Believe it or not: Karl Marx is making a comeback

[laughing dog]

S
A drastic overstatement to the point of absurdity. Again, you are confusing libertarian philosophy with free market economics. Free market economics presupposes certain levels of government regulation. It assumes private property law. It assumes a commercial code. It assumes the existence of a government that enforces contracts. It assumes bankruptcy law. It assumes safe streets and protected transportation lines. When Attila the Hun ravaged France, he was not engaging in free market activities. He was disrupting the free markets of the Roman Empire. Laws against fraud or false advertising are completely consistent with enforcing contracts and determining property rights.

Fraud and false advertising may fall within the realm of someone's abstract idea of free speech, but free market economics is not based on abstractions. But all of these laws and "regulations" as you call them constitute the ground rules upon which the economy functions. This is quite different from the government intervening here and then there and then someplace else in some effort to "fine-tune" the economy. The information needed to fine-tune the economy comes from market prices and the people who need that information are consumers and producers not governmental economic commissars.

Free market economics assumes sufficient "regulation" to achieve "functioning" markets. A market functions when it helps allocate resources in an economically efficient manner. What you may feel is "finetuning" may, in fact, be efforts to allow markets to function as markets when there are barriers to market efficiency (public goods, externalities, asymmetric information and market power).

 

[boneyard bill]

Simple Don writes:

What I am arguing is that supply and demand setting prices is not a strong enough mechanism to replace government regulation. This is not far out of the mainstream, it is the prevailing attitude of hundreds of experience with the economy. Government regulations didn't spring from the evil of governments that wanted to control and destroy the economy, they were written to address abuses in the economy by bad actors. We have anti-monopoly laws because monopolies set prices, which bypass the market. We have pure food and drug laws because people were selling dangerous drugs and food. We regulate banks because they cause economic instability otherwise. Also there is no other way to impose externalities on the immediate buyer seller transaction than through taxes and regulations. These include anti-pollution measures for example, costs that the transaction imposes on all of us, costs that aren't included in the transaction without government intervention.

Supply and demand are not the only processes which regulate the private economy. You also have bankruptcy for example. But market prices represent the consumer communicating with the producers and there is no need for a government middleman to meddle in that process. Indeed, there is every reason for the government NOT to meddle in those matters.

Government regulations did not arise from some overwhelming public demand for protection. People were quite happy when that "monopolist," John D. Rockefeller, sold oil for ten cents a barrel. Government regulation began with corporate control over the government and was specifically designed to protect those corporations. Theodore Roosevelt was a puppet for the J.P Morgan interests. William Howard Taft was his hand-picked successor. Woodrow Wilson was persuaded to run for Governor of New Jersey by Wall Street interests with the express purpose of setting him up as a presidential candidate. Franklin Roosevelt WAS a Wall Street lawyer and never bucked Wall Street except rhetorically.

The whole progressive/New Deal movement was the work of big business, and corporate America still controls both political parties. This is most obvious with the present administration which is, rhetorically, the most liberal since FDR, but in practice it is even more pro-big business than the Bush Administration.

The Food and Drug Administration was created in response to Upton Sinclair's entirely fictional work, "The Jungle" which did not accurately represent conditions in food processing factories of the day. Ida Tarbell's book on the Standard Oil Trust was full of lies. Rockefeller did not lose money in order to drive his competitors out of existence, and he did not raise prices afterwards. (Which would have been stupid anyway because it would just encourage more competitors to enter the field).

Banks do NOT cause economic instability on a national scale. Sometimes banks go under and that causes the need for temporary re-organization as is the case when any company goes bankrupt. Often the reasons involved are external as in the case of the 1907 crisis. It is the Federal Reserve that nationalizes the banking problems. This isn't to say that the Fed doesn't serve a useful purpose as a lender of last resort, but it's actions through the open market committee do much more harm than good.

The myth of "progressivism" is the propaganda of the corporate elite which is gleefully spread by academia but unsupported by the historical record.

 

[boneyard bill]

S
A drastic overstatement to the point of absurdity. Again, you are confusing libertarian philosophy with free market economics. Free market economics presupposes certain levels of government regulation. It assumes private property law. It assumes a commercial code. It assumes the existence of a government that enforces contracts. It assumes bankruptcy law. It assumes safe streets and protected transportation lines. When Attila the Hun ravaged France, he was not engaging in free market activities. He was disrupting the free markets of the Roman Empire. Laws against fraud or false advertising are completely consistent with enforcing contracts and determining property rights.

Fraud and false advertising may fall within the realm of someone's abstract idea of free speech, but free market economics is not based on abstractions. But all of these laws and "regulations" as you call them constitute the ground rules upon which the economy functions. This is quite different from the government intervening here and then there and then someplace else in some effort to "fine-tune" the economy. The information needed to fine-tune the economy comes from market prices and the people who need that information are consumers and producers not governmental economic commissars.

Free market economics assumes sufficient "regulation" to achieve "functioning" markets. A market functions when it helps allocate resources in an economically efficient manner. What you may feel is "finetuning" may, in fact, be efforts to allow markets to function as markets when there are barriers to market efficiency (public goods, externalities, asymmetric information and market power).

It is absurd to create an agency to find distortions in the market and then to regulate those distortions. Of course it will find distortions. That what it was created to do! One cannot, however, expect that such bureaucrats, or even Ivy League "experts," can really do so with any degree of efficiency. There are no "Whiz Kids" who know how to plan the economy. The people who need the information are consumers, producers, and investors. The best government bureaucrats can do is to promote transparency. But they rarely do that. Instead they invent disinformation like GDPs and CPIs which, even when reasonably calculated, do not tell us what we need to know.

 

[laughing dog]

Free market economics assumes sufficient "regulation" to achieve "functioning" markets. A market functions when it helps allocate resources in an economically efficient manner. What you may feel is "finetuning" may, in fact, be efforts to allow markets to function as markets when there are barriers to market efficiency (public goods, externalities, asymmetric information and market power).

It is absurd to create an agency to find distortions in the market and then to regulate those distortions. Of course it will find distortions. That what it was created to do!

Idealogical claptrap.

One cannot, however, expect that such bureaucrats, or even Ivy League "experts," can really do so with any degree of efficiency. There are no "Whiz Kids" who know how to plan the economy. The people who need the information are consumers, producers, and investors. The best government bureaucrats can do is to promote transparency. But they rarely do that.

I fail to see the relevance of this outburst. I did not mention nor insinuate anything remotely resembling "planning". If you think regulations are akin to planning the economy, then even free market economics is pro-planning, since it assumes regulations and laws are necessary for well-functioning markets. The issue is which regulations are necessary for well-functioning markets and which are not.

Instead they invent disinformation like GDPs and CPIs which, even when reasonably calculated, do not tell us what we need to know.

Clearly, those concepts and measures tell many people what they need to know because there are active markets in information which are based, in part, on those measures and where people voluntarily pay for that information. So any advocate of "free markets" would disagree with your claim.

 

[boneyard bill]

laughing dog writes:

I fail to see the relevance of this outburst. I did not mention nor insinuate anything remotely resembling "planning". If you think regulations are akin to planning the economy, then even free market economics is pro-planning, since it assumes regulations and laws are necessary for well-functioning markets. The issue is which regulations are necessary for well-functioning markets and which are not.

Attempting to "regulate" the economy is planning. We don't have a good word for it in English. I think the French word would be dirigisme or something like that. It is the process of trying to direct the economy by manipulating variables. Inevitably it involves interfering with market signals and the Fed, as well as other government agencies, do plenty of that, and your comments have consistently endorsed that kind of behavior.

A regulation like Glass-Steagel is a very different thing. That could almost be regarded as a ground rule. In fact, if you have FDIC then you need some regulations of that sort. Glass-Steagel actually created the FDIC and only a part of the Glass-Steagel Act was repealed under Clinton. But IF the government is going to guarantee bank deposits then it should define the nature of the institutions that it is regulating just as a private insurance company would. But having a law setting certain conditions is a very different thing than manipulating markets on a daily basis.

Clearly, those concepts and measures tell many people what they need to know because there are active markets in information which are based, in part, on those measures and where people voluntarily pay for that information. So any advocate of "free markets" would disagree with your claim

I didn't say such figures shouldn't be produced or that people shouldn't be allowed to pay for them, although I don't of anyone who does since they are given away for free. I only claim that they are a poor guide to policy. They do not allow the government whiz kids to come up with a better outcome than the market would produce. Insofar as policy makers are forced to make policy at all, they should rely primarily on market-based statistics. However, in the current climate that is not a reasonable option because most government agencies these days are busily involved in rigging the markets themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

Attempting to "regulate" the economy is planning. We don't have a good word for it in English. I think the French word would be dirigisme or something like that. It is the process of trying to direct the economy by manipulating variables. Inevitably it involves interfering with market signals and the Fed, as well as other government agencies, do plenty of that, and your comments have consistently endorsed that kind of behavior.

A regulation like Glass-Steagel is a very different thing. That could almost be regarded as a ground rule. In fact, if you have FDIC then you need some regulations of that sort. Glass-Steagel actually created the FDIC and only a part of the Glass-Steagel Act was repealed under Clinton. But IF the government is going to guarantee bank deposits then it should define the nature of the institutions that it is regulating just as a private insurance company would. But having a law setting certain conditions is a very different thing than manipulating markets on a daily basis.

A reasonable synopsis of that is attempts at regulating the economy are planning except when regulations are different than planning. So, regulations may or may not involve planning. I do not see how that rebuts anything I wrote about free markets requiring "regulation" in order for markets to function more efficiently.

I didn't say such figures shouldn't be produced or that people shouldn't be allowed to pay for them, although I don't of anyone who does since they are given away for free. I only claim that they are a poor guide to policy.

You wrote "Instead they invent disinformation like GDPs and CPIs which, even when reasonably calculated, do not tell us what we need to know." People pay to get those statistics and people pay for analysis based on those statistics. Clearly, the market believes those statistics do tell them what they think they need to know. And the market clearly believes those statistics are not a poor guide to policy.

They do not allow the government whiz kids to come up with a better outcome than the market would produce.

Since a market does not produce macroeconomic policy, that is a pointless ideologically based claim.

Insofar as policy makers are forced to make policy at all, they should rely primarily on market-based statistics.

What do you mean by a market-based statistic? GDP and GDP price deflators are derived from market data.

However, in the current climate that is not a reasonable option because most government agencies these days are busily involved in rigging the markets themselves.

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "most" and "rigging the markets" because your claim appears delusional.

 

[SimpleDon]

Boneyard Bill fractional reserve banking again

To Simple Don:

Wow. Two super-long posts that just repeated the same old stuff. If you're so fond of writing, why don't you publish a book? I'm not going to try to respond point-by-point. I will focus on just two points. One is market prices, and the other is money and banking. I will begin with the latter because that is an area where you seem to be utterly confused.

Let's begin with money and banking and specifically with what you refer to as endogenous money creation. A man goes to the bank and deposits $1000. The bank holds some of that in reserve, let's say 10%, and it lends out the rest. So it has $100 in cash and $900 in loans. Let's say it's a mortgage. So it has $1000 in assets and $1000 in liabilities which is what it owes to the depositor. The banker will tell you that he has not created any money.

However, the bank lent out $900, and the borrower now takes that to another bank (or even the same bank) which now sets aside $90 as a reserve and lends out $810. And that gets deposited in another bank, etc. So this process goes on until, theoretically, the $1000 original deposit becomes $10,000. So, while no bank created any money, the banking system as a whole does.

If I do write a book it will be titled what I have learned about economics and the first chapter will be Everyone Learns the Economics That Provides Them the Highest Level of Conformation of Their Biases.

The discussion was about the viability of marginal productivity theory and the quantity of money theory. I kept repeating and rephrasing my arguments because you never addressed them. I could only assume that you didn't understand the arguments. Now that you have provided some discussion about the quantity of money theory, we have something to work with.

I do understand fractional reserve banking. You understand fractional reserve banking and have a good start on endogenous money creation. Let's take your example of $1000 deposited in a bank. And it is correct that $100 put in reserve is enough for the bank to make $1000 loan with a 10% reserve requirement and that the loan can result into as much as $10,000 of endogenous money creations as the money created is repeatedly deposited and loaned out in other banks. But the original bank does create money out of thin air. The $900 difference between the reserve amount and the first loan amount for example. The bank doesn't loan out the $900 from the deposit, it doesn't have to because as a bank it can create money out of thin air. The $1000 original can support ten $1000 dollar loans with a 10% reserve requirement making a total of $9000 in possible endogenous money creation just by the original bank.

But what we have just started to realize is that the above story is somewhat backwards. The bank doesn't wait for a deposit to start the process. That what is important to the bank isn't the deposit. That what is important is the number of credit worthy borrowers that walk through the doors. That if the bank doesn't have the deposits available to satisfy the reserve requirements they will go ahead and sign the loan because they can borrow the money needed for the reserve requirement, either from another bank or from the Federal Reserve Bank. The Fed is forced to provide liquidity to its member banks and to their subscribing banks in order to maintain their target interest rate.

The upshot is that the creation of the vast majority of the money in the economy is not only completely endogenous, dependent only on the demand for loans from credit worthy borrowers but that the reserve requirement doesn't present any meaningful restriction on endogenous money creation. This accounts for about 95% of the money in the economy.

I have been through this before with you. You obviously don't accept it. At least from me. How do you feel about the Bank of England as a credible source? Here is essentially the same explanation that I gave above from the Bank of England, the UK's central bank, like our Federal Reserve Bank. I found this link by Googling "How do banks create money?"

Here is a paper from them entitled Money Creation in the Modern Economy available here warning - pdf download.

In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, thereby creating new money. The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:
• Rather than banks receiving deposits when household save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.
• In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits.
Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system. Prudential regulation also acts as a constraint on banks' activities in order to maintain the resilience of the financial system. And the households and companies who receive the money created by new lending may take actions that affect the stock of money — they could quickly 'destroy' money by using it to repay their existing debt, for instance.

...

... One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits are typically 'created' by the saving decisions of households, and banks then 'lend out' those existing deposits to borrowers, for example to companies looking to finance investment or individuals wanting to purchase houses. In fact, when households choose to save more money in bank accounts, those deposits come simply at the expense of deposits that would have otherwise gone to companies in payment for goods and services. Saving does not by itself increase the deposits or 'funds available' for banks to lend. Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money. . This article explains how, rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.

Another common misconception is that the central bank determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money — the so-called 'money multiplier' approach. In that view, central banks implement monetary policy by choosing a quantity of reserves. And, because there is assumed to be a constant ratio of broad money to base money, these reserves are then 'multiplied up' to a much greater change in bank loans and deposits. For the theory to hold, the amount of reserves must be a binding constraint on lending, and the central bank must directly determine the amount of reserves. While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality. Rather than controlling the quantity of reserves, central banks today typically implement monetary policy by setting the price of reserves — that is, interest rates. In reality, neither are reserves a binding constraint on lending, nor does the central bank fix the amount of reserves that are available. As with the relationship between deposits and loans, the relationship between reserves and loans typically operates in the reverse way to that described in some economics textbooks. Banks first decide how much to lend depending on the profitable lending opportunities available to them — which will, crucially, depend on the interest rate set by the Bank of England. ....

These revelations have some serious impacts on mainstream economics. Obviously it puts the zombie quantity theory of money back into the grave. It means that savings are not required for investment, rather that investment increases savings. It means that "loanable funds" theory is dead, the idea that there is a market where borrowers bid on the money that savers have deposited in banks. It even calls into question how effectively the central bank’s setting of interest rates affects investment and consumption decisions considering the higher profits earned these days and the ever increasing income inequality. That is that the spread between the anticipated profits and the interest rates charged are so great that a rise in interest rates is less of factor in the investment decision. And that the interest rate is less of a factor in the consumption decision with income inequality forcing most people to defer consumption and the privileged few less dependent on loans for their consumption.

I will stop there for now to let this soak in. I know that this is hard to accept. It was for me the first time that I encountered it.

I will answer the rest of your post below.



Continued below....

 

[boneyard bill]

To Simple Don:

First let me mention that I happened upon something in my reading as well. It was the Chicago School claim of the quantity of money theory, and it conformed to the outline you gave. My response had been that that was not the claims of free market theory and cited Austrian School claims. Apparently it is the view of one school and I must say that I do not agree with that. But I should add that, upon reflection, I think it is appropriate to exclude the Chicago School from the free market schools altogether. Milton Friedman was a strong defender of free markets except when it came to regulation of the money supply. However, his strong laissez-faire views do not grow out of his monetary theory. One can easily subscribe to his monetary views and disagree completely with his views on government regulation in other areas of the economy.

Regarding your post. I'm glad to see that you have decided to study money and banking. It should allow us to communicate a little more meaningfully. But you by-passed the textbooks and went, apparently, to the internet and came up with a more updated explanation of the process. On that point I appreciate your effort. I was unaware that the textbooks were giving such an old-fashioned description of the process. Still I must take issue with you on your conclusions.

It even calls into question how effectively the central bank’s setting of interest rates affects investment and consumption decisions considering the higher profits earned these days and the ever increasing income inequality. That is that the spread between the anticipated profits and the interest rates charged are so great that a rise in interest rates is less of factor in the investment decision. And that the interest rate is less of a factor in the consumption decision with income inequality forcing most people to defer consumption and the privileged few less dependent on loans for their consumption.

OK. You only claim that it "calls into question" the effectiveness of central bank interest rate decision-making. You don't claim that it refutes that claim. However, I don't see how the post that you cited actually calls that issue into question. In fact, the post you cited pretty much states the opposite. It says that that is how central banks implement monetary policy and never suggests that this is ineffective.

Now, as far as I can see, this is not terribly different from the Austrian view. Since money supply cannot easily be calculated, Austrians have focused on interest rates and other tools employed by the central bank as the focus of their criticisms without getting in to a lot of statistics or mathematical formulae. However, based on your own citation, I have to say that your suggestion that central banks cannot implement effective policy through interest rates is completely unsupported.

In fact, your source also states:

The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the
central bank. In normal times, this is carried out by setting interest rates. The central bank can
also affect the amount of money directly through purchasing assets or ‘quantitative easing’.

Since the amount of money in the economy depends on the policies of the central bank, the distinction between endogenous and exogenous money creation pretty much disappears. Even if the central bank does not engage in quantitative easing or similar direct actions, it still can control the amount of endogenous money creation through its control of interest rates.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What did Marx mean by this?

from the Manifesto, Part II, "Proletarians and Communists"

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

Why aren't both of the above ("living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour" and "accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer") true of both bourgeois and Communist society?

Also, to clarify the meaning, isn't the CEO also a "labourer" in the strict sense? and also the investor or any capitalist?


And further:

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.

How does the past dominate the present or the present dominate the past?

In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality."

How is the individuality or independence of capital or "the living person" any different in a bourgeois society than in a communist or other kind of society?

These remarks read like something highly definitive, intended to draw a fundamental distinction between bourgeois/capitalist society and the right kind of society, like a statement of the basic evil of the bourgeois economic system.

There is some kind of self-evident principle of Truth intended by this, as indicated by the following exclamation point:

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom!

Anyone who thinks Marx was onto something important should be able to explain his meaning here, the contrast between the "bourgeois" society and the right kind of society (not an ideal theoretical society, but a real achievable one).

 

[arkirk]

Some time ago we had a real long running thread of what socialism should look like. I think the significance of Karl Marx was not his proposed solutions so much as his accurate criticism of what we call Capitalism. He made his criticisms based on an egalitarian view of humanity and what he perceived would be the interests of all in an egalitarian society. He clearly demonstrated that what we call Capitalism is deeply flawed as a social system simply because it rejects the needs of such significant fractions of society in the favor of people who find a way to accumulate power and money and seek ever greater arbitrary powers over others on the basis of their accumulated wealth and power.

For there to be an alternative to the system we now have, we have to abandon a lot of prime concepts and start from zero. In doing so, the anti socialist detractors start criticizing Marxists and socialists and Utopians. The truth is that they are so mired in very limited thinking they cannot imagine the changes that would be necessary for significant social improvement without associating such improvement with their own personal loss. Capitalism trains people to be selfish...and to jealously guard the right to be selfish.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Some time ago we had a real long running thread of what socialism should look like. I think the significance of Karl Marx was not his proposed solutions so much as his accurate criticism of what we call Capitalism. He made his criticisms based on an egalitarian view of humanity and what he perceived would be the interests of all in an egalitarian society. He clearly demonstrated that what we call Capitalism is deeply flawed as a social system simply because it rejects the needs of such significant fractions of society in the favor of people who find a way to accumulate power and money and seek ever greater arbitrary powers over others on the basis of their accumulated wealth and power.

For there to be an alternative to the system we now have, we have to abandon a lot of prime concepts and start from zero. In doing so, the anti socialist detractors start criticizing Marxists and socialists and Utopians. The truth is that they are so mired in very limited thinking they cannot imagine the changes that would be necessary for significant social improvement without associating such improvement with their own personal loss. Capitalism trains people to be selfish...and to jealously guard the right to be selfish.

My primary complaints against "socialism" are that it's never been proven to work in the real world to my satisfaction and it requires incredible central power to implement.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Some time ago we had a real long running thread of what socialism should look like. I think the significance of Karl Marx was not his proposed solutions so much as his accurate criticism of what we call Capitalism. He made his criticisms based on an egalitarian view of humanity and what he perceived would be the interests of all in an egalitarian society. He clearly demonstrated that what we call Capitalism is deeply flawed as a social system simply because it rejects the needs of such significant fractions of society in the favor of people who find a way to accumulate power and money and seek ever greater arbitrary powers over others on the basis of their accumulated wealth and power.

For there to be an alternative to the system we now have, we have to abandon a lot of prime concepts and start from zero. In doing so, the anti socialist detractors start criticizing Marxists and socialists and Utopians. The truth is that they are so mired in very limited thinking they cannot imagine the changes that would be necessary for significant social improvement without associating such improvement with their own personal loss. Capitalism trains people to be selfish...and to jealously guard the right to be selfish.

It's a good summary. But it's your last statement I would say that Marx had wrong. People are selfish, and have always been so. Capitalism just understands that.

 

[ksen]

You mean capitalism strengthens and reinforces that.

 

[arkirk]

Some time ago we had a real long running thread of what socialism should look like. I think the significance of Karl Marx was not his proposed solutions so much as his accurate criticism of what we call Capitalism. He made his criticisms based on an egalitarian view of humanity and what he perceived would be the interests of all in an egalitarian society. He clearly demonstrated that what we call Capitalism is deeply flawed as a social system simply because it rejects the needs of such significant fractions of society in the favor of people who find a way to accumulate power and money and seek ever greater arbitrary powers over others on the basis of their accumulated wealth and power.

For there to be an alternative to the system we now have, we have to abandon a lot of prime concepts and start from zero. In doing so, the anti socialist detractors start criticizing Marxists and socialists and Utopians. The truth is that they are so mired in very limited thinking they cannot imagine the changes that would be necessary for significant social improvement without associating such improvement with their own personal loss. Capitalism trains people to be selfish...and to jealously guard the right to be selfish.

It's a good summary. But it's your last statement I would say that Marx had wrong. People are selfish, and have always been so. Capitalism just understands that.

Capitalism inculcates a philosophy similar to what Colorado Atheist is expressing. The assumption is that nobody ever does anything without seeking to profit from it. We have in this society a largely invisible pecking order that is based on personal wealth. The wealthy in our society regard human rights as their personal rights and can be expressed by their ability to spend money to support them. The Koch brothers are a prime example. They know they are human. They know they can do well for themselves by depriving others and spend their money to do just that.

The financial class in a capitalist society only spends its resources to supportits rights. Additionally, because their rights are dependent on wealth, their political system makes wealth a prerequisite for rights. They definitely claim more rights for themselves than they allow others and go to great lengths to see to it that others do not attain to the same rights. They regard life only as a struggle for wealth against a world full of humans as selfish as themselves. I know humans are capable of better behavior than that. I don't need Marx to tell me that, but he was pointing to the structures and political dogmas that support that type of thinking (capitalism).

 

[coloradoatheist]

Capitalism inculcates a philosophy similar to what Colorado Atheist is expressing. The assumption is that nobody ever does anything without seeking to profit from it. We have in this society a largely invisible pecking order that is based on personal wealth. The wealthy in our society regard human rights as their personal rights and can be expressed by their ability to spend money to support them. The Koch brothers are a prime example. They know they are human. They know they can do well for themselves by depriving others and spend their money to do just that.

The financial class in a capitalist society only spends its resources to supportits rights. Additionally, because their rights are dependent on wealth, their political system makes wealth a prerequisite for rights. They definitely claim more rights for themselves than they allow others and go to great lengths to see to it that others do not attain to the same rights. They regard life only as a struggle for wealth against a world full of humans as selfish as themselves. I know humans are capable of better behavior than that. I don't need Marx to tell me that, but he was pointing to the structures and political dogmas that support that type of thinking (capitalism).

No, the underlying mechanism is human nature, that people are self-interested. Capitalism allows that underlying nature to thrive where other systems try and block it. And capitalism isn't based on wealth, it's based on self-interest. And any new political and economic system needs to understand and account for it.

 

[ksen]

Capitalism inculcates a philosophy similar to what Colorado Atheist is expressing. The assumption is that nobody ever does anything without seeking to profit from it. We have in this society a largely invisible pecking order that is based on personal wealth. The wealthy in our society regard human rights as their personal rights and can be expressed by their ability to spend money to support them. The Koch brothers are a prime example. They know they are human. They know they can do well for themselves by depriving others and spend their money to do just that.

The financial class in a capitalist society only spends its resources to supportits rights. Additionally, because their rights are dependent on wealth, their political system makes wealth a prerequisite for rights. They definitely claim more rights for themselves than they allow others and go to great lengths to see to it that others do not attain to the same rights. They regard life only as a struggle for wealth against a world full of humans as selfish as themselves. I know humans are capable of better behavior than that. I don't need Marx to tell me that, but he was pointing to the structures and political dogmas that support that type of thinking (capitalism).

No, the underlying mechanism is human nature, that people are self-interested. Capitalism allows that underlying nature to thrive where other systems try and block it. And capitalism isn't based on wealth, it's based on self-interest. And any new political and economic system needs to understand and account for it.

"Self-interest" is not the entirety of human nature.

Imagine if we tried to build an economy around the better aspects of human nature rather than the basest one.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, the underlying mechanism is human nature, that people are self-interested. Capitalism allows that underlying nature to thrive where other systems try and block it. And capitalism isn't based on wealth, it's based on self-interest. And any new political and economic system needs to understand and account for it.

"Self-interest" is not the entirety of human nature.

Imagine if we tried to build an economy around the better aspects of human nature rather than the basest one.

And that's the good thing with capitalism. If you don't believe a need is being met, then you have the ability to change that.

 

[arkirk]

Capitalism inculcates a philosophy similar to what Colorado Atheist is expressing. The assumption is that nobody ever does anything without seeking to profit from it. We have in this society a largely invisible pecking order that is based on personal wealth. The wealthy in our society regard human rights as their personal rights and can be expressed by their ability to spend money to support them. The Koch brothers are a prime example. They know they are human. They know they can do well for themselves by depriving others and spend their money to do just that.

The financial class in a capitalist society only spends its resources to supportits rights. Additionally, because their rights are dependent on wealth, their political system makes wealth a prerequisite for rights. They definitely claim more rights for themselves than they allow others and go to great lengths to see to it that others do not attain to the same rights. They regard life only as a struggle for wealth against a world full of humans as selfish as themselves. I know humans are capable of better behavior than that. I don't need Marx to tell me that, but he was pointing to the structures and political dogmas that support that type of thinking (capitalism).

No, the underlying mechanism is human nature, that people are self-interested. Capitalism allows that underlying nature to thrive where other systems try and block it. And capitalism isn't based on wealth, it's based on self-interest. And any new political and economic system needs to understand and account for it.

People act on the basis of their preferences. Your notion of self interest is extremely narrow. If you cannot afford your preferences because you have no capital (wealth) it is extremely unlikely you can act on your preferences. You have said flat out that humans are selfish. If you had prefaced that remark with the word "some" maybe I could agree with it, but you are flatly defining humanity as a collection of selfish beings. It is wrong to base a code or system of political or ethical interaction on selfishness. You so arrogantly dictate to those who would start "any new political and economic system" that they better listen to you or else? Or else what? Maybe we could have better lives, better relations, a better environment? You only have one note, Mr. Colorado Atheist...we must focus on being as selfish as possible? I don't buy it.

Yours is the language of greed and domination. You are trying to define "human nature" as "self interest" then conflating self interest with selfishness. A person's self interests are his preferences. You clearly believe that everything a person gets he must fight for it...possibly taking from others. Many preferences have to do with how we relate to one another and cooperate. There is no room in the capitalist world for empathy or compassion. There is no room for concern for the environment. I have been fighting this aspect of the thing for the last 40 years. Now you tell me there is no reason behind the way I live my own life....just not selfish enough I guess.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, the underlying mechanism is human nature, that people are self-interested. Capitalism allows that underlying nature to thrive where other systems try and block it. And capitalism isn't based on wealth, it's based on self-interest. And any new political and economic system needs to understand and account for it.

People act on the basis of their preferences. Your notion of self interest is extremely narrow. If you cannot afford your preferences because you have no capital (wealth) it is extremely unlikely you can act on your preferences. You have said flat out that humans are selfish. If you had prefaced that remark with the word "some" maybe I could agree with it, but you are flatly defining humanity as a collection of selfish beings. It is wrong to base a code or system of political or ethical interaction on selfishness. You so arrogantly dictate to those who would start "any new political and economic system" that they better listen to you or else? Or else what? Maybe we could have better lives, better relations, a better environment? You only have one note, Mr. Colorado Atheist...we must focus on being as selfish as possible? I don't buy it.

Yours is the language of greed and domination. You are trying to define "human nature" as "self interest" then conflating self interest with selfishness. A person's self interests are his preferences. You clearly believe that everything a person gets he must fight for it...possibly taking from others. Many preferences have to do with how we relate to one another and cooperate. There is no room in the capitalist world for empathy or compassion. There is no room for concern for the environment. I have been fighting this aspect of the thing for the last 40 years. Now you tell me there is no reason behind the way I live my own life....just not selfish enough I guess.

The issue is that people aren't drones. There are millions of preferences and likes. It's absolutely fine if you want to start a new "political and economic system" that rewards "empathy and compassion and the environment". Just make it voluntary. Don't force others to join. I might even be tempted to donate some money to your cause. But I'm mostly a greedy selfish capitalist pig. I only work for money. As soon as I have enough, I'll retire to the mountains in the winter, the lake in the summer.




start "any new political and economic system

 

[Horatio Parker]

"Self-interest" is not the entirety of human nature.

Imagine if we tried to build an economy around the better aspects of human nature rather than the basest one.

Self interest is indeed the entirety of human nature. However some feel it's in their interest to be just.

The self righteous greed of capitalism reminds me of the morbidity of religion. It's very easy to overdo it.