Re: Venture Communism

From: polar bear (bear_at_pole.com)
Date: 08/22/04 

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:11:27 -0700

In article <4e20d3f.0408191631.1e61f19e@posting.google.com>,
quirk@syntac.net (Quirk) wrote:

> polar bear <bear@pole.com> wrote in message
> news:<190820040229368331%bear@pole.com>...
>
> [area of mutual agreement snipped]

I'm back. Sorry I dropped out for a bit. Had to do a forclosure on an
orphanage so we could build condos for rich yuppies and it took longer
than I expected. The little kids weren't too much trouble, but those
eight year olds - man, some of them fought like tigers.
>
> > > The reason can be described as the //friction// of making Human
> > > Capital act as if it where mutual when in fact it is private.
>
> > Right. That, plus the funny hats.
>
> Dude, it would never have made it as far as it did //without// the
> funny hats.
>
> > > Conversely, Capitalism doesn't work because of the //friction// of
> > > making Natural Capital private, when in fact it is mutal.
>
> [...]
>
> > I would argue that original title ultimately derives from some act of
> > force.
>
> The foundation of Libertarian ideas of all stripes extend from the
> notion of self ownership, and by extenstion owership of your
> productive capicity. This can not extend to Natural Capital, because
> no one has produced it, it is taken.

Right. You'll notice I'm not disagreeing with that. I've also pointed
out elsewhere that I'm NOT a libertarian.
>
> And therefore purchacing it is purchacing stolen goods. The Seller did
> not make it, nor did the seller buy if from someone who made it. It
> wasn't made.

OK, but if no one produced it, then who was it stolen from? Bears?
>
> Regardless of how you rationalize it, Natural Capital //is// Mutual. A
> system that treats it as if it where Private property will have to
> sacrifice efficiency, and thereby wealth, to make it act as if it
> where private.

Right. Which is why America had to import so much grain from the
Soviet Union. Our private farms were so inefficient we couldn't even
feed our own people.

>
> [...]
>
> > The metaphysical question of who "owns" the land, however, is different
> > from the material, temporal condition of who holds it for a particular
> > use at a particular time.
>
> Yes, you don't need to get metephysical, in reality the owner and
> holder are not the same, one Ownes and the other //Rents.//
>
> Economicaly speaking, the //Renter// is the producer, the Owner is a
> non-producer, when the economy Tranfers money from Renters to Owners
> it is effictively Taxing productivity for the benifit of private
> owners.

This is really starting to sound Marxist. If I own a farm, and I work
that land, I am both an owner AND a producer. In the old USSR that
would have made me a Kulak, subject to immediate deportation (which
illustrates the principle of force behind every claim to ownership)
The new OWNERS, the Collective, having less of a personal stake in the
land, spent less time working the collective, and more time tending
their own PRIVATE vegetable gardens (like the Kulaks before them).
Production suffered, with the result that the USSR actually had to
import wheat. (they had plenty of vegetables though)
>
> The ownership of Natural Capital needs to be mutualized, and the Rent
> revenue is the natural and logical basis of Social Accumulation, such
> as Infrastructre and Human Development, some believe that Revenue
> derived from this source, the Land Value Tax, would be enough to
> replace all other Taxes.

This is all well and good, but WHO sets the land value tax, what
formula do they use, and how do I know I can trust them? Seems to me
you'd just be replacing one set of vile bureaucrats with another.
>
> Venture Communism attempts to apply some of these ideas on an
> mesoeconomic level, and create an investment strategy to grow this
> mesoeconomy.
>
> > The fact is, no matter which political system you employ, the land is
> > alienated.
> > It's use by one group or individual BY DEFINITION, excludes it's use by
> > some
> > other group or individual.
>
> Exactly, so it doesn't matters wether the Rent is collected by a wage
> recieving representitive of some idle private absentee landlord, or by
> a wage recieving representitive of some Mutualized agency, like a
> Municipal Government or a Venture Commune.

OK, now it's absentee landlords? Are you declaring a difference
between someone who owns AND works the land VS. someone who simply
rents it out? I might agree with you there, if you could find a way to
separate the two. What about a farmer who rents his fields to an
adjacent farm for a year while he takes a vacation? What about when he
retires and his heirs have all become doctors and lawyers?

My wife's family owns land in Japan, which they used to work, but now
rent to other farmers. Should they be forced to sell? And what if the
other farmers don't have enough capital to buy them out? Should the
govt take it over? Incidently, their land formerly belonged to an
owner, who while absent, made his presence fairly well known if you
didn't kick back enough of your production (and the occasional
daughter). The Meiji reforms changed all that, dividing feudal estates
amongst the former vassels. Both forms of ownership were private.
Both were based on force, but you'd get NO argument today as to which
is better.
>
> However since Natural Capital is Mutual property any system that
> treats it like mutual property will be more efficient that one that
> pretends it is private for the benifit of the current holders.

Mutual property or not, you still require force to establish ownership.
There's just no getting around that fact. A social democracy can
collectivize land through expropriation. A market democracy can
enforce private ownership via a legal code. In either case, you have
to compare outcomes in terms of production. I think the record speaks
for itself.
>
> Thus, the Mesoconomy of the Venture Communes will be more efficient
> that the Macroeconomy.

That would be your goal. The proof, however is in the pudding.

>
> > Your successful Venture Communist strawberry farm, for
> > example, cannot be used by some other Venture Commune as a tire factory
> > without some equitable transfer of title that reflects the VALUE ADDED
> > to that land by the efforts of your hard work.
>
> If it is Mutualized then the strawberry farm is paying Rent which the
> other enterprise memebers share in, so yes, and by ensuring that the
> Rent is paid, the Community ensures that its productive capicity is
> maximized.
>
> > A joint stock company operates much the same way.
>
> Yes, and Venture Communes are very much based on Venture Capital funds
> that own joint stock companies, with some novel improvements.

Exactly, but you haven't addressed the question of alienation. Mutual
ownership is an idealization. Granted, we have no more claim to this
planet that the bears. However, trespass on a bears' domain and see
what happens. Bears have very definite ideas about who owns what.

>
> > I really don't know why you conflate Austrian Economics with
> > Neoliberalism. It strikes me as disingenuous.
>
> Because they are the same thing. They both treat Natural Capital as if
> where Private.
>
> > Certainly they share
> > some common features, but they differ sharply on the question of money
> > and banking.
>
> All in the Quantity Theory of Money train of thought.
>
> You don't like the Libertarian Party, You don't like Ayn Rand, you
> don't like the Neoliberals. It sounds like you believe that the
> Austrian School is extinct. Just you and the Ghost of Von Mises.

Spooky, isn't it? If only more people realized the importance of
Ghost Busting, we might make some progress on this sorry planet.
>
> Who do you think the "Neoliberals" are if not the decendents of the
> Chicago School? Do you not agree that the Chicago school is influenced
> by the Austrian School?

Academians tend to influence one another. That doesn't mean they agree
on everything. Einstein and Bohr influenced each other for many
years. Bohr is generally accepted as having "won" the debate, although
some opinion is now swinging back to Einstein. Such is the nature of
scientific inquiry. Even Grand Master Newton comes up for review now
and again.
>
> The "Chicago Boys" are the diffinitive Neoliberals, they are dear
> Ludwig's *** children, his great revenge against Keynes, who he
> could not unseat in his own lifetime.

Well, not belonging to any of these schools, I don't have a particular
axe to grind. I read what others have written, then apply my own
reasoning to their work. One observation I'd make is that economic
theory seems to be pretty well co-opted by vested interests. Thomas
Kuhn had something to say about that, in fact one of his crisis driven
paradigm shifts seems to be in the offing, and I doubt any one school
is going to come through it unscathed.
>
> > as for the question of poverty, or general welfare:
> >
> > (Mises)
>
> [obvious fallacies snipped]
>
> > They invoke a set of metaphysical principles and condemn the market economy
> > beforehand because it does not conform to them.
>
> Like most cranks, he sees his own faults in others. It is Von Mises
> who condemns the market based on his metaphysical principles, which
> have never been used sucefully to predict anything accept by their
> critics, who often use it to accurately predict //disaster.//
>
> The Market requires honest trade, therefore without the understanding
> that Natural Capital is Mutual Property, the market he is talking
> about is imaginary, and the reality he is justifying is theft as a
> form of freedom.
>
> Please, Polar, please explain how the USA, which is an economy far
> closer to Von Mises ideal than any other on the planet, has a Child
> Poverty rate that would be unimaginable in any other developed nation?
> All Von Mises gives us is moralistic nonsence and excuses, Blame all
> your failings in your productive models on flaws in the market itself,
> never your models. My, what fragile models they must be if they
> require absolute perfection before they work, and that is the reason
> their benifits can not be shown to exist.

I'm not sure the current US child poverty rate pertained at the time
Mises was writing and I sure wouldn't argue that America today comes
close to Mises' ideal. I do know a lot of Swedes moved to America in
the 19th century to get away from poverty in their own land. I also
know that Sweden abandoned much of it's redistributionism in the 70's
because it was discouraging investment and driving educated people out
of the country.
>
> Henry George could explain the Child Poverty by showing how private
> Rent collectors are reducing wealth, and could show you numbers that
> correlate. Keynes could explain the Child Poverty by talking about how
> Concentration of wealth was reducing the Margin Propensity to Consume,
> and thereby reducing Wealth, and could also show you numbers that
> corelate. Von Mises has nothing but insults for his critics and wild,
> unsubstantiated, moralistic claims, which predict nothing.
>
> [...]
>
> > What I see you, and most other well-meaning reformers doing, is trying
> > to make economics conform to some moral standard that is more properly
> > situated in philosophy.
>
> Nonsense, I am saying what is //is//. Human Capital is Private,
> Natural Capital is Mutual. You are imposing some moral/ philosohical/
> rationalizing standard, saying that Natural Capital ought to be
> treated as if it private even though we both know it isn't.

I keep returning to this point: Natural Capital is mutual if we MAKE
it so. Likewise private ownership. They are just different forms of
Alienation (a preference for how land is used). Pit them against each
other and observe the results. I don't think anyone's actually
stopping you, although they might try if you get big enough to threaten
their interests. In that event, you'd definitely have my support.
>
> > The short answer from the Austrians is
> > that Capitalism alleviates, not obliterates poverty.
>
> Then why are 25.4% of children in the USA poor, while less than 5% of
> Swedish children are?

There are so many factors that come into play here besides the issue of
what form of government and economics one uses. Besides, I'm NOT
defending the US way of doing things. Interference in the Market is
the hallmark there, not laissez faire. Definitely NOT Austrian.
>
> Are Swedish Children really five times "more productive" than Children
> from the USA?

No, but they're 5 times brattier I expect.
>
> > Which raises an important point. As Donald Rumsfeld recently pointed
> > out, there's a lot of things we just don't know. Acting as if we do
> > might be expedient in the short term, but in the long haul it only
> > hurts us. There's a point where you have recognize that a problem has
> > no current solution. It then becomes a matter for further research. I
> > suspect poverty is one such case. I see a lot of blame being passed
> > around, but I don't see anyone offering a workable solution as yet.
>
> This is so nonsensical I'm almost speachless. We don't know anything,
> so might as well let known crimanals make drastic changes that we know
> will not work.

Where did I say we don't know *anything*? And where do I promote the
idea that criminals ought to make drastic changes that won't work? All
I've done is make a colloquial argument for the Scientific Method.

Man, this is really deteriorating. I'm not a Rumsfeld fan BTW. That
was IRONY.
>
> Keeping marginal propensity to consume and marginal incentives to
> produce high and concentration of ownership of natural capital low,
> while investing in infrastructure and human devolpment works. It's no
> secret.
>
> The Neocons are against this, because they are //for the concentration
> of wealth and consolodation of power//, and are //agressively changing
> things// while passing the blame (and Debt) around for their failures.

No argument there.
>
> I'm really unable to grasp what you are suggesting in the quoted
> paragraph Polar.

I know. We're really just talking past each other at this point.
>
> If the problem "Has No Current Sollution" why would I accept theirs?
> Especialy since the previous flawed system, the New Liberalism of FDR
> and Co, was clearly superior?
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to //work on a sollution// or at least
> //keep doing it the old way//?
>
> > > It does not astonish anyone, what seems to baffle Capitalists however
> > > is the notion that there can be no legitimate "buyer" of Land, because
> > > there is no //producer// of Land to give his consent to the purchase.
> >
> > By that reasoning, no bear that digs a den or bird that builds a nest
> > can be said to own their home. It's reducto ad absurdum.
>
> Your example, by limiting the economy of the Human marketplace to the
> methods used by Birds and Bears is reducto ad absurdum.
>
> That Land is Mutual property is clear. It is absurd to treat it as it
> where otherwise.
>
> > > Natural Capital can not be sold, it can only be Rented, even the
> > > generations of the future, who can not party to any present or past
> > > "sale" have the same claim on the Land as the actors of today.
>
> > A claim, absent the means to enforce it, is just hot air
>
> That is why we Humans, unlike Birds and Bears, have Laws and
> Contracts.
>
Bears have contracts too. We just don't write them down.

Look, I'm going to leave it at that OK? I think it's clear our
fundamental difference is the question of Natural Capital. I'm really
not up for a discussion of the finer points of Mises vs Keynes vs
Friedman et al. That was a long time ago for me and it's really more
effort that I can afford at this point. ( I have a business to run)
Besides, so much of it is ill defined and subject to fruitless polemics
(Austrians included) that you might as well tear it all down and start
over.

I'd like to see you move ahead with your project though. Take it from
theory to practice, where the rubber meets the road. You'll probably
find a natural ally in Catherine Fitts. As a practical matter, you
should be prepared to modify your approach according to results,
including questioning your basic premises. I've been a trader for 15
years, and the one thing I've learned in that time is to listen to what
the market tells you. Our knowledge is not perfect, and the
environment in which we operate is very dynamic, thus yesterday's
solutions often fail us today. We are all students in this classroom,
especially the teachers.

good luck.

pb

PS. Let me know when you do your first share-offering. I've often
made money betting against myself. Maybe this is one of those times.

Quantcast