much better! It acknowledges that it is human created and operated, and that the money system can take on a life of its own, often changing the people that created it as well as those who are effected by it. That is the two-way relationship between us and technology (money system being one technology).
I am familiar with the Austrian principles, but as with all schools and theories, I find many holes and contradictions that I won't go into now. Your mention of Galbraith awhile back on another thread had me go back and read his "The New Industrialized State." Not sure if you have read it, but chpts 6 and 7 on capitalism and power (6), and technistructure (7) have good insights on what we're discussing.
Ultimately I think our obsession with exponential growth lies in our fear of death. I know that sounds strange, but think about, what grows forever? Why is a corporation deemed a "person/individual" in the eyes of the law? I think we being human, there is a part of us that wants to last forever, i.e. continue to grow, and the corporation, at least in theory, can do that.
Google: I'm torn about this company. If you read Nicholas Carr's "The Shallows" or Jaron Lanier's "You are not a gadget" (highly recommend the second), you'll know what I mean. Lanier makes an interesting observation that web 2.0 has brought back a type of logical positivism. I'll stop there.
Gotta run, thanks again to all of you.
Why does there need to be a money subgroup? The problem with our current monetary system is it is forced onto the population. Have monetary competition and you will see much better (and worse) alternatives emerge. Just as you have to be selective on your purchases, people will quickly learn to be selective about which money they use.
Treebeard, you seem to think there is a choice of not being self interested. There is not. Ultimately humans just like all other living things in the natural world will do what it takes to survive. That is not something that is chosen as a lifestyle. Because it will always exist, the best choice is to insure that it is balanced by others seeking to do the same. Any method that is given to allow one individual more power over another will be used to their advantage not the "common good". It might take a few generations to be corrupted, but that advantage seeking nature of all living things will eventually occur.
There are thousands of examples of this process in our current society - all thought up by someone thinking that they could stop this natural tendency:
A health care system that is supposed to be for the "common good" that benefits large pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers.
A military industrial complex to "protect us" that steals our wealth to benefit those who run the companies.
A political system filled with those that seek to benefit themselves at our expense. In fact I would argue that if you want to gather the worst of the worst in one place - provide a government that gives them unlimited power over others.
A banking system designed to "save the little people from economic ruin" that has done just the opposite. FDIC, Fannie Mae/Mac, ... - lots of examples of greed and self interest running rampant all in name of the common good.
[quote=treebeard]
If we don't drop our sociopathic worship and of the individual and self and see our selves as a member of a larger community of life in the universe we will be selected out. Not because we did not develope competitive advantages over other species, but because we failed to realize that it is the species that cooperate that survive.
[/quote]
Treebeard, you are essentially advocating enlightenment, but how can you have enlightenment when it is forced rather than realized naturally? The only way you will ever get to the world you desire is to allow people to be free to make choices both good and bad. To learn that cooperation is better than conflict. To learn the value of resources and labor. To learn that you have to persuade someone to make better choices rather than use force via proxy against them.
my comment on money was not meant to be serious…there is no subgroup…it is just my particular area of interest. But you know that our current monetary masters will of course come up with something purportedly shiny and new and better than ever when the current fiat regime fails… my own view is that nature should be allowed to take it's course with an ecosystem of decentralized currency choices. Maybe there will be Bitcoin, some kind of e-Gold, e-Silver, e-Oil, a Gold-backed Yuan, who knows… I just want freedom of choice. I do believe in the beneficial power and fundamental intelligence of the free market. What we have right now is the polar opposite of this… with fully manipulated markets… vast malinvestments and bad decisions are guaranteed.
Kelvinator and gillbilly,
I've been busy the last couple of days, but have been thinking about government's social responsibility. I'm wondering if you are advocating more government programs to aid the poor. Isn't that akin to Krugman asking for significantly more Keynesian stimulus since all others have been failures? I look at some of the social indicators - welfare, food stamps, etc. The measured levels very roughly parallel the increase in debt. If government handouts funded by debt solved these problems, wouldn't you expect an inverse relationship?
I'm not saying that Keynesian theory is responsible for the social blight. I am saying that it isn't the solution to the social ills. We need to dig deeper.
A coworker is a member of a native American tribe. I asked him why conditions are so deplorable on the Reservation. Over lunch, he gave me his insights. Here is a synopsis in a few sentences. He told me that he has a love/hate relationship with the Rez because of what it is and what it does. He loves it because it is a place where he is accepted for who he is. He hates it because people get enough government handouts to barely get by. Anyone who tries to improve his/her lot is accused of turning "whitey." It is a sticky safety net.
…
Last year, I promised rhare and treebeard that I would start a thread on "Appropriate Level of Government." I've started it at least half a dozen times. Each time, it ended in despair. When I researched the current levels of spending in the agencies, their stated missions, the latitude of executive orders and signing statements, I've concluded that the system can't be fixed. Tweaking here and there won't be sufficient. An overhaul won't be possible given all the moneyed interests pushing for status quo.
Assuming that our government would fail, there would be small communities that would survive. Some of those communities could have a substantial number of members. They would likely form governments to coordinate efforts. If that were to happen, what would be appropriate responsibilities of the government and what level of funding would be appropriate? Again, it is impossible to say that government should be a certain percentage of community GDP and that this much should go to each of various Cabinet level departments. That would depend on size, location, community needs, and collective strengths. Again, I think most people here have a good idea of what they think is necessary, and also the ability to discern what is really necessary as the funding dries up. Not everything is equally important.
Grover,
That is an ambitious undertaking. I can honestly say I have no idea as to what an appropriate level of government should be. It's such a complex question on so many levels, and the system and data has been so corrupted I'm not sure anyone would have an answer. Your example of native Americans is quite unique because of their history and culture. I posted a link awhile back to a recent documentary "Dokata 38" that details how native Americans are still dealing with how their ancestors were treated. We as a country have yet to have a meaningful conversation about it on a national level.
It's such a huge topic I'm not sure where I would start. Regulation/Legal system? Entitlements? Welfare? Military/Defense? Planning? I do think our economy and/or private sector couldn't have grown to the size it is without a government growing along with it. Some corporations have assets and budgets that are bigger than state govts. and/or small countries. Should our federal government be smaller than these private entities? These same private entities sit in the federal government backrooms when policy is being crafted, so where's the line between government and the private sector? Where does government really begin and end in the system we've created. Is it strictly what our taxes pay for? It's pretty nebulous.
I would posit that the concept and necessity of growth comes from the investor class and not from your typical working stiff. We as the general unwashed masses are increasingly being indoctrinated to think and act as investors. But that to my mind that only leads to bubble mania, and the something for nothing mentality. What does your average person want? If I may make so bold to speak for the mass of humanity: meaningful work, reasonable hours, reasonable compensation, some level of job security and a comfortable old age. I don't think growth is in the narrative for most people.
Those that push the concept of growth are those who wish to profit from the labor of others without directly participating in the human project themselves. Without growth invsetments don't accumulate at a rate that can support those that don't contribute directly with their minds or physcial labor. I am not arguing against savings and capital formation, but it is the over development of a class of investors, and the investor mentality that eventually leads to the financialization and the collapse of the economy IMHO.
Dave Korten is big in to narratives too and the critcal function that they play in the creation of culture fabric and macro societal outcomes. I am a big fan of his, if there is any one person who encapsulates an ideology that will get us out of this mess, I think that it is him. Kelvinator brought his name up too. The attached clip is a little long but worth watching if your not familiar with his work.
I forgot he wrote The Great Turning! This video reminds me of a sermon I heard once on the "forgiveness" stated in the Lord's prayer. The original translation is in fact "forgive us our debts," not "trespasses." This is not coincidental, but literally to mean all forms of debt including the debt Korten is describing. Interesting the word trespass is used as an alternative…very different meaning. Thanks for the link, and yes, this is the class warfare I see as well.Peace