You're viewing a single thread.
Under capitalism, food isn't produced to feed people, it's produced to make a profit.
The only way to make a profit under capitalism is to satisfy the needs of your consumers, regardless if you want or not.
When it's not profitable to feed people, we let them starve.
Hunger is literally an innate need. It will not be profitable if other external factors arise, just as regulations, licences, government-granted privileges that squash other competitors... any violation of the right to self-ownership and private property is detrimental and coercive.
Even when our labor has conquered scarcity, capitalism must manufacture it in order to justify its existence.
Scarcity is not something you can "conquer". Resources are scarce and all have alternative uses. Any time we consume any good, it comes as an expense to someone.
"The unplanned order of markets is the greatest achievement of mankind. It enables us to prosper. It is the foundation of civilization. It has no real alternative, and emerges spontaneously, so it costs us nothing. Fear and loathing of this self-imposed and unintended gift threatens our well-being, even our very lives."
The only way to make a profit under capitalism is to satisfy the needs of your consumers, regardless if you want or not.
This isn't true. This isn't close to true, not even a little. Rent seeking, manufacturing wants/needs, extortion, the list goes on and on, but...
It will not be profitable if other external factors arise, just as regulations, licences, government-granted privileges that squash other competitors
...Yep. You've defined capitalism so that all these inevitable features of a capitalist economy are "external factors". What a stroke of genius. But much like the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, the myriad ills that inevitably accompany it are "external" only because capitalists have named them so.
Scarcity is not something you can “conquer”.
It's not something capitalism can conquer, because any solution that would end scarcity for a good or service would thereby end profitability for the same. No capitalist would provide it; they'd sooner let their capital collect dust than be used without profit. Or in the case of the Great Depression, they'd sooner set fresh produce and livestock on fire than let other consume it without profit to themselves.
The unplanned order of markets [...] emerges spontaneously, so it costs us nothing.
Markets cost us nothing because they emerge spontaneously? Things that emerge spontaneously cost us nothing? I'll leave it to the reader to poke holes in this obvious nonsense. I'll merely point out that capitalists have proven themselves masters at turning a profit from things that "emerge spontaneously", costing everyone a great deal in the process.
Rent seeking, manufacturing wants/needs, extortion, the list goes on and on, but…
Aside for your idea of "manufacturing wants/needs" (as they are unlimited), rent seeking and extortion (such as subsidies and taxation) are not legit means to profit in a market-setting.
"Those who particularly flourish on the free market, therefore, will be those most adept at production and at serving their fellow men; those who succeed in the political struggle for subsidies, on the other hand, will be those most adept at wielding coercion or at winning favors from wielders of coercion."
You’ve defined capitalism so that all these inevitable features of a capitalist economy are “external factors”.
Corporatocracy is not the same as capitalism. The state is not intrinsically bounded to the formation of markets and voluntary exchange.
because any solution that would end scarcity for a good or service would thereby end profitability for the same.
There is no such thing as a permanent solution to the economic problem of scarcity. Any superabundance theory is destined to fail, such as keynesian economics.
Or in the case of the Great Depression, they’d sooner set fresh produce and livestock on fire than let other consume it without profit to themselves.
The Great Depression represented the most visible sign of a necessary correction in an economy artificially inflated by expansionary monetary policy. The interventionist measures made to boost the economy only drove it further into depression.
"Future recessions can be prevented by reforming the monetary system that creates the boom in the first place."
Markets cost us nothing because they emerge spontaneously? Things that emerge spontaneously cost us nothing?
"We might object to this on the grounds that markets, like any other construct, are man made, and therefore entail a real cost. While it is true that markets are a human construct, we must bear in mind that they are, as Hayek put it, the result of human action, but not the result of human design."
Do you have a point or are you just nitpicking?
I think the point is that capitalism may be wonderfully humane, as long as it is confined within a mental box, and never touched by daylight.
I think you misnamed this community. It's spelled "Communism".
This community is left, not neoliberal. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. We have anarchists, socialists, anticapitalists, and more. Just because we don't fit the US political spectrum of neoliberal to fascist, doesn't mean we're all communists.
Communism isn't the only alternative to capitalism. For example, a system where all enterprises are controlled by the people that work in them, the means of production is socially owned and land and natural resources are commonly owned would also be a postcapitalist system
What would you call such a system?
Economic democracy
Is communism not a movement based on the aspiration to achieve economic democracy?
The system I described is not moneyless
Is there a reason that only a moneyless society may be described as communist?
Is the distinction relevant, given that any abolition of money would entail gradual evolution by many smaller and weakly related changes, between the present and such a time?
The only way to make a profit under capitalism is to satisfy the needs of your consumers,
I think this may be the most stupid thing I've read today, and I've already read three headlines about Trump!
I guess capitalism would never dream of creating monopolies and artificial shortages to increase profit? And it wouldn't dream of trying to trick customers to pay more for less?I guess capitalism would never dream of creating monopolies and artificial shortages to increase profit?
The only way to be a monopoly is to have a government-grant privilege, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting.
"Artificial shortages" are created by the mere existence of intellectual property. Even what you define "artificial shortage" is probably not artificial at all, as the price of a final consumer good is not determined by its cost of production.
And it wouldn’t dream of trying to trick customers to pay more for less?
"Prices are only incidental manifestations of [economic] activities, symptoms of an economic equilibrium between the economies of individuals." This means that the emergence of a realized price […] coincides not only with the consummation of the exchange process but also with the attainment of a momentary state of rest by the parties involved in the exchange.
for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting.
Surely you are aware of economic moats that have nothing to do with government privileges. Many things are very very hard to compete with from scratch. Take the advanced chips issue - there are 2 companies that can make 3nm chips IIRC, TSMC and Samsung. Many governments would love to have the manufacturing in their country, but even with massive incentives, we're 5-10 years out at best of anything being completed. This isn't a limit of IP (though there's that too), it's a limit of trained up people, processes and equipment that's extremely expensive.
Now lets say you think TSMC charges too much, and you could do it cheaper. Well, first you need billions of dollars to just build your plant. Then you need years to get trained people who can get reasonable yields from it. So here you're at 10 years or so, when you're just dumping money into a hole. Now, you're BCMC (Better Cheaper Manufacturing Company) - which people reasonably distrust when you're the new kid on the block in a complicated and difficult manufacturing product. So you have to sell lower, probably at a loss as you work out efficiencies. And not a little lower, but you have to entice people to try out this "off brand".
Can you see why people might not be rushing to compete with TSMC?
Oh, and if you manage to get reasonably good, there's also a good chance TSMC just buys you out to prevent competition. This happens all the time in pretty much all fields.
So while it's hard to have a T-Shirt making monopoly, or a farmers market monopoly, it's much easier to defend a capital intensive industry.
The only way to be a monopoly is to have a government-grant privilege,
Amazon, Microsoft, Google.
Many kinds of product are now only produced by a handful of different companies, who have acquired numerous smaller companies, and maintained the brands, keeping consumers generally unaware.
No. You can also profit by appropriating the fruits of somebody else's labor and taking advantage of market failures. Often times, actions that benefit consumers fail to receive adequate funding due to involving public goods.
Capitalism violates the ethical basis of property rights of getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. In the capitalist firm, the employer solely appropriates the whole product of the firm, which workers produce but are denied the legal rights to
No. You can also profit by appropriating the fruits of somebody else's labor
Capitalism violates the ethical basis of property rights of getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor.An entrepreneur can't "appropriate" somebody else's labor if the employee who agreed to work for a wage did it voluntarily. Denying this would imply denying the natural right of the worker to free will. Social cooperation is not the same as slavery.
and taking advantage of market failures.
These so-called "market failures" are the product of an utilitarian and scientific economic theory to understand the causes and effects of economic relationships, as it ignores completely the difference between the study of Human Action and economic history.
In fact, the intervention of the government makes it more difficult to have a good allocation of resources.
Often times, actions that benefit consumers fail to receive adequate funding due to involving public goods.
"Every good is useful "to the public," and almost every good […] may be considered "necessary." Any designation of a few industries as "public utilities" is completely arbitrary and unjustified."
Property rights' moral basis flows from the moral principle that the de facto responsible party should be held legally responsible. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. The voluntariness of the employment contract is irrelevant because de facto responsibility cannot be transferred even with consent. The labor's voluntariness makes them more responsible. There is an inalienable right, which can't be given up even with consent, here
Property rights' moral basis flows from the moral principle that the de facto responsible party should be held legally responsible.
Property rights are deduced by the natural right to self-ownership.
"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself."
The voluntariness of the employment contract is irrelevant because de facto responsibility cannot be transferred even with consent.
As I said before, you're denying the natural right of the employee to free will.
Every individual employs scarce resources to attain a desirable end. If you are against social cooperation, you're making human action more difficult.
"For a contract to exist as property, each contracting party has a property interest in specific performance on the part of the opposing contracting party. But a property interest in specific performance is not a property interest in the person. The employer contracts with an employee for specific performance. The employee also contracts with the employer in similar style. Each has a property interest in the performance of the other, but neither owns the person of the other."
In an enterprise, the whole product is the property rights to outputs and liabilities for used-up inputs. By the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match, the workers should jointly get the whole product.
You are denying employees' free will, which comes with responsibility for the results of their joint actions.
Not against social cooperation. Am arguing that all firms should be worker coops. Labor and responsibility are de facto non-transferable
https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/
Food is not scarce. Rising food prices are not because of food scarcity. Milk hasn't nearly doubled in price in the past two years because of a scarcity of dairy cows.
Food is not scarce.
Food is not a superabundant resource. If it was, then the ends it satisfies would already have been attained, and there would be no need for action. Resources that are superabundant no longer function as means, because they are no longer objects of action.
An example of an actual superabundant resource is the air:
"Thus, air is indispensable to life and hence to the attainment of goals; however, air being superabundant is not an object of action and therefore cannot be considered a means, but rather what Mises called a "general condition of human welfare." Where air is not superabundant, it may become an object of action, for example, where cool air is desired and warm air is transformed through air conditioning."
Rising food prices are not because of food scarcity.
Of course. Rising the price of something could be caused by a lot of things. However, we should differentiate a change of the price caused by voluntary exchange of it caused by institutional coercion.
Milk hasn’t nearly doubled in price in the past two years because of a scarcity of dairy cows.
Descriptive economics is not the same as explanatory economics.
One example alone I can think of of how privatisation is bad is that redundancy is ignored because it is not profitable. For example, our water companies in the UK is incentivised to not have huge reserves because they cost more to maintain, which means that during a bad drought, people do run out of water. This has already happened, and this is only one example.
This happens with all sorts of industries that provide essential services - they will fail when put under stress, because to account for that stress is unprofitable. At worst, it leads to people suffering, at best, it needs constant regulation and enforcement by the government to stop them running in an unsafe manner. Companies will literally use child labour if you let them - I don't know why you insist on defending them.
One example alone I can think of of how privatisation is bad is that redundancy is ignored because it is not profitable.
At worst, it leads to people suffering, at best, it needs constant regulation and enforcement by the government to stop them running in an unsafe manner.There you go. The classical myth of "natural monopolies" and the intervention of the government, such as licenses, protectionism, "public utilities", subsidies, etc. are the mere cause of this problem.
"The fact that the government must give permission for the use of its streets has been cited to justify stringent government regulations of 'public utilities,' many of which (like water or electric companies) must make use of the streets. The regulations are then treated as a voluntary quid pro quo. But to do so overlooks the fact that governmental ownership of the streets is itself a permanent act of intenention. Regulation of public utilities or of any other industry discourages investment in these industries, thereby depriving consumers of the best satisfaction of their wants. For it distorts the resource allocations of the free market."
Companies will literally use child labour if you let them
"[...] the only reason our children don't have to do this type of labor is that we are wealthier, not because of our child-labor laws nor because we are somehow culturally or racially superior."
Any ban on child labor is utterly counterproductive and potentially life-threatening to the very people the government is "trying to protect". Only economic development can improve the lives of these children, and nothing short of unrestricted free trade will do.
ITT: Conflation of free market economics and capitalism.