INDOCTRINATE
Rant
13.4.99 Economics and psychology.
17.4.99 Progress and slavery.
22.4.99 21:55 Maids and chauffeurs.
22.4.99 22:31 New form of slavery.
26.4.99 The most frivolous.
28.4.99 21:03 A maid for the poor.
28.4.99 21:28 The point at which it fails.
1.5.99 12:06 Localized democracy.
1.5.99 12:20 Might as well burn it.
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 12:42:50 -0700
From: "E. Goldman" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.anarchism, alt.society.labor-unions, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
Harold harold.brashears@usm.edu wrote:
> >Obviously everyone eats. Obviously someone (or everyone)
> >has to do the farming. But the result of uneven distribution
> >of wealth is that there is always a class of people producing
> >things that their own class would never use, but is instead
> >consumed only by the wealthy.
> No kidding!!! Well, I will just fall right over with the advent of
> this shocking horrible news!!!
> Oh!!! I am wounded to the quick.
> Such a shock. My old system cannot stand this astonishing news.
And of course, the logical conclusion is that it is in
the interest those who do not consume the goods they
produce to (1) assume control of their places of work
if they have not already done so, thus reducing the
uneven distribution of wealth locally, and (2) to no
longer use as legal tender whatever it is that has been
accumulated by the wealthy that makes them defined as
"wealthy" in the first place. For example, for a Third
World nation to convert all the dollars or gold held
domestically into real capital (tools for production),
thus reducing the market scarcity of dollars and gold
and reducing their value. If only one "rich" man has
all the dollars or gold, but no one else accepts them,
he is no longer "rich". In the interim, before that
happens, the rich man's money is not hoarded, but
immediately spent on real capital (real things needed
for production), thus ensuring the non-scarcity of the
rich man's money, while acquiring things of real value.
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 12:20:25 -0700
From: "E. Goldman" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.anarchism, alt.society.labor-unions, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
Matti Linnanvuori wrote:
> > But if instead they gave up growing coffee (or cocaine)
> > to grow food instead, the society as a whole would enjoy more
> > abundance (at the expense of less luxury goods for the wealthy).
> No, I don't think so. There would be less abundance because some needs
> would not be satisfied and there would be an excess of food.
First, are they really "needs" or even "wants" or merely the
result of advertising? Second, who works the fields and the
assembly lines producing luxury goods? Certainly not the wealthy.
In other words, if those doing the work aren't doing the
consuming, they might as well be burning it as soon as they make
it. Third, if there's too much food, those doing the producing
simply work less.
> > Market economics does indeed help determine what an economy
> > needs to produce, but only up to a point. The point at which
> > it fails is precisely the point at with the distrubution of
> > wealth becomes uneven.
> Planned economy does usually even worse.
And the reason centralized planning is difficult is because it's
not easy for a few people to understand the needs of the many.
In a market economy, in which everyone has relatively equal amounts
of purchasing power, everyone contributes to deciding what will
be produced. There is, of course, a way to prevent the concentration
of economic power (ie. wealth) while still having a market economy -
to ignore or abolish laws that allow one person to exclude others
from using any capital (ie. means of production) that he himself
does not use.
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 12:06:52 -0700
From: "E. Goldman" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.anarchism, alt.society.labor-unions, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
Harold harold.brashears@usm.edu wrote:
> >> Not necessarily. In fact, as an economy becomes more advanced, less
> >> and less labor is required to perform the same objective. In fact,
> >> increasing the number of people performing a function may retard their
> >> performance. They compete for resources and space.
> >The solution to that, obviously, is that instead of
> >everyone doing the same thing at the same time, they
> >do the same thing at different times, in rotation.
> If it works out that way.
That, of course, is where federated democracy comes in. They
will if they choose to do so. If some disagree, they are free
to go off and do their own thing. The more localized the
democracy, the more it resembles anarchy.
------
We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it.
Even if it's no good, it's still ours. That's what makes
it ours -- being born on it, working it, dying on it.
That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on it.
-John Steinbeck
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 21:28:02 -0700
From: "A. Parsons" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.anarchism, alt.society.labor-unions, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
Harold hbrashears@earthlink.net wrote:
> >to be a jester for the king rather than a peasant in the fields.
> Sounds like much better work to me. Would you prefer to dig in pig
> shit, or try to make someone laugh?
Sure I'd rather be a house slave than a field slave, and
many cowards may actually be satisfied with that
improvement. But I, for one, would choose not to be
a slave (surprise, surprise).
> >The answer is that in an economy with very uneven wealth
> >distribution, it is much more profitable to serve the wealthy...
> Who do not eat?
> Migrant laborers are what percentage of the population, and yet you
> think they keep everyone alive? Most migrant laborers are doing what
> they know how to do, and getting compensated for it. You would rather
> they were not working at all, I assume.
Obviously everyone eats. Obviously someone (or everyone)
has to do the farming. But the result of uneven distribution
of wealth is that there is always a class of people producing
things that their own class would never use, but is instead
consumed only by the wealthy. The growing of gourmet coffee
or cocaine (or other cash crops) is a good example. Those
actually doing the growing don't need what they are producing
nearly as much as they need food or electricity or whatever.
What do capitalists say? Grow more coffee (or cocaine) and
you'll get more money from us, and you can buy more food and
electricity. Of course, this is true in a very narrow-sighted
way. But if instead they gave up growing coffee (or cocaine)
to grow food instead, the society as a whole would enjoy more
abundance (at the expense of less luxury goods for the wealthy).
Market economics does indeed help determine what an economy
needs to produce, but only up to a point. The point at which
it fails is precisely the point at with the distrubution of
wealth becomes uneven.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 21:03:45 -0700
From: "A. Parsons" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.anarchism, alt.society.labor-unions, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
Harold wrote:
> Not necessarily. In fact, as an economy becomes more advanced, less
> and less labor is required to perform the same objective. In fact,
> increasing the number of people performing a function may retard their
> performance. They compete for resources and space.
The solution to that, obviously, is that instead of
everyone doing the same thing at the same time, they
do the same thing at different times, in rotation.
There are two visions of technological advance. One
(the current one), sees the replacement of human
labor by mechanical labor as a means to force humans
to work the same hours they did before, but at different
things. The second, sees the use of mechanical labor as
a means to require less and less days of work per person
in order to survive, letting them choose what they wish
to do with their increasing free time. When human labor
is replaced by mechanical labor, the learning of new things
by those now unneeded humans is indeed a good thing.
But if those people are forced to learn (when they would
rather rest) or else face poverty, the result is a new
form of slavery.
> >there's demand for basic food and housing, but demand
> >from someone or some corporation with a lot of money
> >is much louder.
> Right. A company somewhere is going to decide if I buy Wonder bread,
> or bread from the bakery down the street. Where do you live, the
> USSR?
You've misread the statement. It's not somebody deciding
what you buy, but what you do for a living. In a market
economy, each unit of money represents a unit of economic
power. Economic activity obeys that power. When the
distribution of economic power is relatively even, the
result is a bit like economic democracy... everyone has
approximately an equal influence on what the economy produces.
When that economic power (ie. money) is concentrated, the
result is in fact quite similar to a command economy. The
person with all that economic power has a far larger effect
on economic activity than his peers... Thus there are people
who spend their entire lives building mansions knowing full
well they will never live in one.
> Hence, maids and chauffeurs today are
> much better compensated than those of decades past.
Whether maids and chauffeurs are paid more or less these
days is irrelevant. Sure, if you take their contribution to
GDP, a maid might be far more "productive" than a migrant
laborer, but in reality, a maid working for a rich man
contributes no more to society than a maid working for a
poor man. The only difference is that the rich man can
paid more. Thus, exaggerating the "value" of the maid's
labor. This applies to all occupations serving wealthy
individuals or wealthy corporations.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics.talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.anarchism, alt.society.labor-unions, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:36:10 -0700
Ray wrote:
> So, the Soviet Union should have had food coming out of their ears, since
> they had something like 50% of their workforce doing farming.
Another neophyte to politics are you? If you think the only
alternative to capitalism is the Soviet Union (which, by the
way, was run as a top-down hierarchy just like your average
everyday corporation), then you probably also think the only
alternative to living in New York is living in L.A.
> And the USA should be starving, since only about 1% of it's population
> does farming.
Ah, but that's the point. If only a tiny percentage of people
are needed to keep an economy self-sufficient, why are people
still working even 4 days a week? Why are migrant labourers
getting the pittance in wages for keeping everyone alive? The
answer is that in an economy with very uneven wealth
distribution, it is much more profitable to serve the wealthy...
to be a jester for the king rather than a peasant in the fields.
After all, the king can afford to pay much more than the average
citizen can pay. So it is, in fact, those who serve everyone's
needs that earn the least, while those who serve the "needs"
of the wealthy that earn the most. The result is that the most
valuable occupations in the society are rewarded the least,
while the most frivolous are reward the most.
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:31:49 -0700
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics.talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.anarchism, alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
jim blair wrote:
> > What's so bad about stagnation?
> If the answer is not obvious, you would not understand it.
> I think you have this slavery thing exactly backwards: most
> "innovations" involve "labor saving devices", and in slave societies,
> there was little need to "save labor" since it was "free". It was after
> the end of slavery that technology took off, because labor was no longer
> "free".
What if it was rephrased to: What's so bad about stagnation
if it means more free time? Actually, all these "labor
saving" devices haven't really saved that much labor. Yes,
they mean it takes less people to do the old activities, but
no, they don't mean that more people are working less.
Instead, these same people are basically required to spend
their "free" time doing something else to earn a living.
"The more you innovate, the more time you'll have to make
new innovations." Not that it's necessarily bad to have more
time to make new innovations, but if that time isn't offered
voluntarily, it's just a new form of slavery.
> >..It is quite easy to have scientific progress alongside
> > social/political regression.
> Name some examples. While you could be right, no examples jump to my
> mind.
Well, gas chambers and crematoriums for the victims of those
gas chambers come to mind as fairly innovative ways of getting
rid of a large number of people and corpses quickly. But aside
from clear atrocities, there are a far large number of inventions
that are of fairly irrelevant value to society at large. In the
old days, they built monuments and banquet halls for wealthy
monarchs. These days, they build high rise office buildings
and high tech office equipment for wealthy corporations.
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:55:43 -0700
From: "T. Hobbes" The problem with stagnation, of course, is that people keep having
> babies. Maybe not *you*, but plenty of others certainly do. And all
> those babies grow up and need to be clothed and fed--consuming
> resources. If the society is stagnant, the resources don't expand, so
> there becomes a shortage of resources compared to people.
Actually, all it would take is a redistribution of
labor... that is, who is doing what. Less people
building skyscrapers and more people farming means
more food. Less people in the gold mines and more
people building houses means more housing.
Invention has less of an effect of the economy than
who directs economic activity. In a command economy,
activity is directed by government planners (for good
or ill). In a market economy, activity is directed by
those who have the most money. That is why there are
homeless living amongst mansions and skyscrapers. Sure
there's demand for basic food and housing, but demand
from someone or some corporation with a lot of money
is much louder. And the more concentrated this money
is, the more profitable it will be to abandon farming
and to become a maid or chauffeur.
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 12:07:49 -0700
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics.talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.anarchism
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
Jim Blair wrote:
> > It isn't hard
> > to imagine a society fighting for survival that has great
> > incentive to invent new weapons, just to stay alive.
> Yes, which is why Europe soon had effective guns soon after learning about
> gunpowder, while the Chinese had invented the stuff centuries before but did not use
> it effectively in weapons.
> > On the
> > other hand, it isn't hard to imagine a society that lives
> > in relative peace and prosperity, complacent, and is generally
> > just having a good time instead of worrying about anything.
> Rather like the polynesian islands before Cook?
Great innovations in atomic weaponry (and other military
techonology as well) were made in the early 1940s. But I
wouldn't say the kind of situation that produced all those
innovations was a particularly nice way to live. As the old
saying goes, "necessity is the mother of invention." If
the invention is caused by too much necessity, then there's
probably something else wrong with that society.
> Isn't it? Without innovation there is stagnation. Is the point of life just to pass
> time? Or to expand knowledge?
What's so bad about stagnation? While I am in favor of
innovation, mainly out of sheer curiosity, I would not,
for example, be willing to pay the price of anything
resembling slavery to achieve it. The decision of whether
to expand knowledge or just pass time should be a personal
one. It is quite easy to have scientific progress alongside
social/political regression. Sometimes the advances in
technology itself are used in oppression.
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:03:25 -0700
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics.talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The nature of capital (was: capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient)
Jim Blair wrote:
> LM wrote:
> > Anyway, with the definition as it stands, let's take a hypothetical
> > native american indian tribe. The capital (tee-pees, horses, hunting
> > materials etc) is owned by the group and shared around with a concept
> > of collective ownership, and much of this is used to produce other
> > goods (make new spears or tents, go hunting etc). Would this be a
> > working non-capitalist economic system and if not, why not?
> Many primative socities did/do not have a concept of private ownership. Of
> capital or even land. If everything belongs to the group, there is little
> incentive to innovate, and these societies are relatively static. I would call
> them non-capitalist. This fosters a type of collective/group thinking that
> divides the world into "us" and "them". In any ancient societies, the world
> view was of repeated cycles and a natural unchanging order of things. But this
> gets into another topic.
Economics quite often boils down to a study in behavorial
psychology doesn't it? A society that is innovating is not
by definition better than one that is not. It isn't hard
to imagine a society fighting for survival that has great
incentive to invent new weapons, just to stay alive. On the
other hand, it isn't hard to imagine a society that lives
in relative peace and prosperity, complacent, and is generally
just having a good time instead of worrying about anything.
As for the statement "why would anyone work harder if his
extra production is spread among everyone else", that goes
into human motivations. As animals, we have only 2 basic
urges: to stay alive and to reproduce. All other motivations
are defined by the culture you live in (whether advertising,
religion, or whatever). So to say that a person will only
work for selfish gain just says something about the beliefs
of the culture he lives in. General motivations come from
an culturally-defined sense of "pride"... even having a few
billion dollars means little to a billionaire if it weren't
for the reaction he gets from the society around him.
30.3.97 Up goes the GDP.
31.3.97 20:46 Improving with fluff.
31.3.97 21:00 Have to be doing something.
31.3.99 21:35 Suddenly less prosperous.
1.4.99 A real measure of anything.
3.4.99 12:06 Something of value.
3.4.99 12:29 Tools and masters.
3.4.99 12:51 Families and companies.
4.4.99 Correlates most highly.
5.4.99 7:22 End of the world.
5.4.99 7:39 Private ownership leads to productivity.
6.4.99 14:20 Output and input.
6.4.99 20:38 Laws and stealing.
10.4.99 Unnatural demand.
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
From: kenfranson@hotmail.com (kenfran)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:01:52 GMT
In article 3714b5e6.1306222@news.earthlink.net, hbrashears@earthlink.net says...
>On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 08:52:45 GMT, cbo@interlog.com (Calvin Ostrum) wrote:
>>In 3713ec2d.924906@news.earthlink.net, hbrashears@earthlink.net (Harold) wrote:
>[deleted]
>>| If these avaricious business people did not think that advertising
>>| were not as efficient as they have available, they would not do it.
>>| You wave your arms around, but only stir the air.
>>You are the one waving your arms around. I won't be
>>responding to you anymore unless you say something new
>>and relevant. And no, it's not that I'm saying I've
>>won. Clearly I've lost, in being unable to get
>>anything through what I see to be your thick skull
>>and perversity.
>Fine. That is the last resort of every socialist. If they can't
>distract you with lies and evasions, they whine and go home
>I am gratified.
Libertarians like Harold constantly try to change the subject of debate if they
can't respond logically to a point, or else they lie (like Harold did about the
US having a current Account surplus), then they try ad hominem attacks, and
when all else fails, they stick their heads in the sand by using a killfile to
make the truth go away.
The subject is whether the economics of capitalism makes for an efficient
society. A society can be very efficient at the task of digging holes and then
filling them again, but such a society is not an efficient society. Likewise,
companies can use the most efficient means to get people to buy the pet rocks
they are selling, but a society that produces and distributes pet rocks while
people do not have enough healthcare, food, and shelter, is not an efficient
society.
>Harold (Capitalist Pig)
--
"It is not to die, nor even to die of hunger, that makes a
man wretched. Many men have died; all men must die. But it
is to live miserable, we know not why; to work sore, and
yet gain nothing; to be heart-worn, weary, yet isolated,
unrelated, girt in with a cold, universal *laissez-faire*."
-- Carlyle
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 22:42:36 -0700
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
James A. Donald wrote:
> Envisage the department of product notification. Envisage this
> modelled after such wonderfully efficient organizations as the DMV,
> the Post Office, or the Department of Education.
Yes yes, I know the amount of real information filtered
to your ears from The Party is very limited, but please
do try to understand that there are other ways to organize
commercial activity apart from the traditional corporate
capitalist and big government models. Here, once again,
is a link from the previous post for your perusal:
http://flag.blackened.net/agony/princip.html
Feel free to once again ignore it, and go on with your
existence, comfortable with the knowledge that there
are only two kinds of people in the world - those who
advocate private dictatorships and those who advocate
public dictatorships.
The aspect of advertising dealing with information is
really only a minor issue. What is much more significant
is the fact that advertising creates artificial demand.
With respect to the company itself, this is valuable,
since it ensures the survival of the company. But in
the big picture, unnatural demand only leads to a
waste of natural and human resources - inefficiency.
-------
The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers.
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:38:51 -0700
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Steve wrote:
> Fluff refers to the particular technique or style of communication being
> offered. It is not a qualitative statement about efficient use of
> resources.
In other words, you actually believe that all the time
ads use to communicate the existence of products is being
put to the most efficient use possible? That's there's no
more efficient way to learn about the existence of products?
> > prefer it if the people working that land simply assumed
> > ownership of it (as opposed to it being owned by someone
> > who's hardly ever even there).
> Tenant farmers? In America? Hahahahahaha!
> You are pushing asset taxation and the intellectual history of asset
> taxation includes Henry George as a major proponent.
If you think you heard me use the word "tax", you've
probably mistaken me for some suburbian moderate. And
of course, it does not just apply to farm land. By
extension, miners assume ownership of mines, unions
assume control of factories, etc.
> > Is that not private
> > ownership and therefore greater productivity (as you
> > yourself claim)?
> No it is called stealing.
Oh my gosh, I'm shocked, shocked! Stealing! I never knew!
Seriously though, NATO planes bombing civilians is also
murder, or at least manslaughter. As is shooting Native
Americans for land. Laws are only as good as the people
willing to obey them. If they choose not to obey, then
the laws change (or that's the theory behind this present
government anyway). This, after all, is a discussion of
efficiency and not legality. Productivity, after all, is
the most common reason giving for not abolishing private
property laws.
http://flag.blackened.net/agony/princip.html
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
From: kenfranson@hotmail.com (kenfran)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:20:48 GMT
In article 7ebq4r$p6a$1@camel15.mindspring.com, shales@pipeline.com says...
>J. Calvin cyu@geocities.com wrote in message news:3708C73F.10FF@geocities.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>> > You are terribly confused. This is clearly incorrect because transactions
>> > within a family are not monetized because each member of the family has an
>> > unwritten contract with every other member that what is done by me for
>> > another will be returned to me by the others. When this "social contract"
>> > has many members e.g., a nation there are time lags and often no direct
>> > communication between members and something must facilitate exchange since
>> > it might be years or never that repayment would be made and that the local
>> > market is insufficient to absorb all of your "production". That something
>> > is money.
>> Yes, indeed what you have written is all correct. Money does
>> facilitate exchange of production. But what if money was the
>> only measure of production (which is clearly the case when
>> measuring GDP)? In the first example, production occurs, but
>> is 0 as measured by GDP. In the second example, when money
>> does actually exchange hands, GDP comes up positive.
>Only final sales of goods and services. Everything that facillitates those
>final sales is included even qualitative inputs.
But everything can be regarded not only as an output, but as an input for
something else. (Leontief got a Nobel for this insight, remember) Food
production is a needed input for workers to do any work, so food sales are
incorporated into tractor sales. And tractor sales are part of the production
costs of food.
>> But
>> productivity isn't any different, just the method of accounting.
>> Take for example child care. What is the difference really
>> between one society that has family members staying at home
>> to take care of the kids and another society where everyone
>> sends their kids off to child care? The end services are the
>> same, but in the second case, the GDP is higher because money
>> is spent.
>Productive capacity is diverted from other endeavors to child care. GDP
>doesn't have to rise it may fall.
It *might* do either, depending on the accounting methods. That is the whole
point about GDP/capita having little relation to either the productivity or
well-being of a society.
>> > The problem with your scenario is that the vast majority of what people "do"
>> > has a monetary cost associated with it. We all are literally a part of the
>> > economy. You can't get around that fact no matter how you might like to
>> > measure all the numerous non-monetary transactions that occur everyday that
>> > make life more worthwile these non-monetary transactions exist because of
>> > the monetary transactions.
>> Who is saying that monetary transactions should be done away
>> with? That's not the point.
>That wasn't what I was arguing. In final sales of goods and services
>everything that made those sales possible is included. In this sense GDP is
>a good proxy for quality of life.
But, as I said before, every output is an input for something else. If measured
the way you propose, *no* sale is a final sale, and thus GDP is zero. How could
it thus measure quality of life?
>> The point is that since GDP is
>> measured only in monetary transactions, it is not an accurate
>> measurement of how well off a society is. Who's to say an
>> entire nation of family farmers that grow their own food is
>> less prosperous just because they don't spend much money on
>> buying food and, therefore, have a lower GDP? In fact, if there
>> was some technology that made everyone completely self-sufficient,
>> the "productivity" of that nation (as measured by GDP) may well
>> drop to near nothing. Oh the horrors, the end of the world, ban
>> such technology immediately.
>Oh, now resort to fantasy to win an argument that you have miserably lost?
Try argueing to the point rather than ad hominems.
(OK, so I throw in a nasty personal attack at times. But I don't substitute the
personal attack for logic.)
---------------------------------
The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to
sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
-- Anatole France
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 07:39:03 -0700
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Steve wrote:
> The point of viewing advertising as information is to strip it to its bare
> essentials without the fluff. By focussing on the fluff the various
> posters, in trying to refute my thesis, miss the big picture, that without
> advertising in its present form some form of "advertising" would emerge to
> inform potential buyers that a product or service exists.
Who's saying that information about new products is a bad thing?
The point is that you've just admitted there is, in fact, fluff
in advertising. Is that not a mark of inefficiency? Is that not
the topic of this discussion? Why not present information about
new products without fluff? Would that not be more "optimally
efficient"?
> Haven't you been listening, Henry George is dead and so is the single tax on
> land movement. Besides private ownership leads to greater productivity, not
> less, hence more efficient.
The vast majority of everyone in your history books are dead.
Your point? I made no claim to taxing land ownership. I'd actually
prefer it if the people working that land simply assumed
ownership of it (as opposed to it being owned by someone
who's hardly ever even there). Is that not private
ownership and therefore greater productivity (as you
yourself claim)?
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 07:22:55 -0700
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Steve wrote:
> You are terribly confused. This is clearly incorrect because transactions
> within a family are not monetized because each member of the family has an
> unwritten contract with every other member that what is done by me for
> another will be returned to me by the others. When this "social contract"
> has many members e.g., a nation there are time lags and often no direct
> communication between members and something must facilitate exchange since
> it might be years or never that repayment would be made and that the local
> market is insufficient to absorb all of your "production". That something
> is money.
Yes, indeed what you have written is all correct. Money does
facilitate exchange of production. But what if money was the
only measure of production (which is clearly the case when
measuring GDP)? In the first example, production occurs, but
is 0 as measured by GDP. In the second example, when money
does actually exchange hands, GDP comes up positive. But
productivity isn't any different, just the method of accounting.
Take for example child care. What is the difference really
between one society that has family members staying at home
to take care of the kids and another society where everyone
sends their kids off to child care? The end services are the
same, but in the second case, the GDP is higher because money
is spent.
> The problem with your scenario is that the vast majority of what people "do"
> has a monetary cost associated with it. We all are literally a part of the
> economy. You can't get around that fact no matter how you might like to
> measure all the numerous non-monetary transactions that occur everyday that
> make life more worthwile these non-monetary transactions exist because of
> the monetary transactions.
Who is saying that monetary transactions should be done away
with? That's not the point. The point is that since GDP is
measured only in monetary transactions, it is not an accurate
measurement of how well off a society is. Who's to say an
entire nation of family farmers that grow their own food is
less prosperous just because they don't spend much money on
buying food and, therefore, have a lower GDP? In fact, if there
was some technology that made everyone completely self-sufficient,
the "productivity" of that nation (as measured by GDP) may well
drop to near nothing. Oh the horrors, the end of the world, ban
such technology immediately.
From: cbo@interlog.com (Calvin Ostrum)
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 17:48:21 GMT
Organization: Toronto Moral Science Club
In 3705476d.173976140@news.earthlink.net, hbrashears@earthlink.net (Harold) wrote:
| >The measurement of GDP itself is purely a mathematical
| >construct useful in economic models, but has little to
| >do with real life.
| You think not? Interesting assertion. GDP correlates most highly
| with every "quality of life" issue I have ever seen, what makes you
| state that it cannot be important?
| >Let's say I'm elected on a campaign
| >promise to double the GDP or somesuch nonsense like that.
| >First thing I do? Make it illegal for husbands and wives
| >to have sex unless one pays the other.
| So, for you sex is a commercial activity? Too bad for you.
It's amusing to see someone refute something he says in
one sentence with the very next sentence he utters.
Presumably, sexual relations between husband and wife
typically are (or ideally should be) an important '"quality of
life" issue'. As long as you refuse to count it in the GDP
(and your reason for doing so is a good one, indeed)
it is one example of a '"quality of life" issue' which
is not, and can not be, correlated very highly with GDP
after all. Probably you can think of many more examples too,
if you try, and this was exactly Lepore's main point.
An interesting article in the Oct 1995 Atlantic Monthly,
"If the GDP is Up, Why Is America Down", goes into some
detail on this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/election/connection/ecbig/gdp.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Ostrum cbo@interlog.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
People make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please;
they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under
circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.
-- Karl Marx, "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 12:51:07 -0800
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Steve wrote:
> Accounting for unpaid services of members of households makes sense if one
> is measuring total societal welfare. Accounting for spousal services is
> important in determining monetary damages in wrongful death suits.
> Obviously unpaid services have a value to the society at large and are not
> directly captured by GDP because they are transactions within an economic
> unit not unlike transactions between divisions of a single corporation.
> These economic units or households derive their incomes from a variety of
> sources outside the economic unit but for transactions within the economic
> unit there can be no direct payment that is over and above the income of the
> economic unit and by definition payments within the economic unit will not
> increase GDP regardless of whether they are captured or not in any
> accounting scheme.
> Consider the case where there are no economic units and all are free to
> compete with eachother for services rendered, cooking, housecleaning, sex,
> yard work, etc. Everyone would be an employee or a contract worker of the
> other. In this freakish world GDP would measure these final sales of
> services.
First, the term "final sale" will just result in another
long argument over definitions. I listen to some music which
relaxes me, and energizes me to produce more bread. Does that
music then become double counted in the price of my bread? The
question is moot. Let's consider the two extremes: an economy
where all companies act like members of a family versus an
economy where all family members act like different companies.
In the first, there are no transactions at all. You can easily
see this in a self-contained commune-like setting. Everyone
goes about their daily lives, yet with no measurable GDP. The
other extreme, where sex is a final product, washed dishes are
as much of a final product as clean parks, etc etc, the GDP
would be incredibly high.
GDP is little more than a measure of how commercialized an
economy is. Less say in Russia the currency is so undependable
that people have resorted to a barter economy. GDP is
effectively zero but did everyone starve? Let's say they
set a new blackmarket currency standard: pounds of grain.
All transactions are done in pounds of grain instead of
roubles. Now you can suddenly measure GDP in pounds of grain
if you wanted to. But then again, that's not official is it?
Just as the things that the members of a family do for each
other are not official transactions, and are therefore
"worthless" to a "prosperous" society.
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 12:29:16 -0800
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Harold wrote:
> >You are confusing two definitions of value here. One is what
> >is valuable to a business, and the other what is valuable to
> >the members of a society.
> Not really. Since the business to succeed must supply something
> people want, and further, the business is made up of people (unless
> you have some ghosts or ghouls running a business somewhere, I guess)
> then what is your distinction between the two?
> A business is people, and most people work for a business.
Would you say "it's good for the business so it must be
good for its employees"? Would you say "it's good for
the nation so it must be good for its citizens"? Who
controls the nation? Who controls the company? If it's
possible for dictators to strengthen their national
military while hurting their citizens, is there an
analogous case for companies?
But that was an example of willful exploitation. What
about accidental? The capitalist fact is, whoever or
whatever entity with money has an effect on what the
economy is doing. Imagine if dogs were the wealthiest
entities on earth - you can bet that a lot people would
be spending their days making milkbones or improving
on flea collar technology. What if something non-human
became the wealthiest entities on earth? You can bet
most of the technological advances would come in the
fields that serve those non-humans. Word processing,
databases, copying machines, fax, printers. Great
examples of technology? Yes. But what do they serve?
Corporations. It's already happened. Corporations are
no longer our tools but our masters. The wealthiest
man in the world, after all, made his fortune serving
them.
> I need to know what is being sold. If I do not know, I cannot buy it.
> My alternative is to spend considerable time physically going around,
> looking for a product, the comparing prices and features on a case by
> case basis. With advertising, I know where to find numerous example
> of products, and I even have an idea of their relative features.
Are those the only choices you see? Clearly local
maximum thinking. How much time would you save if
you could just get a straight objective list of what
products are available without all the extraneous
junk? Would that somehow be less valuable to you than
the current method of figuring out what's out there?
If you think something can't be improved on, it's
probably due more to your lack of imagination than the
fact that it's already as good as it can get.
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 12:06:28 -0800
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Steve wrote:
> It doesn't matter if the reference is direct or not it doesn't change the
> purpose of the ad. There is no wasted money in advertising per se only
> effective ads or ineffective ads.
Small picture thinking is like looking at the world through
a tube - you miss everything else. True, if you only look at
the company itself, it got value out of advertising. But if
you look at the society as a whole, what do you see? There's
no doubt that commercial propaganda is no less mind control
than political or religous propaganda. The only difference
is that one is more vapid. The religion created by advertising
is called Consumerism. More! More! More! Yes, it does lead
to environmental devestation, but that's just a minor point.
The question is how much value it has to the society. If it's
not something they wanted, but through great effort, you make
it something they want, have you really produced something of
value? Or has your economy just wasted a lot of effort doing
something that would be considered worthless as soon as the
propaganda is gone?
> The original poster was arguing against property rights in one instance but
> if rights in a narrow case are abrogated then all property rights are at
> risk. In the context above I think it is fair to say that the poster was
> arguing against the granting of property rights in a specific case.
You're stumbling into a minefield here. And who is to say
property rights are that important? Not that I'm arguing for
abolishing all property, since that would just be incovenient,
but there is a large amount of what is called "property"
that is has little to do with the owner other than his using
his "right" to it to make a profit, without doing any real
work. Stocks for example. Deeds to land worked by someone
else for example. A company he never visits, but still gets
checks from every month for example. This "property right"
doesn't come free. It has to be protected. Security guards,
police, lawyers, politicians, etc etc. Since we're talking
about the efficiency of an economy on the whole here and not
about whatever rights you believe you have, what would happen
if that owner would suddenly vanish? Suddenly the people
doing the work no longer have to work as hard to reap the
same benefits: more efficiency.
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient SEX TAX
From: kenfranson@hotmail.com (kenfran)
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 19:57:30 GMT
In article 37039661.14BB@facstaff.wisc.edu, jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu says...
>T. Hobbes wrote:
>> The measurement of GDP itself is purely a mathematical
>> construct useful in economic models, but has little to
>> do with real life.
>Hi,
>Do you think there is any correlation between "percapita GDP" and
>overall living standards, if all of the 200 some countries in
>the world are compared?
>>..Let's say I'm elected on a campaign
>> promise to double the GDP or somesuch nonsense like that.
>> First thing I do? Make it illegal for husbands and wives
>> to have sex unless one pays the other. Each time they
>> have sex, trade occurs. Up goes the GDP.
>???? Why? I would expect that such a stupid law would LOWER GDP, pretty
>much in proportion to the money spent to enforce it.
>For starters any money that was collected by the "sex tax" would be
>money no longer available to be spent on other things, so spending on
>other things would drop in exact proportion. But the money spent to
>enforce the tax would be subtracted from the production of useful things.
>To increase percapita GDP, productivity must increase. How does a sex
>tax do that?
>jim blair
I think the word tax confused you. The poster proposed that one spouse pay the
other to have sex, not that the money go to the government. The point was that
each transaction be recorded as a sale, thus boosting GDP, without really
changing what was really produced.
The same result would be produced by spouses being required to pay each other
for domestic chores. The husband pays the wife $100 a week to clean the house,
and the wife pays the husband $100 a week to maintain the car and mow the
grass. The GDP then goes up by $200 a week, but it really means nothing. Thus
productivity does not have to increase to increase GDP/capita.
I am not sure about the accounting as far as the GDP is concerned on
intermediate goods produced. That is, If Company A produces brake drums and
sells them to an auto company, is this counted in the GDP? It would be
double-counting, if so, since the $30 or whatever for a brake drum is counted
as production, while the contribution it makes to the final price of the auto
is counted again. But if it is counted, then if an auto company that made its
own brakes at a subsidiary, sold the subsidiary, the the GDP would increase by
the price of the entire production of the now separate brake company, even
though no additional production took place.
Also, if Mexico produces cars at a much cheaper price than in the US, say half,
and other goods are also half the price as in the US, and Mexico produces half
the dollar value per worker as the US, but the same physical amount of goods,
does that mean that since the GDP/capita is half the US, that Mexican workers
are half as productive as US workers, even though they produce the same
physical amount as US workers?
And if you plant squash in your garden, instead of buying it at the store, does
the GDP go down by the price of the squash that was raised at home instead of
on a commercial farm?
And if GM raises the price on its cars, does it indicate an increase in
productivity for workers, since the GDP/capita will increase, and the CPI says
we have almost no inflation, so a rise in price will show as more *real* value
of production?
If CBS pays $100 million for rights to televise hockey games this year, when
Fox paid $90 million for the same rights last year, has the GDP just gone up by
$10 million? And since the price of advertising during the hockey games will go
up to cover the increased costs to CBS, will the GDP go up by another $10
million, or possibly more?
Is the output of the advertising industry counted as part of the GDP? If so, if
Pepsi and Coke both spent an aditional $50 million on advertising, does the GDP
go up by $100 million, even if the same amount of colas get sold by each company?
You can see that there are questions as to whether GDP/capita is a real measure
of anything.
**************************************************************
Stve Kangas' info, stats, and essays on economic and other issues
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:35:41 -0800
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Harold wrote:
> Not in my opinion. It is important, for example, for a commercial
> entity to be able to present their products in the way they feel is
> most effective, don't you think?
> Or would you prefer that a restaurant owner be unable to notify
> passersby that she has the best cornbread in town?
> Even stripped to its most essential, you do not think it is important
> that people know a product is available? Don't you think that adds
> value to your enterprise?
You are confusing two definitions of value here. One is what
is valuable to a business, and the other what is valuable to
the members of a society. While the survival of a business
has a strong effect on the survival of its employees, it is
not the survival of the business that is important, but why
those employees are working for that business in the first
place. What if all the labor currently being spent on advertising
or any number of occupations that only serve businesses
were instead put into producing things that real humans need?
A corporation has money. More money that your average
individual will ever see. A corporation participates in an
economy just like any other individual. But the things it
buys, the services it needs, are quite different from what
humans need. And since it has more money, it has more say
in what the participants of your economy will be doing with
their time - that is, serving corporations.
> In what way are copyright laws interfering with the spread of wealth?
> I am much less likely to write a book if I think you are going to just
> copy it and undersell me, because you did not sustain the costs I did
> of actually doing the writing.
C'mon, a pirated CD or videotape isn't valuable? People are
willing to pay for that (although at lower prices). Obviously
there is some wealth in that. And yet copyright laws make
that illegal. Obviously, wealth is not spreading in this case.
Wealth is still wealth, whether I copied it, stole it, found
it, or whatever. But you're correct, that the way the current
system is set up, these laws are meant to encourage the creation
of new wealth (if only to limit its spread after it is created).
Sure it works to a good degree, and I'd say it's a local maximum.
But clearly this is not optimal, which of course, is the point of
this discussion.
> >Each time they
> >have sex, trade occurs. Up goes the GDP. In reality, trade
> >is occuring, but no more real wealth is being generated after
> >the law is passed than was before. And yet I can increase
> >the GDP. Any number of similar laws can be passed for me
> >to fulfill my campaign promise.
> And you obviously think everyone is dumb enough to believe that your
> laws are a meaningful response? Maybe they are as dumb as you imply.
> I hope you are wrong though.
That's not the point obviously. The point is that by just
changing the method of accounting, you "change" the amount
of wealth that you believe your economy is producing. What if
a nation offers free or not-for-profit health care? What
does that do to the GDP even if the services are the same?
Did that nation suddenly become less prosperous than before?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:00:48 -0800
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
cpwUhUh@Spamrahul.net wrote:
> With our modern technology, only a small fraction of mankind could supply
> the rest with the basic necessities of life. The rest of the people have
> to be doing something don't they?
In case not everyone sees that as sarcasm, no, they don't.
Why not simply do nothing until those who are currently
work become tired, then take turns? Why must everyone work
5 days a week? Can we knock that down to 4? 3? The obvious
retort would be: "but but, then society stops producing
new items of value if everyone just decides to be lazy."
But isn't free time valuable? Why must everyone work to
survive when they don't have to? And then, of course,
because the uneven distribution of wealth puts an undue
emphasis on producing goods for the wealthy, we have,
even in this time of technology, those who live with
hunger, while their brethern are busy building mansions
they will never live in, assembling yachts they will never
own, and mining gold that is only destined to be just put
away in some warehouse like Fort Knox, never to be touched
again.
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:46:38 -0800
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Steve wrote:
> Oh. Well, marketing is the systematic study of a product's target market
> once understood the marketing department of a typical company will likely
> hire an ad agency to design a "communication" campaign to make the target
> market aware that a product exists.
Actualy, a marketing department does a fair amount of public
relations as well. Talking to reviewers for example, which
advertisers don't do. But that is a nice distinction you
draw. There is clearly value in determining what your
customers want, as there is value in telling them what
products are available. But of course, there is much wasted
effort there as well. Your typical television advertisement
is probably 90% content free with respect to useful information
about the product. The rest is fluff. And so much effort is
put into making this fluff that people like Seinfeld can
make millions per TV episode (not that he's not talented of
course). In the end, those jingles, that expertly made
graphic art, whatever, not only do not improve the product,
but makes it more expensive to buy.
> > example, the labor needed to enforce copyright laws - labor
> > being used up to actually prevent the spread of wealth.
> Another argument against property rights, hmmm. Property rights bestow
> upon their holders an incentive to be productive in the first place.
> Without property rights all men are slaves or despots or both.
All I see are different definitions of property. You have your
own obviously. Why is it that copyrights exist as intellectual
"property"? The stated purpose, of course, is to encourage
production of such "wealth". The act of producing, for example,
a book or software program is clearly valuable to society. That
is why it is rewarded. However, the act of preventing others
from spreading that wealth is clearly not valuable to society.
Sure, we can clone music easily these days and record companies
are in an uproar. What if someone invented a way to clone food
just as easily? Would the end to world hunger be set aside if
farmers raised a stink?
I have a piece of paper with writing on it. I can put it in
my copying machine. Suddenly someone shows up with a gun and
tells I can't do that. Who is the despot? Who is the slave?
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Organization: Dark Side of the Rainbow
Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, talk.politics.theory, alt.anarchism
Subject: Re: Capitalist economics is NOT optimally efficient
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:55:57 -0800
Harold wrote:
> Consider, how do you know that capitalism is simply a local maxima?
> You would have to know where a higher maxima is. You can't even prove
> there must be a higher maxima, much less where it is.
Oh get real, is this a serious question? How much imagination
do you really need to think of something even slightly better?
Take the entire marketing and public relations sectors:
most of the labor spent doing that is wasted labor. Sure
thinking up great slogans and catchy tunes may be difficult,
but they don't add any value to what is produced. Or take, for
example, the labor needed to enforce copyright laws - labor
being used up to actually prevent the spread of wealth.
> Remember opportunity costs. If we have to shed some GDP to get from
> our maxima to the better one you say must be somewhere, we are giving
> up lives and people's happiness, because GDP correlates highly with
> quality of life issues like medical care and old age security.
The measurement of GDP itself is purely a mathematical
construct useful in economic models, but has little to
do with real life. Let's say I'm elected on a campaign
promise to double the GDP or somesuch nonsense like that.
First thing I do? Make it illegal for husbands and wives
to have sex unless one pays the other. Each time they
have sex, trade occurs. Up goes the GDP. In reality, trade
is occuring, but no more real wealth is being generated after
the law is passed than was before. And yet I can increase
the GDP. Any number of similar laws can be passed for me
to fulfill my campaign promise.
CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu
[email/index]