|
A parallel problem that comes up when talking about economic systems in the US is that people generally don't know what capitalism and socialism are. You have people who think voluntary exchange + jobs = capitalism while welfare + government = socialism. This ignores systems like market socialism and state capitalism while basic elements of economic systems are covered under market capitalism and any state interference is automatically socialism and therefore bad. Learning and talking more about the 'workers owning the means of production' aspect can give you a possible solution to unemployment and wealth disparity in addition to talking about welfare. In that sense, Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher might be worth reading since it talks about the view of capitalism being the only viable system. I am working through Wealth of Nations at the moment as way to get into economics. It is kind of fun noting the parts where he talks about being wary of the capital class, the issues that workers go through, and the places where free market evangelists distort or jump to conclusions about what Smith says.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
One of my favourite critics of libertarianism is Karl Polanyi. He was a contemporary of Von Mises back when libertarianism was still a European thing. He was one of the first to come up with most of the retorts and responses to a lot of common libertarian talking points. (Rather poetically, the "stark Utopianism" of the lassiez-faire.) Sadly, Polanyi was very much a communal socialist, so you have to already be leaning in that direction in order to view his arguments as legitimate. His work is also very terribly aged due to how long ago it was written. Even I only got into it through radio programs talking about him before even trying to read the very-difficult-to-find books by him. While good, he is not the most helpful in convincing others away from market fundamentalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:You'd be surprised how many people who find themselves on the bad side of capitalism will instead simply blame someone else for their problems. The target of this blame is almost NEVER the economic system that binds them from my experience. No that's a thing, which was why I said that they can become receptive to it, not that they'll automatically get it. My point is basically that you're never going to convince someone who is doing well out of the current arrangement that it's actually bad. Or at least the chances of it are so small as to be insignificant. People need to have a reason to want to believe it before they'll entertain the possibility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Mundrial Mantis posted:A parallel problem that comes up when talking about economic systems in the US is that people generally don't know what capitalism and socialism are. You have people who think voluntary exchange + jobs = capitalism while welfare + government = socialism. This ignores systems like market socialism and state capitalism while basic elements of economic systems are covered under market capitalism and any state interference is automatically socialism and therefore bad. Learning and talking more about the 'workers owning the means of production' aspect can give you a possible solution to unemployment and wealth disparity in addition to talking about welfare. wealth of nations is decidedly not a text advocating for free markets. it's hilarious that that's what it's perceived to be. smith was advocating freer markets, in the context of an era and place where corporations were formable exclusively through royal charter and guilds had a stranglehold on the means of production
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Rothbarth has a lot of vitriol for Adam Smith, it's kind of funny and is at least sincere (he actually read the wealth of nations). I recommend checking that out for all those who are reading Adam Smith right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Why DO right-wingers love Adam Smith? Is it cause of that one line about the "invisible hand"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Why DO right-wingers love Adam Smith? Is it cause of that one line about the "invisible hand"? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Why DO right-wingers love Adam Smith? Is it cause of that one line about the "invisible hand"? Same reason they love Jesus in spite of his communitarian message and sacrificial nature: they're idolators who don't understand what they worship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Smith is a ritual talisman against Marx. We have an old dead smart guy who wrote a very long book about economics too, we're protected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Which is kinda hilarious, since quite a few of Marx's arguments were based on taking Smith's ideas to their logical conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Why DO right-wingers love Adam Smith? Is it cause of that one line about the "invisible hand"? And even that one paragraph where it is used is in a chapter that talks about a consumer supporting domestic industry by buying and investing within their own society. People take it out of context to say that markets are inherently good and should thus replace government. Smith makes some interesting points that get lost so people can jerk themselves raw with the "invisible hand". -Division of labor leads to a worker being able to focus more on a specific task and thus assembly becomes more efficient... but that leads to workers becoming dumb and uninterested to concerns outside of that task, which is bad. -Increased capital (profit) does not correspond to greater prosperity for a nation like increased wages or rent. So be wary of whatever is advocated by those who make their living by profit. -Even unproductive professions like artist, musician, soldier, and physician are good and honorable and have a use. -In one example, a worker who owns the farm he works on as opposed to renting it takes better care of it and gets a better share of what real wealth is generated from it (I might be reading too much into this one as owning the means of production). -A government is essential for the liberty and happiness of the nation's citizens and taxes are needed. -Most of the anti-regulatory talk is about restricting trade between nations with tariffs and bans. So applying that to regulations involving labor, externalities, and categorization is a long stretch. There are some points where it is naive following Smith's word, like anti-price gouging laws worsening famines but saying nothing about some government/communal emergency fund. And the history of barter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:wealth of nations is decidedly not a text advocating for free markets. it's hilarious that that's what it's perceived to be. smith was advocating freer markets, in the context of an era and place where corporations were formable exclusively through royal charter and guilds had a stranglehold on the means of production Libertarianism is basically people trying to apply solutions that were progressive in the 18th century to modern problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
I guess it makes sense to think that monopolies are the fault of government interference when all the sources you're working from are pissed about Crown Monopolies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Mundrial Mantis posted:Smith makes some interesting points that get lost so people can jerk themselves raw with the "invisible hand". quote:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Libertarianism is basically people trying to apply solutions that were progressive in the 18th century to modern problems. That seems an overly generous description.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Osmosisch posted:That seems an overly generous description. 18th century progressivism was like, being mad at the king
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:I don't think I can go more than a day on Facebook without seeing someone regurgitating the usual Free Market worship talking points. Sever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Sever. It’s usually people I don’t know in the comments, it’s more that the idea that free market is a cure all for our woes is still very common amongst the average citizen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:18th century progressivism was like, being mad at the king  Still applies today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:18th century progressivism was like, being mad at the king Quite a step up! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
It continues to strike my funny bone, that the apocryphal tide that raises all boats, is rarely held to actually and accountably do so. I think of socialism as the accountability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
The tide also doesn't generally do people without boats any favours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
This showed up in my feed. https://medium.com/@jamiestantonian/the-revenge-of-unreason-18ec6cd02de2 Radical centrism in defense of the enlightenment 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Our job creators have finally been unshackled thanks to his royal Trumpness' economy revving tax cuts. As a result my company has..laid off 20 people since the start of the year. That doesn't seem quite right, does it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
Your company is freeing them from taxes by not paying them anything, so that they need not pay taxes on their non existent pay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Your case made me realize something about a typical libertarian talking point about wages. The point I see argued is that by having wage standards, you make it more attractive to automate those jobs (if possible) since the business owner will figure the cost of human employees exceeds the upfront and running cost of automating in the long run. So more order screens at fast food places or self-checkout lanes in stores. But if a business owner got a tax break, why would they pay their employees more instead of using the money to automate? They could argue that while one company automates, a second company will figure it is worthwhile to have better compensated employees and thus workers move there. Then if there is enough investment in automation (because enough companies figure it is worth it) that it becomes cheaper to set up, won't that eventually lead to lay offs in the hypothetical second company? I'm just spitballing here and wondering more about how libertarianism responds to automation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Our job creators have finally been unshackled thanks to his royal Trumpness' economy revving tax cuts. As a result my company has..laid off 20 people since the start of the year. It does make sense if you realize what the desired outcome is. Here it is mire shareholder equity. Since taxes were slashed there's more room to cut fat (ie jobs) to increase it even further! I'm sure some bean counter found the perfect equilibrium for cutting expenses and maximizing shareholder equity. And of course even if taxes remained steady there's a huge incentive for companies to slash expenses to bump up profit for a few quarters, the tax changes just make it substantially more lucrative. But ya the idea it would create jobs is a complete farce... if they desired to create more jobs they would do so (and lower their tax bill in the process!) But they have no desire to do this beyond what is required to meet their supply demand curves. CEOs are in record saying that the outcome of a tax cut would be more shareholder equity too so it isn't even like we need to get into deep economic and financial theory about it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Mundrial Mantis posted:I'm just spitballing here and wondering more about how libertarianism responds to automation. same as everything else, arms flailing and sputtering about free markets or whatever slightly more serious: same as Every Discussion About Minimum Wage Ever, where someone insists if you force businesses to raise wages they'll have to fire people to remain profitable. If you point out that this implies the business is currently employing more people than necessary out of charity rather than a concern for profit... well take a guess. Usually either silence or moving on to the next dumb "argument".
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Your company is freeing them from taxes by not paying them anything, so that they need not pay taxes on their non existent pay. [THINKING GUY MEME] "You don't have to pay income tax ...if you don't have any income!" [/THINKING GUY MEME] Mundrial Mantis posted:Your case made me realize something about a typical libertarian talking point about wages. The point I see argued is that by having wage standards, you make it more attractive to automate those jobs (if possible) since the business owner will figure the cost of human employees exceeds the upfront and running cost of automating in the long run. So more order screens at fast food places or self-checkout lanes in stores. But if a business owner got a tax break, why would they pay their employees more instead of using the money to automate? The automation threats that libertarians push don't really make sense to me because automation provides hypothetically massive savings for the employer for them to not take advantage of it. Like, imagine you have a store owner who has only one employee who works the cashier at $20k/yr. That's $20k this employer could be pocketing if he didn't need this person. Now imagine there's like 5 of these people? Or 10? You're saying you'd miss out on an extra $200k because you just happen to tolerate the current rates? Cause that's a pretty drat noble sacrifice on your part. Now, imagine we'd expand that to something like the manufacturing sector where wages are substantially higher and there are more people collecting a pay check. Now we're talking millions of dollars that such employers just happen to not mind losing out on? Come on, now. Mr Interweb fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
Automation should steadily lead us into a post-scarcity society where no one needs to work, but thanks to fetishist capitalism instead it's just creating abject misery and increasing the wealth gap
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:slightly more serious: same as Every Discussion About Minimum Wage Ever, where someone insists if you force businesses to raise wages they'll have to fire people to remain profitable. If you point out that this implies the business is currently employing more people than necessary out of charity rather than a concern for profit... well take a guess. Usually either silence or moving on to the next dumb "argument". That is a good point. If the goal of a business is to maximize profit as libertarians point out, why aren't businesses aren't already operating with a skeleton crew? I am betting the response would be firing the "useless" people who work there but that seems to be a case of the private sector not being efficient and closer to their view of the public sector. Which they will still blame as the cause of that inefficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:The automation threats that libertarians push don't really make sense to me because automation provides hypothetically massive savings for the employer for them to not take advantage of it. Like, imagine you have a store owner who has only one employee who works the cashier at $20k/yr. That's $20k this employer could be pocketing if he didn't need this person. Now imagine there's like 5 of these people? Or 10? You're saying you'd miss out on an extra $200k because you just happen to tolerate the current rates? Cause that's a pretty drat noble sacrifice on your part. Now, imagine we'd expand that to something like the manufacturing sector where wages are substantially higher and there are more people collecting a pay check. Now we're talking millions of dollars that such employers just happen to not mind losing out on? Come on, now. Hell, you can relate this to the drawback of efficiency. Why hire six people at $20k each when I can have two people at $25k each and spend the rest on automation or increased efficiency. The upfront cost might be large but once I get over that (with a no-strings-attached tax cut), I am more profitable. I could automate or increase efficiency, still hire the four people who didn't get the job, and expand. But that assumes I find it more profitable or am able to expand. I recognize I am arguing with imaginary libertarians/conservatives in my head but it is frustrating that QuarkJets posted:Automation should steadily lead us into a post-scarcity society where no one needs to work, but thanks to fetishist capitalism instead it's just creating abject misery and increasing the wealth gap
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Mundrial Mantis posted:That is a good point. If the goal of a business is to maximize profit as libertarians point out, why aren't businesses aren't already operating with a skeleton crew? I am betting the response would be firing the "useless" people who work there but that seems to be a case of the private sector not being efficient and closer to their view of the public sector. Which they will still blame as the cause of that inefficiency. Based on the continuous rise of productivity...they are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:slightly more serious: same as Every Discussion About Minimum Wage Ever, where someone insists if you force businesses to raise wages they'll have to fire people to remain profitable. If you point out that this implies the business is currently employing more people than necessary out of charity rather than a concern for profit... well take a guess. Usually either silence or moving on to the next dumb "argument". This question needs to be spammed at anyone who even thinks of raising the  BUT JOB CUTS! argument because it never, ever gets raised, let alone addressed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
I've seen it addressed. The counter-argument relies on understanding marginal utility and iirc roughly goes: employers are employing as many people as they can to realize the marginal benefit of labor at the current cost of labor. If the cost of labor goes up, the marginal benefit goes down, and so too will the amount of labor an employer is willing to spend money on.
GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I've seen it addressed. The counter-argument relies on understanding marginal utility and iirc roughly goes: employers are employing as many people as they can to realize the marginal benefit of labor at the current cost of labor. If the cost of labor goes up, the marginal benefit goes down, and so too will the amount of labor an employer is willing to spend money on. Example: Scrooge McDuck owns 10 McDonald's franchises, 9 of which are profitable but the tenth barely breaks even. If the wage goes up, he will pay the workers at the first 9 the higher wage, but close down the tenth. Solution: Double Scrooge's taxes and provide universal basic income to all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Would y'all who are reading the Wealth and identifying counterarguments to libertarianism in the text be willing to provide quotes and page numbers? They're exactly the sort of hard reverse cite that works well when people cite Smith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Would y'all who are reading the Wealth and identifying counterarguments to libertarianism in the text be willing to provide quotes and page numbers? They're exactly the sort of hard reverse cite that works well when people cite Smith. Seconded!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
Gladly! I am not finished yet and so I don't have Smith's quotes on taxes and public education. I will give the quote location by page number in the Glasgow edition and their book and chapter. The parts I find interesting in the longer portions in bold. Living on wages. Book 1, Chapter 3. Pages 85 - 86. Adam Smith posted:A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an ablebodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine. Society helping the poor and the effects of poverty. Book 1, Chapter 3. Pages 96. Adam Smith posted:Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged. Business conspiring and corporations. Book 1, Chapter 10. Page 145. Adam Smith posted:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary. Wealth through rent, wages, and profit. This is a long one. Book 1, Chapter 11 in the conclusions. Page 266. Adam Smith posted:The whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country, or what comes to the same thing, the whole price of that annual produce, naturally divides itself, it has already been observed, into three parts; the rent of land, the wages of labour, and the profits of stock; and constitutes a revenue to three different orders of people; to those who live by rent, to those who live by wages, and to those who live by profit. These are the three great, original, and constituent orders of every civilised society, from whose revenue that of every other order is ultimately derived. Productive and unproductive work. Book 2, Chapter 3. Pages 330 - 331. Adam Smith posted:The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject; or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people. Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The protection, security, and defence of the commonwealth, the effect of their labour this year will not purchase its protection, security, and defence for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions: churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of every other sort of labour; and that of the n oblest and most useful, 50 produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them perishes in the very instant of its production. Government and individual liberty. Book 3, Chapter 4. Pages 412. Adam Smith posted:Thirdly, and lastly, commerce and manufactures gradually introduced order and good government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals, among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived almost in a continual state of war with their neighbours and of servile dependency upon their superiors. This, though it has been the least observed, is by far the most important of all their effects. Mr. Hume is the only writer who, so far as I know, has hitherto taken notice of it. There are some parts that can be easily used to support conservative/libertarian views but don't mesh with a closer reading and understanding. I couldn't find the one part that was astounding where Smith lays out the reason for why a farmer owning the land himself instead of renting is better overall, though. Mundrial Mantis fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
actually reading wealth of nations was an extremely important turning point for my transition from teenage libertarian to leftist because as should be obvious from the quotes above, smith has the same matter-of-fact attitude toward the predatory nature of capital, and the essential role of labor, that marx does. living in a society with acknowledged class divisions, as they both did, tends to clarify analysis of the behavior of whole classes in a way that is harder to do today; libertarianism relies on a muddled conception of class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:04
|
|