The problem of Capitalism

I didn't do that. I said people who can't live normally with other people are a burden whether they are family or not.

Garbage. The world can't be fixed until an effective WAY to fix it is identified. That's where I come in.

 

No it's not. It's correct everywhere.

Nope. The infrastructure is already there. You just pay for your own connection to it. You get that value by owning the land. Which is why you choose to connect to the existing infrastructure rather than produce your own electric power.

Then your land isn't worth very much. Duh.

Which are commensurately lower than in better-serviced locations.

Hehe. Why not, do you think?

 

You are missing Griffith's point, by confusing "human nature" with the "human condition".

{btw, Griffith is a professor of biology).

Human nature, biologically speaking, is the result of the gradual evolution of self-awareness - and with it the instinct-rejecting search for knowledge, proceeding from our ape ancestors.

It's this mental conflict between conscious thought/search for knowledge on the one hand, and still present unconscious instinct on the other hand, that alienates us both within ourselves and with other individuals, that leads to what Griffith describes as the "human condition", which indeed is a type of psychosis (unresolved inner mental conflict).

[And let's face it, any intelligent life form looking down at us on this planet, and observing our behaviour, would conclude we are insane. I was looking at a 1945 picture of Beauvais the other day; most of the priceless ancient heritage of the town destroyed, though the wonderful 13th century cathedral survived (with the highest choir vault in the world - the nave was never built, for various reasons)].

Co-operation will come 'voluntarily' through knowledge, when we understand our present conflicted "human condition".

"Know thyself" indeed......

 

But everyone needs the means to access vital resources, which is a far greater problem in the world today than a refusal to share with friends.

This argument is mostly self-delusion on your part, to justify avoiding your responsibility to society as a whole, apart from freely assisting friends and family.

Re the "taxpayer-funded existence", which is your real concern in all this - but you can't admit it, because you don't understand the function of taxation in a fiat economy, and consequently you think taxation will necessarily negatively impact your own prosperity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2019/03/05/mmt-sense-or-nonsense/#563feed45852

In this article, John T Harvey, professor of economics at Texas Christian University, explains why mainstream macro economists like Krugman, Summers and Rogoff are wrong in their view of taxation.

In short, the Fed can create money up to the point of ensuring full-employment (but no further).

As Harvey says (in point 4 of his refutation of the obsolete mainstream view):

"4. Money is not scarce. Both the private and public sector create it with a keystroke. The mechanism by which each works is different, of course."

And his points 10 and 11, re a Job Guarantee:

"10. It is immoral for the government not to act when a) we have the ability to produce goods and services for these (un/underemployed) people and b) they want to work. If the private sector cannot make a profit by hiring those unemployed workers, then fair enough: it should not be expected to do so.

11. Instead, they should be hired into the public sector. So long as we have social problems that are not 'profitable'—national defense, police and fire protection, infrastructure repair, public education, cleaning and protecting the environment, caring for the elderly and infirm, etc—then plenty of employment opportunities will exist."

But as Harvey observes in his conclusion:

<<John Maynard Keynes wrote in the preface to the General Theory (incidentally, “Keynes” and “Keynesian” are not the same thing...long story!):

"The composition of this book has been for the author a long struggle of escape, and so must the reading of it be for most readers if the author's assault upon them is to be successful,—a struggle of escape from habitual modes of thought and expression. The ideas which are here expressed so laboriously are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds".

As I read through the criticisms by Krugman, Summers, and Rogoff, I kept thinking of Keynes’ words. Those prominent economists aren’t even so much rejecting MMT as holding tight to their own orthodox views. This is not necessarily on purpose, but it’s extremely difficult for anyone to make a paradigm shift. MMT, aka macroeconomics done properly, is, as Keynes says, “extremely simple and should be obvious.” The problem we have here is the difficulty in escaping from antiquated notions of macro modeling (Krugman), inflation (Summers), and debt financing (Rogoff).>>

Like you thinking that the government's budget faces the same constraints as your own household budget - it doesn't.

 

I'll say it again, if the acquisition of land was easy for you, then it's you who is privileged. It was very difficult for me.

 

1) And if everyone shared theirs (with family/friends), then no one would lack those things - obviously. The problem is that many First Worlders regard family as a burden, and refuse to share. Sometimes, it's even the very people who insist on Govt sanctioned 'sharing'. Imagine your internal struggles trying to reconcile that hot mess.

2) My responsibility to society is patently manifest in the sharing of my land and housing resources, paying my taxes happily and in full, and voting in Govts who support free education and healthcare. What are YOU doing?

3) You couldn't possibly be more wrong. I'm FOR taxation. I have zero interest in absconding from my personal liability for funding the system I vote in and support.

 

It will never come, because Leftist Progressives will never relinquish their death grip on selfish isolationism.

There is more cooperation in small rural communities peopled by Conservatives and religious folk.

 

So don't be a burden - be a good solid family member. That's the responsibility we all have, to ourselves, and to the tax paying citizenry.

You cannot "fix the world" .. no matter who you are and what you say or think. ALL you can do is fix yourself. If enough of us fix ourselves, the world is fixed.

 

It's not easy for anyone who doesn't already own land. That's kinda the point.

 

Wrong again. We have an obligation to respect others' rights or make just compensation for abrogating them. Landowners just like being legally entitled to abrogate others' rights WITHOUT making just compensation for what they take from everyone else.

That is merely the claim of someone who does not WANT the world to be fixed. As I said before, you LIKE injustice and prefer it to justice.

 

That's the micro economic view.

But there's a whole world of macroeconomics out there....and the basics - eg, to achieve full employment - are remarkably simple, as Keynes said, but the change in thinking required is difficult.

The positive thing is many are accepting Keynes' challenge (as outlined by prof. Harvey in my previous post).

 

But Keynes was proven wrong long ago.

 

1) ALL of us are beholden to our communities, as they are to us. Mutual responsibility is precisely what is lacking from the lives of spoiled First Worlders, who demand exlusivity for themselves - while demanding that 'someone else' be the change they claim to seek.

2) You can't be serious. I'm the one who is so committed to 'fixing the world' that I altered my entire life to BE that fix. What are you doing besides talking? It's pretty darned clear who is genuine in this scenario, dontcha think?

 

All change happens at the micro level. Organically, via us .. the people. Democracy means that's the ONLY way it will ever happen.

PS: 'full employment'? sure ... just like 20thC Communist China. Awesome.

 

Stalin was certainly a monster. However, you show no understanding of Marxist analysis. His power was, by definition, alien to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Its weird that anti-Marxists tend to also know little about capitalism. Its as if there is a conspiracy...

 

His power was "alien to the dictatorship of the proletariat"
The key word is "dictatorship"
and Communist dictatorships are unlike any seen in any other political system.
You might be right about "not understanding" for certainly I do not understand
Marxism - but I know something of the history of Marxist states.

Have you seen the funny picture in Reddit about Marx? It shows the five nations
who were lifted up by Marxism. It goes like this
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -

all blank.

 

As I said, you don't understand the Marxist analysis. Its a transitional stage as the economy evolves from capitalism to communism. Use the term correctly or show yourself up!

Two things here! Good of you to admit you're speaking from ignorance. Its then a shame that you refer to the bogus term 'Marxist states'. Marxism provides us with an economic school of thought. Stalin wasn't a Marxist. He was a dictator that benefited from the extremes of state capitalism.

You might want to try more mature comment.

 

Wrong.

In fact, post WW2, most western nations applied Keynesian principles of government deficit spending, resulting a "golden age of capitalism", producing full employment and social services like universal heath care in many nations.

This era came to an end in the 70's due to increasing competition from Asia, with it's (at the time) comparatively low wages, and inflation caused by the ME oil embargo.

The emergent "new Keynesianism" which attempted to deal with this situation is what failed; and as Prof. Harvey noted "the new Keynesians have nothing to do with Keynes".

 

All change begins at the micro level, with people like Jesus Christ, through Marx - and Keynes.

Historically, we might say Marx over-reacted against the human rights abuses of private sector capitalism with minimal government intervention (eg children forced to work in coal mines instead of schooling, during the rise of the industrial revolution) with his proposal for a virtually 100% public-sector based economy, as in "workers of the world, unite".

But post Keynes, and fast forward to the present, we know both private and public sector activity are required to combine efficiency and full employment.

Btw, your concept: "organically, via us": is the macro level = all of us (duh) .

As a matter of fact, above poverty employment is listed as a Universal Right (Article 25, UNUDHR).

Not like China - to the extent that the Chinese people are actually disgruntled with their system - but as outlined by prof. Harvey.

Currently the world is in uproar over lack of employment opportunities and in the US yesterday Trump has said crime in Chicago is a "national disgrace" (and meanwhile crowds are gathering at sporting events and other public places where Trump is appearing and chanting "lock him up, lock him up"....cor blimey, aren't our democracies just so admirable in comparison to China..."awesome" indeed!

The solution, of course, is guaranteed above poverty employment for anyone who wants to work.

The latest correct description of macroeconomics (MMT) describes how to achieve it.

BTW, even Mario Draghi has mentioned MMT lately (as reported in a Bloomberg article), saying it's a new idea which needs to be studied.

 

By who? Donald Duck ... ?

 

From: World Population Review - Map of Communist Countries

 

Reiver, I did try reading Marx, Engels, Hegel etc..
Drove me mad. So stupid, given all we know today about
the End Result of Communism.

 

By reality.

 

SYSTEMIC ECONOMIC UNFAIRNESS

Well put!

Harping back nostalgically to the 19th century writers who had decent claims (at the time) against the unfair land-ownership of nearly ALL the European royal-families is nothing to crow about more than a century later! The steam-engine was invented and that particular economic-paradigm changed dramatically overnight in the latter half of the 19th century with fundamental economic consequences.

But, also, so was communist ideology spawned at that very same time, and came to an explosion in Russia's Bolshevik Revolution (1917).

Fast Forward to today:
*Economic analyses now have a first-indicator of what is happening in the "sharing of National Income" generated by a totally "free" market economy. And that assessment (called Income Inequality or Disparity) does not look all that good for the Uncle Sam - but it depends upon what-is-comparable. Zambia and the USofA are NOT comparable economies.
*So, it's off to the OECD (which ARE comparable economies) for this Gini-based Income Inequality comparative chart here:


MY POINT

And how does it happen (that Uncle Sam is the worst at reducing Income Inequality)? Primarily because Income becomes Wealth and Wealth aggregates to-and-kept by a select minority of families. Who are typically well-known and do not hide-themselves as they do in Europe.

And why is Income Disparity such an important matter? Because, this is what is happening historically in the US:


Yes, it just does not "go way". It also grows! And if you are in that Green Line, you are well below the Poverty Threshold. If you are on that Blue Line, you are likely an Average Income Earner. If you are on the Red Line - lucky you! (But watch your backside!)

If it gets out of hand some very, very awesome events happen. As it has in the past in Europe and the Watts Riot in the US. Because the down-and-out rise and try to show the world around them their animosity towards systemic economic unfairness.

Cant wait for it to happen again in the USofA? Patience - it's just a matter of time ... !

 

Actually that's not what happened. Keynes was proven wrong during his lifetime by other economists like F.A. Hayek. Deficit spending and massive government programs have weakened the economies of the countries who implemented it. The 70s were made worse with the total detachment of the dollar from gold, making Keynesian deficit spending even easier, and the welfare/warfare state grew ever larger. Keynesian ideas are like poison--the more you take the worse off you are. The fact that we can take a little and still live doesn't prove that they work.