Re: Why unemployment could hit 14%
- From: "J.H.Boersema" <joshb@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Jul 2009 06:55:29 GMT
Michael Coburn <mikcob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:08:33 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:[...]
Michael Coburn wrote:
I think the reality is that we must change the way our societyWhen I have said that, people accused me ( rightfully ) of being both an
operates. We have more than enough production and also too much
consumption just for the sake of consumption.
old guy and somebody who is probably projecting consumer fatigue on
others.
If we violate the Founding Assumption ( everything that needs done can
never all be done )... it's an equilibrium change on the order of going
from freeholding/yeoman farming to industrialization.
I don't actually care about any of that claptrap. That asinine
"assumption" says there should be no unemployment. Reality isn't an
assumption.
Wages _MUST_ be increased in nominal terms by shortening the work weekHours worked are down, too. Housing prices have adjusted downward -
until such time as wages are more in line with housing prices.
significantly.
Hours worked should be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY
down. And so too, unemployment. And that is the real point. We have a
system that is malfunctioning and we refuse to fix what is wrong with
it. These people _CAN'T_ be out of work if there is more to do than can
ever be done. The assumption is flat ass wrong and the system is too.
The system is wrong http://www.socialism.nl/short-system-explanation.html :
One problem is that people refuse to acknowledge this, refuse to notice
that things are fundamentally wrong and `going to hell,' simply because
they want so much to live in a normal well organized world that they
fantasize to themselves that we are already in that world. With that
fantasy in the way of seeing reality, to comfort them against the errors
in that (human) reality, the errors in the system go on. The people do
it to themselves because they are stupid.
Unfortunately there are some people who make alternative solutions but
these are usually so badly designed and ill thought through, that people
have no interest in even hearing alternative ideas anymore (because that
too is all so stupid, usually; so naive, so blind.) And then there is
lazyness ... and then there is beer, and the worries of every day life
.... . The end of the story is, I suppose: people won't wise up about
anything until death is staring them in the face, until it is do or die.
Maybe the biggest of these problems is that economics is really a branch
of science, or should be, and therefore isn't as simple as the teletubbies.
With academia influenced by Capital and not doing its job, much of the
population almost has no chance to make sense of (fundamental)
economics. Hence, the capitalist system goes on; or worse maybe its
plan-economic corrupt marxist counter balance.
I'm going to make this as short as possible. You could read it as
generalized fundamental thinking about economics and law.
Trade: A makes X and B makes Y, A specializes in making X and B
specializes in making Y, A makes more of X then she needs, B makes
more of Y then he needs. C does nothing, D attempts to steal from A
and B through deception "I am so weak !!!" and E attempts to steal
from A and be through violence "your X and Y, or your lives." E has
its own ideas about trade.
Trade works for A and B, they can ignore C if they wish. If all goods
produces where thrown into a basket for general use, C could take all
he wanted. Trade protects A and B. D can also be ignored if A and B so
wish. A and B can decide to give money to police-force F and fund
judges G, thus losing some wealth but buying safety from the robber E.
These sweet goings on suffer 3 additional complications in modern
times. First not everything that has economic value is produced by
anyone, the best example is soil. It exists before and after and
during the economic process. If E where to control it through force,
he could extract wealth from A and B to use it. A and B get nothing
out of E, because E didn't put the land there; without E they would
have the land for free (or reduced cost). The solution for such
entities of economic value that exist regardless or exist
continuously, is to distribute them to all, everyone a fair share.
This way everyone gets the same benefit out of it. Those that don't
work the resource are allowed to hire it to someone who does.
Another complication is the strange habit of most people to be willing
guinea pigs in the designs of people who they award dictatorial power
with their obedience. Almost all businesses today are dictatorships,
people don't even think of them as dictatorships even though they
usually are. It is so common, it raises no eyebrows with most people.
But the boss controls how the spoils of the business are divided
between all that contribute to the effort. The boss also has the power
to hire and fire people, while the boss/owner can not be fired. The
difference in power allows the boss to do things his/her way, which
typically means: the boss takes as much of the money as he/she thinks
he/she can get away with.
The careful observer will have noticed the similarity with the soil
ownership problem: the boss wields a special super-power in these
trading situations. That super power gets converted into money for the
boss, and poverty for the rest. It does not have to but it typically
does. On the other hand the economy needs fresh upstart businesses in
order to make very profitable items/goods cheaper, and put competition
to other companies, which is the way the markets stabilize the effort
everyone puts into their work. Something which is very profitable will
be attempted by more and more people, until the price drops to a
reasonable level where people might as well do something else again.
To have that stabilizing effect, markets need to be dynamic places
where companies are starter, grow, contract, and go bankrupt.
The dictatorial problem can be solved this way, without hurting the
dynamic operations of the markets: once the business starter - who is
a "natural boss" who has earned his/her right to be any kind of boss
he/she wishes to be because he/she has managed to do something
worthwhile, which is build a company from nothing - once the starter
leaves the business is going over into the ownership of the group of
employees, if that group is large enough.
That leaves another issue: money, business investment credit in
particular. Money is extremely useful for the markets, a market
without money hardly works at all - direct barter is not an efficient
system (think it over). The problem with profit seeking investment, is
that wages, "fair share of profit," legal costs, health care costs,
community costs, tax costs, environmental costs, all these have to
come out of the profits of the company. The for profit investor who
invests in companies who minimize all or as much as possible of these
costs, will grow out to be the most profiteering investor. Being the
most profiteering investor, he/she will become the richest and most
powerful investor. What kind of businesses does this ever more
powerful investor grow up left and right and throughout the economy,
until there is only that kind of businesses ? Bad types of business,
who minimize the costs of everything that is worthwhile and good.
Therefore there can only (or almost only) be democratically controlled
business credit. If you are a farmer, and you know your crops get no
water from a watering system, but your weeds are, then you will have
to adjust the water flow so that the crops get the water and the weeds
stand dry and die. The for profit investment system waters the weeds
(bad companies, but more profitable for the investors), and does not
water the crops (better companies, more profitable for employees and
for other worthwhile causes). The profit motive on business investment
must be removed. The obvious alternative: democratic power. Note that
when businesses are forced to become democracies, this also undercuts
the power of for profit investment to a degree (but not enough). Note
also that conscious consuming can form a contra power against these
problems, where both greedy and poverty consumption tends to
re-enforce the problems.
This leads to the last major issue: the state must be a true
democracy. Without being a true democracy, there is no place to invest
the money power, and with no place to invest the money power the
capitalist markets will run wild and will tend to create corruption,
dictatorship, war, imperialism, and so on and so forth - who knows
where that will end, but it probably won't be nice. Note that if the
money power is under control in the state, then the state is no longer
under threat from the corrupting influence of the external privatized
money power. Note that businesses under dictatorial control tend to
have a never ending lust to grow bigger and bigger, because even if
the profit per employee might drop, if all profit (first) flows into
the pockets of the business dictator even then the total profit has
increased. This can (and has) lead to companies growing to become
monstrously large, even grow out of their host countries.
All these weird problems occur because people don't understand their
basic economic theory, despite it all being rather simple & obvious,
especially once you understand it. If you don't understand it then
maybe you should study it more, you can't expect to understand
everything on the first reading. Young people spend years and years to
learn how to read and write, later they might spend several years to
learn economics or law if they choose those directions. This is
economics and law, and it isn't a minor update but rather a new
dimension if you like. Turning economics from covering the capitalist
parasitic racket into an objective science in the service of the
people. This more or less means most of currently taught economics
(2009) will have to be thrown with the trash. If you are not willing
to do the work needed to learn economics, then don't blame me for your
lack of understanding of the subject. Maybe you can find someone who
can explain these things better for you. If you think this is just
another theory, then you don't seem to get it. On the other hand if
human behavior was vastly better, then perhaps even the present day
(2009) capitalist utopia would have worked. The problem with
capitalism is that it demands such a high moral standard of all
people, that they would willingly share land for nothing with each
other, demand most/all businesses to be run democratically and
equitable, and invest their excess money in good causes and as gifts
to apparently useful upstarts 100%. The people would need to be so
morally enlightened that without laws to enforce a correct model,
they'd be doing it out of their own hearts. My idea is: we have to put
some teeth on it, or it won't work, and if it doesn't work only the
few parasites prosper and the many suffer. Law isn't merely about what
you can't do: it gives society a functional structure, without which
chaos or bad structures could take over that make many people suffer.
--
http://www.socialism.nl
.
- References:
- Why unemployment could hit 14%
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: Why unemployment could hit 14%
- From: Michael Coburn
- Why unemployment could hit 14%
- Prev by Date: Re: Why unemployment could hit 14%
- Next by Date: Federal Reserve opposes being audited
- Previous by thread: Re: Why unemployment could hit 14%
- Next by thread: Re: Why unemployment could hit 14%
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
