Critique of the book: "Economics In One Lesson", debunking Capitalism - Pt. 6

[danberkeley]

Hey, do have any essays of your own where you allegedly refute/debunk/critisize/whatev­er capitalism? I'd love to read them.

[Leveer13]

Yes. Go to the Zeitgeist forums and look for VTV.

[danberkeley]

Would you rather earn $100 a day and have the cost of living be 90% of your income, or earn $0.10 a day and the cost of living be 80% of your income?

[Leylaqq]

Anything to avoid capitalism.

[danberkeley]

In your opinion, what is wrong with capitalism?

[Leylaqq]

The fact that 8 out of 10 people lose their jobs and become slaves to the two others left?

[danberkeley]

Got any real-world examples?

[Leylaqq]

My family? Our company was nearly bankrupt (and I think we'll be shutting it down, if we don't get some help), which would make us lose it completely and then work in someone else's.

[danberkeley]

So working for someone else is slavery? Say, did your family employ anyone; were they slavemasters? Nonetheless, we haven't had free-market capitalism for the past 96, since the creation of America's third central bank, the Federal Reserve. Instead, what we have had is a mixed economy; that is, an economy that has had a mixture of capitalistic and socialistic elements.

[Leylaqq]

So capitalism was such a failure that could not even be applied?

Ever heard of cartels?

[danberkeley]

Explain to me how free-market capitalism failed 96 years ago. Do you understand the differences between free-market capitalism and other forms of capitalism? Also, explain to me successes of socialism. Ever heard of Eastern Europe? Lol. Anyway, I just defeated the entire premise of your argument that free-market capitalism failed your family's business.

[Leylaqq]

Say what? I'm not supporting socialism either, because it always comes with power/dictatorship.

[Leveer13]

Free Market capitalists are like religious fanatics. They call anyone who is not like them the "evil" thing "over there". Surprised he hasn't called you a "Commie" yet. Socialism AND Capitalism fail because they are both monetary systems.

[Leylaqq]

Blessed be, Leveer13. ;-)

[danberkeley]

Fail. I haven't called anyone "evil". Nice ad hominem, however. Venus project makes me LOL. The flamewars have commenced!

[Leveer13]

No, but you somehow assumed that we were socialists. Or that we suggested that it was a solution. Which we didn't. If anything that is an Ad Hominem on your part. It makes you LOL because you don't know anything about it. Clearly. Like I said, come to my show sometime and we can talk about it.

[TehBANN3D]

"Socialism AND Capitalism fail because they are both monetary systems."

Bahahah, please, continue, this is rich.

Seriously though, both systems are economic arrangements, not monetary ones. Money is an emergent good, not a proviso, of a market economy.

[Leveer13]

BAHAHAAH! Maybe if you laugh more your point will somehow be relevant. The monetary system leads to the crash of both Socialism and Capitalism when technology replaces labor.

[TehBANN3D]

Where is this mythical "monetary system" in a market economy again? If something is emergent, it necessarily is not globally systemic. It is you who's speaking in irrelevancies.

[Leveer13]

Do you use money in a market economy? If you do, that means it is in fact a monetary system. And it is completely relevant. Like I said, call into my show sometime. I will set aside a whole show just for answering calls from Capitalists.

[TehBANN3D]

Money in a market economy is not globally systemic. Calling it a system fails to acknowledge what it is: a common means of exchange. It is entirely contingent on individual exchange. If people do not value a money or currency, they wont trade in it. However the United States operate as a mixed economy the "money" distributed by the federal reserve is not contingent upon people's desire to use it, rather on the governments ability to enforce a tax burden in terms of dollars.

[joesub007]

Money is politics in concentrated form. As a form of exchange it is worse than barter.

Barter = goods or services deemed equal of value by two parties with no intermediaries are exchanged.

Money = the political enslavement of another party with less money usually with the intermediaries of banks and government taking a cut from the exploited and with police, law courts and standing armies enforcing this exploitation at the point of a gun.

[danberkeley]

Why would you trade X for Y if they have the same value? So money isn't the most common medium of exchange?

[joesub007]

Simple: Candy bar A has peanuts, Candy bar B doesn't

Barter situation:

A guy with a peanut allergy can barter candy bar A for candy bar B. equal value is exchanged since both are perishable goods.

Monetary situation:

I have money. I'm lazy. I like a candy bar. I'll use my money to rent workers to pick cocoa nuts. If they don't like it then I'll rent soldiers. I'll "pay" them with paper which they can then "pay" for food which I also own because they can't eat the paper I "pay" them with.

[danberkeley]

Resource-based economy situation:

I have everything need. I want your stuff. I take your stuff.

I too can create a strawman.

[joesub007]

Resource based economy with automation:

I have everything I need. If I take somebody else's stuff hidden surveillance cameras and microphones in public will record my crime immediately and civilian security teams will be assembled and sent to apprehend you with the latest in non-lethal technologies.

If instead of taking somebody else's stuff, I punch into the internet the goods or services I want then highly advanced automated machinery will make it to exact specifications.

[danberkeley]

In a resource-based economy, Tom Cruise from the Minority Report will come to my house and stop me from committing a crime I am destined to commit.

[joesub007]

It can even be more sophisticated than that. Before you have access to dangerous items like weapons and poisons and before you can socialize with your family and children, your mind can be scanned for incorrect and dangerous thoughts. If you do have incorrect and dangerous thoughts then you will be directed to either a relaxation center, a social worker, a psychologist or a neural surgeon according to your level or psychopathology.

[joesub007]

To technology to do this type of mind scanning is already in development.

watch?v=57jsJZjnpqo

[gunsandbullhorns]

I already replied to your previous comment with this point, but I'm going to repeat myself, just because I can't believe it.

YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN ZERO-SUM VALUE EXCHANGE?!! YOU ARE CRAZY!!!

-Jeff

[joesub007]

Any monetary system simply isn't scientific when money can be exchanged for perishable goods and services while money ends up back to the proprietor of the product or service. Humans being the political animals that they are simply seek to be the master handing out the money and not the slave dependent on the master's good will and "promise" that he won't send in the police goons if he behaves and grovels nicely. In this way communism = capitalism = fascism, commissar = boss = gestapo.

[gunsandbullhorns]

I don't know what you mean by "scientific". I wonder if YOU know what you mean by "scientific".

[joesub007]

I'm sure you learned this in school, but I'm not so sure about it now since they (Capitalist fundamentalists) are destroying public education:

scientific method:

observation -> hypothesis -> experimentation -> theory

or

back to observation if the experiment doesn't confirm your hypothesis

magical thinking and mysticism:

I walked under a ladder one day and got hit by a falling hammer -> walking under ladders = bad luck.

A poor black guy mugged me -> black people = criminals.

[TehBANN3D]

"Money is politics in concentrated form. As a form of exchange it is worse than barter."

Okay, first off, there's no way for me to address this unless you make a distinction between free money and fiat money. Free money is a market preference. Fiat money is a medium of exchange sprung onto a populace for tax purposes. But I will respond with this understanding in mind.

[TehBANN3D]

"Barter = goods or services deemed equal of value by two parties with no intermediaries are exchanged."

Yes, barter is immediate reciprocal benefit. However, it's drawback is that it is not easily supportive of multiple transactions, and as a result does not allow for labor specialization or division of labor since people can only exchange in goods that offer immediate reciprocal benefit to the people who's goods they want.

[TehBANN3D]

Money is an interjection between reciprocal benefit. People trade in money if they see that that using that money will allow them to purchase a desired good more easily than trading directly for that good, postponing reciprocal benefit. If I want cheese, but not many people have cheese to trade me for my goods, but someone comes along offering me "money" (some commonly accepted good) that I know I can trade to a cheesemaker for cheese, ...

[TehBANN3D]

I will likely make the transaction because it is more preferable than having to wait for someone who has cheese to come trade with me. In this way, barter exchange only takes place because of coincidence, while monetary exchange allows people to exchange in a commonly accepted good and rely less on coincidence (though in a market, you can never really escape a 'barter' economy since monetary exchange could be considered barter with a 'popular good').

[TehBANN3D]

"Money = the political enslavement of another party [...]"

I don't disagree with what you've said, but there is a clear distinction between government monopoly money and money preferred by individuals, with no coercion to back it.

[gunsandbullhorns]

Wow. You actually believe in zero-sum value exchanges?  Have you ever heard of the Marginal Revolution? It happened back in the 1800's. Do you have any idea how "outdated" your understanding is?

-Jeff

[Leveer13]

You kind of missed the point didn't you? 96 years ago we didn't have machines that could eliminate millions of jobs, and allow the outsourcing of more still. Capitalism requires cyclical consumption, and that is breaking down steadily. You must live somewhere with a good economy if you still believe in the dinosaur of capitalism. Pretty soon it will go from Dinosaur to Unicorn, or Dragon, or Fairy.

[danberkeley]

Oh noes! It wasn't millions of jobs! But we did have machines that "eliminated" thousands of jobs. What is "cyclical consumption"? Again, we are not living under a capitalistic economy, therefore, you fail.

[Leveer13]

If you don't know what "Cyclical Consumption" is then you just proved that you know nothing about the Venus Project you ignorantly "LOL" at.

[danberkeley]

I've read the some of the web pages on the official website, but I have the courage to admit that I don't know everything about it. Hence, the reason why I asked "what is 'cyclical consumption'? ".

[Leveer13]

Yes, working for someone else is slavery. Ask all the people who live in third world countries that are already slaves. And as outsourcing and automation drag down the standard of living for anyone who depends on selling their labor to survive, this trend will only continue. You don't listen too good do you?

[danberkeley]

Settled: laylaq's family are slaveowners.

[Leveer13]

Everyone in the monetary system is a slave to it.

[TehBANN3D]

No. Wage earning is a time preference discrepancy between worker and capital owner. It isn't slavery to utilize the product of someone else's labor and accept only part of the end product. That's called exchange and it's benefits are reciprocal.

[Leveer13]

Ask the people living in inhuman working conditions and living the lifestyle that is not much better if not worse then the slaves in the south of the United States used to live in if they feel it is "reciprocal". As more and more companies make this the standard they expect from labor, you will see this trend continue to increase. Free Market Capitalism is working on archaic understandings of how much technology impacts unemployment and therefore poverty. Call in to V-RADIO sometime if you want.

[TehBANN3D]

"Ask the people living in inhuman working conditions and living the lifestyle that is not much better if not worse then the slaves in the south of the United States used to live in if they feel it is "reciprocal"."

Obviously workers prefer working for wages to having to work for survival as a hunter/gatherer. That is why the benefit is reciprocal. The conditions they live in have no bearing on this as the analysis is ceteris paribus.

[Leveer13]

"ceteris paribus"? Is this another one of those moments when someone with a weak argument pretends that they are somehow smarter then their opponent by using obscure words to bedazzle everyone? The point is that the workers don't have any choice but to work in these conditions or starve. The conditions they work in ABSOLUTELY have bearing. A worker whom you pay only what he needs to survive with little to no care for his condition= slave.

[TehBANN3D]

Ceteris paribus is common terminology in analytics. It wasn't meant to bedazzle, it most closely approximates the concept I'm trying to portray. Thus, I use it. Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant by it. Ceteris paribus most closely translates to "all things being equal". "All things being equal", the conditions of a worker have no bearing whatsoever on the state of reciprocity of their exchange of labor with a capitalist.

[Leveer13]

Yes they do. If the capitalist is manipulating the local economy so as to force people to work for unreasonable conditions and usually unsafe ones then that is not a fair exchange at all.

[TehBANN3D]

What do you mean by "manipulating". That term is pretty open ended.

[Leveer13]

There are lots of ways to do this. I am surprised you don't know. It's not really that hard to research it.

[TehBANN3D]

It's not that I don't understand the possibilities of "manipulation". It's that you didn't clarify what you meant by the term. Are they manipulating the economy through violence? Are they manipulating it through offering goods at rates more preferable to local competitors? Even the act of the capitalist entering the economy entails some degree of manipulation. That is what I meant by the term being open ended.

[danberkeley]

I could easily throw the dictionary at you and completely destroy your "slavery" argument.

[danberkeley]

manipulation is a subjective term. unreasonable is a subjective term. unsafe is a subjective term (anything can be unsfae). who will determine what is unreasonable? what is "fair exchange" according to you?

[joesub007]

manipulation = not being honest about one's motive.

unreasonable = (social meaning) not within typically assumed limits or generally accepted norms of behavior.

unsafe = actions performed that will result in having a high probability of injury or death. Or inactions from the powerful that will result in high chance of injury or death from those who are innocent bystanders or who are victims of their inactions.

[TehBANN3D]

The fact that a worker chooses a barely livable wage to no wage at all demonstrates that they prefer the conditions of having to live on a wage.

[Leveer13]

Is this somehow supposed to excuse the greed of the Capitalist that exploits them?

[TehBANN3D]

I don't see how greed needs an excuse. It doesn't violate social norms, it's only an emotion.

[Leveer13]

So greed is ok then? Even if it prompts war profiteers to lobby to continue wars so that they can make money selling bombs to kill people? The federal reserve system was created by greed as well. Are you really just going to shrug off the negative effects of "greed"?

[TehBANN3D]

Emotions are neutral. I see nothing wrong with people feeling greedy, or angry, or happy, or whatever emotion fancies them. Their actions are an entirely different category.

[Leveer13]

Since we are discussing their actions in the first place, what you are doing is splitting hairs and Non Sequitur. (See? I can use obscure words too. )

[TehBANN3D]

No, I didn't bring up emotion.

[danberkeley]

no shit! you have been using obscure phrases, for most part. oh, was that too obscure for you? lol

[joesub007]

Neuralogically this does not make sense because... Violent behavior is encouraged through violent thoughts, greedy behavior is encouraged through greedy thoughts, etc... For every action there is a emotional motive behind it unless you are a machine or a sociopath.

If you are a machine or sociopath then there are no consequences for people to "deconstruct" you because you are not alive in the human sense of being alive.

[TehBANN3D]

That would be psychologically. Neurologically emotions might be considered actions because they are caused by a physical information flow across synapses. But that's not action in the sense of what I mean. Within the 'illusion' of free will, there is the ability to make a choice and choose to perform things.

[joesub007]

Nope. It's akin to stepping on the accelerator and the brakes of a car at the same time. This "will" that people speak of all the time is the struggle between the emotional animal and the rational animal. The reason why people "snap" or go into insanity is the same reason why people go into temper tantrums when rational brakes fail to rein in their emotional drives. You want to accentuate the greed emotional drive of people while expecting them at the same time to be rational? Perfect sociopath.

[TehBANN3D]

Violent actions infringe upon other people, but violent thoughts or emotions do not. They may lead to infringement, or be the prerequisite of it (in fact, for the most part, they are) but they do not directly cause infringement.

[TehBANN3D]

"If you are a machine or sociopath then there are no consequences for people to 'deconstruct' you [...]"

A sociopath is a human and not recognizing that would be sociopathic itself. Sociopathy characterized by an inability to empathize or understand anything outside the ego. It may be driven by a neurological disorder or a psychological one, but there is nothing inhuman about a sociopath. Inhumane, certainly, but not inhuman.

[joesub007]

"Inhumane, certainly, but not inhuman..."

True. But, I'm not very particular on distinctions when deciding whether or not to eliminate incurable cases of "humans" whose behavior and motivations are detrimental to the long term survival of the human tribe. If however they are curable then there may be hope for them to be accepted. It's really a simple case of whether or not I want to live with a potential killer or thief if it's avoidable altogether through physical elimination of the threat.

[danberkeley]

war is bad. greed is okay. so what if greed leads to war, if war is already bad?

[danberkeley]

what's wrong with greed? what's wrong with exploitation? (don't assume we have the same subjective values you have)

[joesub007]

The fact that I'm able to communicate with you and understand you with a common language means there are more things humans share in common with each other than they are different from each other. Culture and ideology is irrelevant. Biologically there is more differences between humans and chimpanzees than humans with cultural differences which means technology for war making or rebellion is within anybody's reach including the exploited.

[TehBANN3D]

If you see it as necessary or beneficial to live in pre-primitive conditions and avoid technology and job loss, feel free. I want no part in it.

[Leveer13]

You clearly don't know anything about the Venus Project, as the opposite is true. Fairly typical. The idea is to allow technology to go to the level it should be, which is to destroy scarcity of the needs of life. Scarcity is too much a tool of profit to be eliminated in any monetary or capitalist system.

[TehBANN3D]

Destroy scarcity? Scarcity is factual. You cannot destroy it because there will always be unsatisfied wants and humans are limited in their actions, temporally. You can alleviate scarcity by producing goods, and technologies are used to achieve this.

[Leveer13]

Most scarcity absolutely can be eliminated. Will there be a few "rare" things? Probably. This however does not debunk the system at all. I would say the massive starvation and poverty created by capitalism around the world would be plenty justification for saying that system is a failure to everyone but the people on top of it.

[TehBANN3D]

I fail to see how free exchange can possibly lead to global poverty. And capitalism doesn't exist around the world. If anything, it's corporatism and fascism that does. I don't equate these systems to capitalism. Though both are comprised of "private" enterprise, one involves a state monopoly on arbitration and enforcement, as well as state created barriers which prevent competition.

[Leveer13]

They are the result of capitalism. Just like the situation with Kim Jong Il in North Korea being what is the result of communism and socialism. Opening the barriers to competition is exactly what is destroying economies in other countries. Now, when the standard of living is reduced when capitalists band together to see to it that nobody can expect to be paid a reasonable wage, that does create global poverty.

[TehBANN3D]

"Opening the barriers to competition [...] . Now, when the standard of living is reduced when capitalists band together [...] ."

These two statements seem to contradict one another. First you say competition is destroying economies, and then you say monopolistic cartels (groups of firms free of competition) are able to price gouge consumers and workers. The second statement is the result of a lack of competitive firms.

[danberkeley]

where in the world has free-market capitalism ever created global poverty?

[TehBANN3D]

The state also involves itself in subsidizing the expansion of large interest groups through imperialism. This is not a display of free and mutual exchange.

[Leveer13]

The state is owned by capitalists.

[TehBANN3D]

No. The state is not owned it's property is actually declared "public". It is controlled by politicians who are lobbied by capitalists. The current state is fascist in nature.

[danberkeley]

so the state is some sort of physical object now? but even if that were true, how are they capitalists?

[danberkeley]

i want 100 trillion bushes of wheat within one minute. will the Venus project be able to satisfy my want?

[joesub007]

Can I demand a particle accelerator in my house be built in one minute? Physical laws cannot be broken no matter what the system it operates in.

[danberkeley]

what if I don't want to participate in the Venus Project? now what?

[joesub007]

Have a nice life and a nice death. Everybody dies. The question is when, where, why and how painful. For the defenders of an obsolete system their deaths usually can be quite painful at the hands of the angry mob. Who am I to go out of my way to defend you since I'm not the one making them angry?

[danberkeley]

Even if that were true, you maintain that we are under a free-market capitalist economy. However, we are not. This is where you fail. What is failing now is socialism; and socialism is not a type of capitalism.

[Leveer13]

Real world examples? How about the state of Michigan bud?

[danberkeley]

Lol. Government-backed unions are not part of the free-market capitalist economy. You fail again.

[Leveer13]

Right, because we should have no way to organize when employers ask us to work in inhuman conditions. Declaring that I "fail" really proves nothing other then that you are a troll. Try again.

[danberkeley]

Of course it doesn't prove anything; hence, the sentence before "fail" in my response. Care to try again?

[Leveer13]

If you came here to troll the Venus Project and you don't know what Cyclical Consumption is then you have "failed". And you should certainly "Try again". Stop trying to be snarky and contribute something valuable.