Is 90% of Unemployment Really the Fault of the Unemployed?

[Art]

Can I get sources for all those quotes?

Don't you trust me?
Btw I'm sure you could get sources but I guess what you really mean is will I supply you with the sources for all of these quotes.
1) Soros - http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_02.06.97/news_views/media.html
2) Kuttner - his book 'Everything for Sale'
3) Freeman - http://www.inequality.org/freeman2.html
4) Reich - http://ncrve.berkeley.edu/CW73/Reich.html

 

[Mercator]

Well, the obvious way for a government to function without taxes would be to ask people to voluntarily donate money. Sure, lots of people wouldn't donate, but some would, and if the government wasn't supporting a welfare state it would require much less money to operate.
Another method I've heard suggested would be for the government to charge a fee to enforce contracts. If two people made a contract and didn't pay this fee, the government wouldn't enforce the contract, and it would just be so much paper. If they had paid the fee, and one of them tried to brake the contract, the government would force that person to uphold his end of the bargain.
At any rate, I hate the current system of fining people for being productive.

Voluntarily donate money? No taxes? Sounds like the pure communism to me. Do you actually need money in your system?

 

[Mercator]

Actually Capitalism has only been able to survive because it has allowed social corrections. In my view, Marx and his theory and later the failed experiments in USSR and China were direct results of the pure capitalism. Worker's conditions in the 19 th century were appaling. No wonder that people like Marx came up with what looked like a more human solution. In West Europe worker's conditions were only marginally better than in the old Russia. But after the Russian revolution, workers started to revolt. In Belgium we had a priest, Daens who stood up for the rights of workers and in the beginning of the 20 th century there were constant clashes between the workers and the rulers. As there were in the US , by the way. Labour day, 1 st of may originated in the US. Frightened by the USSR example, the leading class had to find solutions. So they started to give into worker's demands. One by one, universal suffrage, limited workweek, holidays, social security were introduced so that the situation would not deteriorate into another civil war. So, ironically, capitalism was saved by communism and introducing socialist elements.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I see no difference between asserting that the system is flawed, and asserting that a system is corrupted by flawed people.
If a system, after being established, allows it's self to be exploited and changed by flawed people, it is, as far as I can see, as flawed as the people exploiting it.

Lol... a system requires people to run it Smurf. The original idea may have been great and worked just fine or perhaps needed some fine tuning once it's wheels actually hit the pavement and there were some minor problems. Just because certain people in influencial positions saw opertunities to flex their muscle and adjust the system to be more beneficial to them does not mean the system is flawed but that the operators are flawed and this is being reflected in the output of the system.

Just because people have been known to cheat at a game and maybe even force or trick others into allowing them to cheat does not mean that the game is inherantly unfair. In any of the systems we are referring to here the "pawn" has quite a bit of power. The fact that the pawn chooses not to utilize that power is no one's fault but it's own. If it allows itself to be tricked and forced into untenable positions it is still it's own fault. As long as there are those around who will exploit the pawns and the pawns are unwilling to flex their power it does not matter what system you put in place. The pawns will inevitably be exploited. Changing the rules of the game will not prevent the cheaters from cheating.

I could begin explaining why capitalism seems to work better, in my opinion(note please that I am not stating it is a fact), than communism (or other systems) but unless we can agree on what I stated above there isn't much point.

 

[Mercator]

What I also notice on this board is that only few people bother to make distinction between anarchism ,communism , socialism and social welfare measures. I have the impression that many Americans think in left-right terms and in their mind "Liberal" stands for everything from libertarians to minimum wage defenders. In fact communism and socialism stand in each other's way. In China, after a period of communist experiment and "dictatorship of the proletariat", with the well known results, only the dictatorship is kept as the political system, while the economic system is as close to the pure capitalism as you can find in the world today. As spectacular as the results are, we here in China all know that this situation is not sustainable. There are already cracks in the ceiling. What China needs to do now, is to become a little more socialist, like the US , or Europe otherwise the capitalist experiment will not survive.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually Capitalism has only been able to survive because it has allowed social corrections. In my view, Marx and his theory and later the failed experiments in USSR and China were direct results of the pure capitalism. Worker's conditions in the 19 th century were appaling. No wonder that people like Marx came up with what looked like a more human solution. In West Europe worker's conditions were only marginally better than in the old Russia. But after the Russian revolution, workers started to revolt. In Belgium we had a priest, Daens who stood up for the rights of workers and in the beginning of the 20 th century there were constant clashes between the workers and the rulers. As there were in the US , by the way. Labour day, 1 st of may originated in the US. Frightened by the USSR example, the leading class had to find solutions. So they started to give into worker's demands. One by one, universal suffrage, limited workweek, holidays, social security were introduced so that the situation would not deteriorate into another civil war. So, ironically, capitalism was saved by communism and introducing socialist elements.

It's only logical that in any system all parties must be happy with the situation or all parties suffer. It may take revolution for the most powerful party to suffer but it will happen. In this I can agree with Marx.

 

[Mercator]

Lol... a system requires people to run it Smurf. The original idea may have been great and worked just fine or perhaps needed some fine tuning once it's wheels actually hit the pavement and there were some minor problems. Just because certain people in influencial positions saw opertunities to flex their muscle and adjust the system to be more beneficial to them does not mean the system is flawed but that the operators are flawed and this is being reflected in the output of the system.
Just because people have been known to cheat at a game and maybe even force or trick others into allowing them to cheat does not mean that the game is inherantly unfair. In any of the systems we are referring to here the "pawn" has quite a bit of power. The fact that the pawn chooses not to utilize that power is no one's fault but it's own. If it allows itself to be tricked and forced into untenable positions it is still it's own fault. As long as there are those around who will exploit the pawns and the pawns are unwilling to flex their power it does not matter what system you put in place. The pawns will inevitably be exploited. Changing the rules of the game will not prevent the cheaters from cheating.
I could begin explaining why capitalism seems to work better, in my opinion(note please that I am not stating it is a fact), than communism (or other systems) but unless we can agree on what I stated above there isn't much point.

TSA, but a key factor in discussions if this or that system works IS people's nature. If you discuss communism in a vacuum, it sounds fantastic. But put one greedy bastard in the equation and the whole theory fails. And the same goes for capitalism.
To me, the old definitions of communism etc... have little use anymore in the present day situation. I rather look at socio-economic systems in a Darwinistic way. The systems have been constantly evolving into a very complex "living" body. Explaining the Chinese situation with terms like "communism" is like dissecting a body with an axe, in the hope to find the formula of DNA!
Like the evolution of living organisms, there will never be an end to the evolution of societies. There will be unexpected events, unsuccesfull mutations etc... The best we can hope for is that eventually we reach a state that is reasonable for a majority of people and that we can maintain and control.

 

[pi-r8]

The only way that a corporation wouldn't have gained any power from taking the government would be if the government had no power at all. i.e. that it didn't exist. If the government has the right to enforce anything, then it can be used.
Scenario: The government is controlled completely by McDonalds because they're the only one's that donate money to them. A small restaurant opens up on the main street of New York. McDonalds doesn't like this. The police arrest the the restaurant owner on trumped up charges and execute him.

I don't see how your scenario could possibly come to pass. Why would only ONE corporation be giving money to the government? Surely a few other people would be giving money. Asking about what would happen if only one corporation gave all the money to the government is like asking about what would happen if only person in the world possessed every single weapon. Whatever would we do?

 

[pi-r8]

Voluntarily donate money? No taxes? Sounds like the pure communism to me. Do you actually need money in your system?

Money is what makes capitalism work. One difference, however, is that in pure capitalism money would be printed by private banks, not the government.

Oh, and surely you see a difference between a system where the government completely regulates the economy (communism) and one where it doesn't regulate the economy at all (capitalism)?

 

[Mercator]

Money is what makes capitalism work. One difference, however, is that in pure capitalism money would be printed by private banks, not the government.
Oh, and surely you see a difference between a system where the government completely regulates the economy (communism) and one where it doesn't regulate the economy at all (capitalism)?

pi-r8 , here is a definition of communism:
An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.
What you proposed comes pretty close, probably to your own amazement.
If you want to use the government argument, you should talk about "regimes using the label communist (but are far from it's principles)"

 

[Smurf]

the proper term (i.e. accoring to neoclassical economics) for what you referred to as communism, pi-r8, is a "command economy".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSA, but a key factor in discussions if this or that system works IS people's nature. If you discuss communism in a vacuum, it sounds fantastic. But put one greedy bastard in the equation and the whole theory fails. And the same goes for capitalism.
To me, the old definitions of communism etc... have little use anymore in the present day situation. I rather look at socio-economic systems in a Darwinistic way. The systems have been constantly evolving into a very complex "living" body. Explaining the Chinese situation with terms like "communism" is like dissecting a body with an axe, in the hope to find the formula of DNA!
Like the evolution of living organisms, there will never be an end to the evolution of societies. There will be unexpected events, unsuccesfull mutations etc... The best we can hope for is that eventually we reach a state that is reasonable for a majority of people and that we can maintain and control.

I agree mostly. The thing is finding a system that best accomidates for the trouble with human nature. Russ and I believe that Capitalism does this. Ofcourse there need to be rules (laws) which prevent the system from being perverted to suit the needs of the few over the needs of the many. It seems to me though that the inherant checks and balances in capitalism reduces the need (reduces, not nullifies) for a governing body to keep things fair and the need to trust in that governing body. Micro managment is more or less taken care of by the citizens in a society with a capitalist economy.
Another point which favours capitalism in my opinion is the way in which it parallels Darwinism. For an investment of resources to continue it must survive in the market. Theoretically a mismanaged investment should not survive and the resources will cease being wasted once the endevour sinks. No one person then is necessarily trusted to make that decision for us. Unfortunately here in the US the government is fond of bailing out mismanaged operations.

be back in a minute

 

[Smurf]

Money is what makes capitalism work. One difference, however, is that in pure capitalism money would be printed by private banks, not the government.

While we're on the subject of definitions what you're referring to isn't really "capitalism" either. You're referring to is probably best called neoconservatism. Also known as Uber-privatization or Reaganism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

to continue...

Once the government gets involved by bailing businesses out we start to see something more like corporatism. Corporatism is a system under which the government allows favoured individuals to run business (corporations) to the exclusion of others. What we have currently in the US has been described as Neo-Corporatism. There are certain indivduals whose businesses (or corporations) are favoured by government legislation allowing them certain benefits and added survivability. This goes against the capitalist ideology because the government is now stepping in and meddling in the market, more or less. The capitalist (not the one of epithetical fame) should not stand for such meddling.

I will concede though that there are certain matters which are too important to allow to be gambled on in a capitalist market. In some areas it is probably better for the government to take control so that vital resources are not mismanaged and allocated in a manner that best suits the needs of the society.

 

[pi-r8]

pi-r8 , here is a definition of communism:
An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.
What you proposed comes pretty close, probably to your own amazement.
If you want to use the government argument, you should talk about "regimes using the label communist (but are far from it's principles)"

All I can say is- don't make me laugh. Do you think it's a coincidence that the more communist countries have ALWAYS had more government control of the economy? The ONLY way that the laborers will have complete control of production is if the government FORCES those who own it to do what the laborers want.
That being said... that definition is nothing like what I was describing. A capitalist government would protect property rights. I'm quite sure that there'd still be social classes, and that the laborers would NOT own the means of production, if there was a capitalist government. Whoever owned the factory could do what he wanted with it, even if it made all his workers poorer.

 

[Smurf]

All I can say is- don't make me laugh. Do you think it's a coincidence that the more communist countries have ALWAYS had more government control of the economy?

*gasp* Could it be that pi-r8 has finally stumbled upon the reason why every marxist in the world (except those in government of said countries) calls China and Cuba non-communist!??

Nah, he's too partisan for that. He'll just shoot back some half-arsed reply that doesn't actually address the issue.

 

[pi-r8]

While we're on the subject of definitions what you're referring to isn't really "capitalism" either. You're referring to is probably best called neoconservatism. Also known as Uber-privatization or Reaganism.

I've never heard any "neocon" argue for eliminating taxes and government money. Reagan definitely didn't. And I wouldn't call it "Uber-privatization" because that would imply that all functions of the government are privatized, which would not be the case under a capitalist government.

The best name i know for it is laissez-faire capitalism- "hands free" capitalism, in which the government takes no part in running the economy. That's all I'm advocating- a free market.

 

[pi-r8]

*gasp* Could it be that pi-r8 has finally stumbled upon the reason why every marxist in the world (except those in government of said countries) calls China and Cuba non-communist!??
Nah, he's too partisan for that. He'll just shoot back some half-arsed reply that doesn't actually address the issue.

Insults aside... what would you call China and Cuba then? Would you call them communist if their economy had been structured in the same way, but the people had spontaneously decided to do that of their own free will, with no government intervention? Why they'd do that, I can't imagine...

 

[Mercator]

I agree mostly. The thing is finding a system that best accomidates for the trouble with human nature. Russ and I believe that Capitalism does this. Ofcourse there need to be rules (laws) which prevent the system from being perverted to suit the needs of the few over the needs of the many. It seems to me though that the inherant checks and balances in capitalism reduces the need (reduces, not nullifies) for a governing body to keep things fair and the need to trust in that governing body. Micro managment is more or less taken care of by the citizens in a society with a capitalist economy.
Another point which favours capitalism in my opinion is the way in which it parallels Darwinism. For an investment of resources to continue it must survive in the market. Theoretically a mismanaged investment should not survive and the resources will cease being wasted once the endevour sinks. No one person then is necessarily trusted to make that decision for us. Unfortunately here in the US the government is fond of bailing out mismanaged operations.
be back in a minute

Yeah, well, you say you agree mostly, but then you switch again to the idealist vision: capitalism does this. My point is that neither capitalism, socialism nor communism does it and that the socio-economic structures today are all hybrids. I think we're pretty close in our views but that the biggest problem in our communication is the terminology. I state that the US is not a "pure" capitalist society, and neither are the European countries. The US may be closer to the original definition of "Capitalism" however.
The parrallel with Darwinism is a dangerous one, because, again the terminology is often not well understood and even abused. Still today some people think "survival of the fittest" just means that it's ok to root out the weak.
Where biological evolution is essentially about adaptation of a set of genes in order to survive, on a macro scale it is the adaptation of the "genes of society" in order for the world to survive, in other words adaptation of the rules. The two evolutions are not parrallel. Take procreation. Humans, like other animals have sexual strategies to give their genes maximal chances of replication. On the society level, another strategy might be applicable, for example the "one child policy" of the Chinese, which is much debated, but which allows the Chinese society (and most probably the world) to survive on the resources they have. But this is getting off topic, so I'll stop here.

 

[Smurf]

The best name i know for it is laissez-faire capitalism- "hands free" capitalism, in which the government takes no part in running the economy. That's all I'm advocating- a free market.

AND a privatization of that market. And you're probably right about neoconservatism, although they might like your idea of giving money control to private banks. (can you say in-fla-tion?)

 

[Smurf]

Insults aside... what would you call China and Cuba then?

I think Totaltarian, Oligarchy (China) and Dictatorship (Cuba) work fine. Dictatorships with command economies are still dictatorships.

I don't understand you're second question. Command economies are command economies, doens't matter where they come from.

 

[pi-r8]

(can you say in-fla-tion?)

yeah, zero inflation. I, for one, would only use a bank with gold-backed currency, if I had that option.

 

[Smurf]

yeah, zero inflation. I, for one, would only use a bank with gold-backed currency, if I had that option.

which would have exactly zero effect on inflation unless every bank did that.

You know there's a reason the US got rid of the Gold standard, right?

 

[pi-r8]

which would have exactly zero effect on inflation unless every bank did that.
You know there's a reason the US got rid of the Gold standard, right?

You do understand that the banks would have different currencies, right? So if one bank decided to inflate its currency it wouldn't affect mine.

And the reason we got rid of the gold standard was basically to help farmers falt on their loans by increasing inflation so that they'd be cheaper to repay. So yes, a gold standard does reduce inflation.

 

[Mercator]

All I can say is- don't make me laugh. Do you think it's a coincidence that the more communist countries have ALWAYS had more government control of the economy? The ONLY way that the laborers will have complete control of production is if the government FORCES those who own it to do what the laborers want.
That being said... that definition is nothing like what I was describing. A capitalist government would protect property rights. I'm quite sure that there'd still be social classes, and that the laborers would NOT own the means of production, if there was a capitalist government. Whoever owned the factory could do what he wanted with it, even if it made all his workers poorer.

Why does a correct definition of "communism" makes you laugh?
And I rest my case: what you proposed does show certain features of the idealist communism: no regulation whatsoever. In French they say " Les extremes se touchent".
I just want to make you see that it is nonsense to compare a real, pragmatic situation with an idealism. Personally I don't believe in any idealism, because in the real world the proper circumstances to create that idealism are never there. And when you try to simplify a situation with idealist views, you often find to your own amazement that you are talking the same BS as your opponent, like you just did. Communists want a society where everyone lives in freedom and abundance according to his own needs. So do you. You may have different afterthoughts, like for you it would be OK to exploite people to get the level of abundance you like, while a communist thinks more about an egalitarian society, but these are afterthoughts and are not the essentials of either idealism.

 

[pi-r8]

Why does a correct definition of "communism" makes you laugh?

I guess I just can't help but associate "communism" with the inevitable result of every country that's ever tried it. You can talk all you want about how communism doesn't involve regulation, but the only way for it to achieve its stated economic goals of having the worker own the means of production is to enforce this with government regulation. (and even then, as we've seen, it doesn't really work).

I also think you're still mistaken about what capitalism means. It's not supposed to create "a society where everyone lives in freedom and abundance according to his own needs." That's not the goal at all. It's only supposed to protect people's property rights, which allows them to own as much property as they want, even if the don't labor at all. Are you starting to see the difference between capitalism and communism?

And if you don't believe in idealism... how could you believe in anything?

 

[Mercator]

I guess I just can't help but associate "communism" with the inevitable result of every country that's ever tried it. You can talk all you want about how communism doesn't involve regulation, but the only way for it to achieve its stated economic goals of having the worker own the means of production is to enforce this with government regulation. (and even then, as we've seen, it doesn't really work).
I also think you're still mistaken about what capitalism means. It's not supposed to create "a society where everyone lives in freedom and abundance according to his own needs." That's not the goal at all. It's only supposed to protect people's property rights, which allows them to own as much property as they want, even if the don't labor at all. Are you starting to see the difference between capitalism and communism?
And if you don't believe in idealism... how could you believe in anything?

An idealism is per definition an extreme. Or a "pure state". I am to old to believe in a pure state. I believe in realism and not in dreams like communism or capitalism. Reality is much more complex.

 

[Mercator]

And pi-r8: it's you who wrote this:

In my system, the government would have absolutely no power over the economy- it would be completely unregulated. ?

Again, I'm just trying to make you see that this coincides with a communist idealistic view. Or in short: I'm trying to expose simplism.

And now I'm going to make some good, capitalist money on the back of the proletariat! See you later.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah, well, you say you agree mostly, but then you switch again to the idealist vision: capitalism does this. My point is that neither capitalism, socialism nor communism does it and that the socio-economic structures today are all hybrids. I think we're pretty close in our views but that the biggest problem in our communication is the terminology. I state that the US is not a "pure" capitalist society, and neither are the European countries. The US may be closer to the original definition of "Capitalism" however.
The parrallel with Darwinism is a dangerous one, because, again the terminology is often not well understood and even abused. Still today some people think "survival of the fittest" just means that it's ok to root out the weak.
Where biological evolution is essentially about adaptation of a set of genes in order to survive, on a macro scale it is the adaptation of the "genes of society" in order for the world to survive, in other words adaptation of the rules. The two evolutions are not parrallel. Take procreation. Humans, like other animals have sexual strategies to give their genes maximal chances of replication. On the society level, another strategy might be applicable, for example the "one child policy" of the Chinese, which is much debated, but which allows the Chinese society (and most probably the world) to survive on the resources they have. But this is getting off topic, so I'll stop here.

I agree with you that idealism will not work. I agree that the US is not purely capitalist, which I think I even pointed out in my post.
Also I do not define Darwinism as rooting out the weak but as adapting to the environment. I mean it the way that I am applying it though my description of the way I apply it may have been lacking for which I apologize.
Now while I am not one to go in for idealism I do believe that the basic elements of capitalism should fair better than those of other systems when adapting to the real world. To me capitalism just seems more flexible at the basic level than any other system. I do agree with so called socialist ideas of regulating the economic structure but only in that I see it as necessary to prevent the system from losing it's principal basis. If such things as monopolies were allowable it would only defeat the purpose of capitalism which I see as keeping significant control of the economy out of the hands of the government. Once someone gains a monopoly then that particular portion of the market may as well be in the hands of a government. A capitalist system should seek to keep such control diversified.
I also think that the system will evolve and eventually capitalism will for the most part be outmoded. I do not thump a capitalist bible, I just don't like it when people thump the Marxist bible where in capitalism is the antichrist.

 

[Smurf]

An idealism is per definition an extreme. Or a "pure state". I am to old to believe in a pure state. I believe in realism and not in dreams like communism or capitalism. Reality is much more complex.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98938

 

[Smurf]

I also think that the system will evolve and eventually capitalism will for the most part be outmoded. I do not thump a capitalist bible, I just don't like it when people thump the Marxist bible where in capitalism is the antichrist.

Seeing as Capitalism (a system where the main means of production are privately owned and distributed by a free market) is the dominant system in the world today, and some would say the only one, you can't really expect it not to be constantly under attack.

 

[flotsam]

capitalism's greatest strength is that it feeds on human nature,

That is a completelly flawed view. In a crude sense "survival of the fittest" is used by capitalists to justify exploitation.

There is such a thing as human nature
1) it expresses itself and is conditioned in definite ways by the social/material environment in any given historical instance and epoch
2) dialectically, the human species is genetically predisposed both to selfishness, and to collective action, solidarity, and gregariousness.We are both an individual and social animal.
3) consequently, there exists no genetic or biological reason why a genuine, democratic and libertarian socialism cannot work.

We can all lay claim to 'human nature', but capitalism encourages only a side of human nature.

 

[Mercator]

That is a completelly flawed view. In a crude sense "survival of the fittest" is used by capitalists to justify exploitation.
There is such a thing as human nature
1) it expresses itself and is conditioned in definite ways by the social/material environment in any given historical instance and epoch
2) dialectically, the human species is genetically predisposed both to selfishness, and to collective action, solidarity, and gregariousness.We are both an individual and social animal.
3) consequently, there exists no genetic or biological reason why a genuine, democratic and libertarian socialism cannot work.
We can all lay claim to 'human nature', but capitalism encourages only a side of human nature.

Flotsam, this is supported by new ideas in evolution theory. If evolution would only be applicable to genes, the "core" capitalists would be right. But evolution , as Dawkins first mentioned is a replication mechanism, not only applicable to genes, but also on other processes . He gives the example of memes. And ultimately, it's applicable to the society as a whole, where individuals can be considered as the building blocks of a giant DNA-like structure. The survival of this structure is as important as the survival of the genes on a lower level. And even reductionists can interprete the "society evolution" as a replication strategy of the gene, because it becomes clearer day by day that new strategies are needed for our genes to survive future events.

 

[flotsam]

Flotsam, this is supported by new ideas in evolution theory. If evolution would only be applicable to genes, the "core" capitalists would be right. But evolution , as Dawkins first mentioned is a replication mechanism, not only applicable to genes, but also on other processes . He gives the example of memes. And ultimately, it's applicable to the society as a whole, where individuals can be considered as the building blocks of a giant DNA-like structure. The survival of this structure is as important as the survival of the genes on a lower level. And even reductionists can interprete the "society evolution" as a replication strategy of the gene, because it becomes clearer day by day that new strategies are needed for our genes to survive future events.

I completely concur.