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

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Please define "way"

The fashion in which you chose to communicate "the fact that it doesn't exist".

and the antecedent of "they".

The plural of "it", quoted above, refering to free markets.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

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

What a silly statement. Production is run by workers when they own the company. Point blank. There's no debating this. We're talking about the relations at the point of production. Not supply/demand.

The consumers decide what they will pay for what quantity. That sets the parameters for production, in effect limiting the choices of a business to the single best way to produce.

The consumers decide how a company will be run by how much money they choose to spend on its output.

You're ignoring the relations at the point of production. We're not talking about supply/demand. The same can occur under
Market socialist conditions, with no planning. The only difference are the relations at the point of production ie worker owned firms.

Anyhow even your assertion isn't 100% true. Mass marketing campaigns manufacture wants and desires. Edward Berneys mastered this and actually worked with multiple corporations to manufacture demand. It started with his smoking campaign. Manipulating women to think smoking signified freedom/independence. From there it dovetailed into a great number of things.

It starts at a very you g age as well. This manipulative marketing:

youtu.be...

Again, we're talking about the relations at the point of production, but I'll fall for your supply/demand red herring.

Here are some examples showing "manufactured demand":

youtu.be...

Bernays talking about manipulating women into smoking (above).

Another example:

youtu.be...

Having that said, so called supply/demand is manipulated but again, I'm talking about the importance of the relations at the point of production itself. Acting like these relations are insignificant is a trick many economists try to pull so its nothing new, what you're trying to do here.

I don't thinks socialism is a complete failure.

On a small or local scale I think its quite viable. It when you scale it up to a national level it falls apart, badly.

Capitalism works better on a national level but still fails if it gets to big and interconnected. What made the Depression of 1929 and Recession of 2008 so bad was how interconnected the world was and how a # up in a larger country (USA) country could screw smaller country's up.

At the end of the day decentralization is whats needed with local smaller ares forming there own economic policy's.

originally posted by: crazyewok
I don't thinks socialism is a complete failure.

On a small or local scale I think its quite viable. It when you scale it up to a national level it falls apart, badly.

Capitalism works better on a national level but still fails if it gets to big and interconnected. What made the Depression of 1929 and Recession of 2008 so bad was how interconnected the world was and how a # up in a larger country (USA) country could screw smaller country's up.

At the end of the day decentralization is whats needed with local smaller ares forming there own economic policy's.

I don't think that every socialist program immediately produces undesirable results but, eventually does. That is the real trap of these unverifiable long term experimental policies. To most, they seem at the very least harmless if not helpful and lacking the economic understanding to imagine the implications, I can see how people might defend them.

I agree that small communes can be functional but, I have never been opposed to free associations as long as they are voluntary and escapable.

Decentralization is the answer as it allows a more personal level of scrutiny to the participants who can then decide to cease these programs if and when they fail. That is, in the United States anyway, that no social program should ever be national.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Please define "way"

The fashion in which you chose to communicate "the fact that it doesn't exist".

and the antecedent of "they".

The plural of "it", quoted above, refering to free markets.

The free market is singular as it is a concept like force or energy.

The free market yields the net result of all individual voluntary economic behavior. The individuals and the individual's goals that make up the free market are always causing some economic activity. Some aspect of the free market is always happening.

Free markets as real world entities are trades that are not regulated. I think garage sales might be unregulated and some forms of service such as "I'll fly if you buy". So you might be right that Free Markets, actual trading without regulation, doesn't legally exist on Earth.

But the only thing required to make free markets is the cancellation of external regulation. Everything else about them has already spontaneously happened.

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

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

What a silly statement. Production is run by workers when they own the company. Point blank. There's no debating this. We're talking about the relations at the point of production. Not supply/demand.

The consumers decide what they will pay for what quantity. That sets the parameters for production, in effect limiting the choices of a business to the single best way to produce.

The consumers decide how a company will be run by how much money they choose to spend on its output.

You're ignoring the relations at the point of production.

Yes, the best method of production will be chosen, by whatever means, or else the company will not be able to compete.
Competition favors every one in the economy. Labor relations favor only special interests.

Anyhow even your assertion isn't 100% true. Mass marketing campaigns manufacture wants and desires. Edward Berneys mastered this and actually worked with multiple corporations to manufacture demand. It started with his smoking campaign. Manipulating women to think smoking signified freedom/independence. From there it dovetailed into a great number of things.

It starts at a very you g age as well. This manipulative marketing:

youtu.be...

I do believe in manufactured consent. I must point out that the aggregation of power into the hands of the few has a lot to do with the power of advertising. Populism gave the government power which it used to standardize the economy in WW1. The standardization, and collectivism in general, has reduced diversity in production and behavior and so made assignments of attention to particular items, ideas, and people much simpler. Decentralization will reduce the effect of advertising by making the things to be advertised more numerous and diverse.

Advertising would not work so well if there were 1000 candidates for office, rather than exactly two big government puppets every time.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The free market is singular as it is a concept like force or energy.

I'm sure a free market in one country doesn't mean there is a free market in any other.

But the only thing required to make free markets is the cancellation of external regulation.

And that isn't happening. Also, it doesn't have to be regulation. Cartels and monopolies can also have a similar effect.

Everything else about them has already spontaneously happened.

So has everything that thwarts them.

These people never quit. They are so worried some rich dude is gonna lose a couple bucks because he may not get the usual license to steal. The super rich can never get enough. They want it all and how dare poor people bitch. Save it dude...i don't care what you think. BTW-you must have wasted at least two hours of you're life writing the horrors of the deprived rich.a reply to: greencmp

And regional wage tables only serve special interests too.a reply to: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: dagann
These people never quit. They are so worried some rich dude is gonna lose a couple bucks because he may not get the usual license to steal. The super rich can never get enough. They want it all and how dare poor people bitch. Save it dude...i don't care what you think. BTW-you must have wasted at least two hours of you're life writing the horrors of the deprived rich.a reply to: greencmp

I hope you get better some day, I really do.

Hi guys,

As usual, just an observation to throw in the discussion...

Marxism never addressed the issue of enough production (ie the problem of scarcity). All credit is after all never reserved for the individual.

But, capitalism never addressed the issue of why would anyone distribute control? All credit is after all given to the individual.

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

Competition is the enemy of control. Be it control by one individual, or one company, or one industry.

New competitors can always easily make a profit when existing monopolies raise prices, cut production, or offer bad service.

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
Hi guys,

As usual, just an observation to throw in the discussion...

Marxism never addressed the issue of enough production (ie the problem of scarcity). All credit is after all never reserved for the individual.

But, capitalism never addressed the issue of why would anyone distribute control? All credit is after all given to the individual.

"As the [classical] liberal sees it, the task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty, and private property against violent attacks. Everything that goes beyond this is an evil. A government that, instead of fulfilling its task, sought to go so far as actually to infringe on personal security of life and health, freedom, and property would, of course, be altogether bad."

-Ludwig von Mises

Government in and of itself guarantees monopoly of control on something for certain - that is the pact with which people live with each other.

Government monopoly in centralized systems are unavoidable...

Decentralization leads to loss of monopolies and the competition may eliminate the possibilities of co-operation - even the possibility of co-operation to the extent of the destruction of modern mankind's ability to exist.

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

Except that the opposite is true, our standard of living and relative peace were the result of laissez-faire and a limited government.

Even the few true private monopolies contributions to the quality of life were indispensible but, the rest of the benefits to modern society originated from individual contributors.

It was the "centralization" that was the problem so, returning to local autonomy is not "decentralization" (with a perceived derogatory connotation in my mind).

a reply to: greencmp

Laissez-faire? Limited government?

When did that happen?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Laissez-faire? Limited government?

When did that happen?

1776 roundabouts.

originally posted by: greencmp
1776 roundabouts.

Only if you twist those words like pretzels.

a reply to: greencmp

Sorry, greencmp....

You argue that standard of living and peace were the result of.....

Then you argue centralization ruined it.... Yet, I am missing the step in between the two - how did it change?????

What was wrong with the first line?

So, now you argue that there is a safe way "back" to the old system? Or do you wish to have the old system with the "new" laws or do you wish to have the old system with "new" laws?

And so, all of this esoteric system was independent of the people who were responsible for it? And why didn't elections work to prevent this sort of trouble? Is this sort of trouble historically new? Or did we do a repeat somewhere?

Can you specify a timeline and some "examples" of the differences you speak of?