Paul Mason: The Latest Pied Piper of "the Death of Capitalism" • Gary North

Anyhow, I have to get back to work. Will be back over the next few days.

a reply to: greencmp

I wasn't trying to promote socialism or demote capitalism. Merely pointing out that what one poster here wrote - that he thought that socialism was a thing of the past, an artefact of days of yore - is not true. Socialism is very much alive today.

Even in the US of A, that classic example of a capitalistic country run by corporations, the military and the State - there are more and more people that see what I see: that a world in which people are merely seen as resources that help create wealth for a small part of the population while creating scarcity and the need for austerity for the masses in not just. It simply is not human. We've been there, done that, concluded that it was not the proper way - especially in Europe - so we should not go there again.

But what to do ... revolution? Kill a few merely to install a new ruling class - the names change, the system does not? Nope, been there too, and that's not the way either.

Our current system is flawed and near to it's demise. But for now it is what we have, it has served us well for a long time so, like with any old entity, so we respectfully wait until it dies. There is no need for a revolution and that Chinese investment group from the socialist republic of China just proved it: there are far simpler ways to overcome capitalism. Fight it with it's own weapons: buy it

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

Monopoly (the game) is a fantastically foreign representation of what equitable trade is. It really couldn't be further from how people actually behave and migrate or how resources are in fact utilized.

On the first point, that prices are only possible with private property, without the assignment of value as dictated by demand, no allocations can be made

Not true at all. It doesn't matter if the firm is privately owned or owned by the workers themselves. This the heart of socialism. Production run by workers. Singular owners or majority shareholders aren't necessary.

Is this an uncomfortable fact? Yes, so you'll deny it till your face turns blue. An example:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

No asphyxiation is necessary to refute either point.

originally posted by: JeanPaul
Anyhow, I have to get back to work. Will be back over the next few days.

Cool, thanks for your input!

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: greencmp

I wasn't trying to promote socialism or demote capitalism. Merely pointing out that what one poster here wrote - that he thought that socialism was a thing of the past, an artefact of days of yore - is not true. Socialism is very much alive today.

Even in the US of A, that classic example of a capitalistic country run by corporations, the military and the State - there are more and more people that see what I see: that a world in which people are merely seen as resources that help create wealth for a small part of the population while creating scarcity and the need for austerity for the masses in not just. It simply is not human. We've been there, done that, concluded that it was not the proper way - especially in Europe - so we should not go there again.

But what to do ... revolution? Kill a few merely to install a new ruling class - the names change, the system does not? Nope, been there too, and that's not the way either.

Our current system is flawed and near to it's demise. But for now it is what we have, it has served us well for a long time so, like with any old entity, so we respectfully wait until it dies. There is no need for a revolution and that Chinese investment group from the socialist republic of China just proved it: there are far simpler ways to overcome capitalism. Fight it with it's own weapons: buy it

Fair enough, we'll just have to see how it works out for that example but, my deeper point here is that interventionist interference and the distortions it causes cannot be blamed on the free market by definition.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: ketsukoOnce you lose the right to your basic property, the government that gives you everything can also take everything, and once you stop believing in your basic rights, they means nothing and the government will no respect them either.

Check. But that has nothing to do with leftwing, rightwing, capitalism or socialism. Governments of all sorts are known to violate the rights of the people. In fact, socialism AND capitalism would work nicely - if only the excesses would be reduced. There is no need for a super-wealthy 1 percent - it introduces a new subclass of poor. There is no need for the monopoly of just one party - it introduces a new subclass of outcasts.

But we never seem to learn.

It's human nature.

So in the end, which system would you rather? The system where you at least have the right of ownership over what you have worked to produce or the one where all that you have worked to produce is held in common with everyone else?

In the first system, you must be mostly self-dependent and rely on the charity of others if you fall down, but you can be insulated from the plundering of the greed of others at the time. They cannot take advantage of you unless you are unwary.

In the second, you have no protection from the greedy and if the whole system goes, there is no one you can appeal to.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Isurrender73

We need to stop thinking in black and white and start living in the middle ground. The only thing destroying Free Market Capitalism is massive wealth disparity.

Some would say the massive wealth disparity is due to the absence of free market capitalism.

The US government has been bought.

Allowing corporations to use the government for financial gain.

That is not capitalism.

The government was bought from day 1. Heck that was literally the entire political ideology of the Federalist party. Cater to business interests.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Isurrender73

We need to stop thinking in black and white and start living in the middle ground. The only thing destroying Free Market Capitalism is massive wealth disparity.

Some would say the massive wealth disparity is due to the absence of free market capitalism.

The US government has been bought.

Allowing corporations to use the government for financial gain.

That is not capitalism.

The government was bought from day 1. Heck that was literally the entire political ideology of the Federalist party. Cater to business interests.

Yes, they were also the party of the central bank.

a reply to: greencmp

Why yes, you are correct. The First Bank of the US was Hamilton's (the father of the Federalist Party) baby.

originally posted by: greencmp
my deeper point here is that interventionist interference and the distortions it causes cannot be blamed on the free market by definition.

It's all just mental masterbation.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
my deeper point here is that interventionist interference and the distortions it causes cannot be blamed on the free market by definition.

It's all just mental masterbation.

That is exactly how I thought about it in the before times.

a reply to: greencmp

Before what?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Before what?

Meaning when I was younger, it's a nerdy and unnecessary Star Trek reference I shouldn't have made.

a reply to: greencmp

No problem.

Funny it's the other way around for me. Ideals once sounded, well, ideal.

In the real world, people don't behave ideally.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

No problem.

Funny it's the other way around for me. Ideals once sounded, well, ideal.

In the real world, people don't behave ideally.

I do still oscillate to some degree as we all must.

Who knows exactly what I will "understand" next year. However, I think we have the faculties to prepare ourselves for debate with a pretty thorough set of bibliographic substance behind it. Jean-Paul just made me put Joseph Schumpeter on my reading list (he was there but, not prominent in my queue) so, just shootin the poo can be productive.

We do ultimately have to make a decision about the role of government in society.

originally posted by: greencmp
I think we have the faculties to prepare ourselves for debate with a pretty thorough set of bibliographic substance behind it.

Debate was what I meant by mental masturbation. It never gets past bibliographic substance.

We do ultimately have to make a decision about the role of government in society.

I think the role is pretty much set. How far it reaches is what the current tug of war is about.

originally posted by: ketsuko
It's human nature.

Not necessarily so. Read Kropotkin, for example.

So in the end, which system would you rather? The system where you at least have the right of ownership over what you have worked to produce or the one where all that you have worked to produce is held in common with everyone else?

The latter. I'm sitting here typing away using a machine that I never could produce on my own, using a network that never would have existed if there weren't other human beings to help create it. I don't "own" anything, I'm merely entitled to use something for a while.

In the first system, you must be mostly self-dependent and rely on the charity of others if you fall down, but you can be insulated from the plundering of the greed of others at the time.

Sigh. Greed is caused by scarcity. Scarcity is nonexistent in a world that has plenty for all, like ours. We are merely creating it by teaching our children that "having stuff" is important, by hammering in that you are what you HAVE not what you GIVE.

In the second, you have no protection from the greedy and if the whole system goes, there is no one you can appeal to.

Again: greed is taught, it is NOT in human nature. We have plenty, it's just a matter of civilisation, learning to give, learning to share. There really is plenty for all, if we simply decided to create it and share it freely.

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: greencmp (actually to all)

I happen to like (or have a propensity toward) reading discussions about economic models and the array of thoughts bent to fit a particular ideology.

Mostly it is a defense of maintaining ideas in a world that NEVER conforms exactly with the visions of dancing plums performing the prescribed minuet.

Since the models are normally projected from an ideal perspective, they FAIL. The world is not anything other than a statistical mash-up. This cause great fuzziness to develop in what had a been a clinical exercise.

The reason any system will stumble forward is that humans endeavor to find a niche (think hermit crabs) that will suit them. The impetus to achieve Maslow's 'needs' causes all interactions in every system. Most of these systems do not acknowledge the complete list (and it's not perfect) and start as inadequate. They are fundamentally flawed.

www.deepermind.com...

If that were true there would be no laws of nature, with constant identical reiterations of cause and effect, or human intelligence borne from whatever combination(s) of energy fields and emergent properties came to be.

There is a best system, and it is to be found not by dictating how people should act ( socialism ), but by allowing people to act naturally and then taking advantage of whatever phenomena occur ( the free market ).

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

Monopoly (the game) is a fantastically foreign representation of what equitable trade is. It really couldn't be further from how people actually behave and migrate or how resources are in fact utilized.

On the first point, that prices are only possible with private property, without the assignment of value as dictated by demand, no allocations can be made

Not true at all. It doesn't matter if the firm is privately owned or owned by the workers themselves. This the heart of socialism. Production run by workers. Singular owners or majority shareholders aren't necessary.

Is this an uncomfortable fact? Yes, so you'll deny it till your face turns blue. An example:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Production is always run by workers, because workers are consumers, and consumers determine which businesses will be profitable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Isurrender73

We need to stop thinking in black and white and start living in the middle ground. The only thing destroying Free Market Capitalism is massive wealth disparity.

Some would say the massive wealth disparity is due to the absence of free market capitalism.

The US government has been bought.

Allowing corporations to use the government for financial gain.

That is not capitalism.

The government was bought from day 1. Heck that was literally the entire political ideology of the Federalist party. Cater to business interests.

Close, I would say cater to business cartels. Business is simply voluntary activity. Cartelism is control, from the denial of voluntary activity to outright coercion, over business.