Criticism of Liberal Capitalism - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14455039
Mircea wrote:Those shifts are demographic due to migrations.


[Note: The above quote is in reference to states voting 'red' or 'blue' in US Presidential elections and the sometimes dramatic shifts which have occurred in them.]

I place in evidence the Wikipedia red/blue maps for 1988 and 1992. This pocm cannot quite conceive of a migration of peoples which would account for the dramatic change.

"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer.
#14455061
quetzalcoatl wrote:In light of discussion centering around Piketty's Capital,.....


Not much to discuss since it's fabricated nonsense.

The Great Transformation is a book by Karl Polanyi, an Austro-Hungarian political economist.


His views are all wrong, and mostly distorted lies hell-bent on propagandizing.

"A distinguishing characteristic of the "Market Society" is that humanity's economic mentalities were changed. Prior to the great transformation, people based their economies on reciprocity and redistribution and were not rational utility maximizers.


What he is talking about here is the Traditional Economic System, which is still used by about 2 Billion people in tribal and clan-based societies.

He lies by omission failing to mention that those are ZERO Level Economies.

A ZERO Level Economy is Subsistence Agriculture. You need every single person working -- and yes, that means child labor -- to provide enough food to survive. Technology is what changes everything. The lowly stick. You can use it poke holes in the ground to drop seed. Then the forked stick allows you to poke two holes at a time. Labor-saving devices such as that, create Surplus Labor. What do you do with the Surplus Labor? If you have the Capital, then you can put them to work. If you have Capital such as land, then you can farm another field to grow more crops, so that your daily diet increases from 750 calories to 950 calories. People are healthier, stronger, live longer and such.

Normally you grow the crop that yields the greatest harvest, but as you progress, you can start growing crops with lower harvests, to supplement your diet and increase your Standard of Living. It might not have been a good use of time to fish, but now it is, and fish is a good supplement, as is other meats.

How do you distribute the goods?

That's based on Traditions that were established, hence, the Traditional Economic System.

Perhaps the tribal/clan leader, the elders, the largest family, the oldest family, the best warrior or whomever is given more than everyone else. Everyone gets a bushel, the upper class gets two bushels, and then the tribal leader or elders get three bushels.

The Traditional Economy evolves with Civilization. As clans and tribes grow in size, you end up with the Warrior-Class, and the Priestly Class and the Noble Class and such, with traditions evolving to accommodate these new classes that are formed.

The Traditional Economic System is perpetuated through fear and intimidation using religion.

How does trade impact the Traditional System? It doesn't. Trade goods are distributed to the classes based on Tradition. The introduction of money has no impact either, because you still owe the other classes based on Tradition.

The politicization of religion by the Imperial Roman Catholic Church is what creates the Feudal System. The Feudal System is nothing ore than an expansion of the Traditional System. The only real difference is that tribal and clan leaders have been replaced by the nobility and the clergy, and in many instances, the tribal and clan leaders were nobles.

There are rational utility maximizers, even though they are limited to certain Classes, and even then, you still have to operate in accordance with the Tradition.

After the great transformation, people became more economically rational, behaving as neoclassical economic theory would predict. The creation of capitalist institutions not only changed laws but also fundamentally altered mankind's economic mentalities, such that prior to the great transformation, markets played a very minor role in human affairs and were not even capable of setting prices because of their diminutive size. It was only after the creation of new market institutions and industrialization that the myth of humanity's propensity to barter and trade became widespread in an effort to mold human nature to fit the new market based economic institutions.


Wrong again.

"Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more? Why must I suffer and toil in the fields?" "Because god said so, you twit and if you keep your festering gob shut, I'll bless you with my funny stick and you'll be able to go to heaven and eat cake and ice cream and never gain any weight."

The "great transformation" was the recognition that there is no god or gods, and that religion is the single-most nondestructive element in humanity.

That is why Capitalism is so powerful and a liberation theology in its own right. Anyone can own Capital: you don't have to be a greater noble, or a lesser noble, or in a monastic order, or one of the clergy, or in the Merchant Class or any other silly Class.

The fact that Capitalism is Class-less is the reason people hate Capitalism so badly.

Those people don't want you to have anything, unless they say you can have it. So, yeah, gosh, institutions like courts are necessary to protect you from the people who hate you.

Without institutions, the people who hate you, would take your land or cows or chickens or bicycle or computer. The courts protect you: This bicycle is his; he acquired it without committing crimes; you have no right to take the bicycle he uses for his messenger service.

His claim that Markets were too small to set prices is totally absurd, and demonstrates that he doesn't have the first freaking clue what Market is.

A Market may be only a few city-blocks in size, or it could be the entire world. It all depends on what is being marketed, and the level of access to the Market.

Look at Labor Markets and Wages/Salaries. Your Wage/Salary is determined by the Supply & Demand for your Skill-set in a specific Labor Market. There are about 10 Million unemployed in the US, but that is not your competition. All 10 Million have your Skill-set? No, they don't. And even if they did, someone in Arizona is going to drive to Florida to work everyday? No, so your competition is only those persons who have your Skill-set and also have access to your Labor Market -- however large or small your Labor Market.

If you are a professional athlete, in most instances, your Labor Market is the entire World. As a fast-food worker, your Labor Market is limited to the local area.

quetzalcoatl wrote:The central theme of the book is a historical description of the emergence of the market economy as a competitor to the traditional economy. The market economy won this battle, and ideologies supporting the market economy won the corresponding battle in the marketplace of ideas.


His book is worthless.
#14455079
Firstly, markets are not a natural feature of human society.


Yes, they are.

Let's go back 120,000 years to the last Inter-Glacial Period. Because the average global temperature during the previous Inter-Glacial Period was 10°F warmer than present? No. While that is factually true, I just like the number 120,000.

Anyway, you are the Clan of the Stinking Water, and you have a Market. That Market is your local environment, where you do your shopping for tasty animals to eat.

How sustainable is your Market? Indefinitely, so long as the Supply & Demand of tasty animals remains in Equilibrium.

Believe it or not, over-Supply here could be just as detrimental as over-Demand. And then what if the Clan of the Rotting Wood starts to encroach on your Market, shopping for your tasty animals, and creating competition? Again, so long as Supply & Demand are in Equilibrium, there's no problem, but once Demand exceeds Supply, you'll have to expand your Market, or go to a new Market.

Nearly all societies other than the modern one we live in used different, non-market mechanisms to distribute goods to members. Our society is unique in having made markets the central mechanism for the production and distribution of goods to its members.


Again, notice how he lies by omission.

He simply refuses to address the nature of the Traditional Economic System, probably because it totally destroys his babbling nonsense.

Let's be real here, his non-market mechanisms are nothing more than Class oppression reinforced by Religion. Yeah, I really wanna give my last cup of grain to a member of the Noble or Warrior Class so the Priestly Class doesn't cast a spell on me causing my eyeballs to bleed.

Secondly, market mechanisms conflict with other social mechanisms and are harmful to society. They emerged to central prominence in Europe after a protracted battle, which was won by markets over society due to certain historical circumstances peculiar to Europe. The rise of markets caused tremendous damage to society, which continues to this day.


We've already established that he is a liar.

Give me one good reason why I should give you two baskets of wheat for one basket of barley, when I can trade two baskets of wheat for two baskets of barley to a neighboring clan, tribe or village?

I just totally destroyed his entire premise.

Thirdly, certain ideologies, which relate to land, labour and money, and the profit motive are required for efficient functioning of markets. In particular, both poverty, and a certain amount of callousness and indifference to poverty are required for efficient functioning of markets.


More lies.

Profit is always required.

I don't care if you are a Capitalist, Socialist or Communist, and you subscribe the Free Market, Command Market, Feudal System or Traditional System, if you don't have Profit, then you can never acquire new Capital, and without new Capital, you cannot grow.

How did trade start? With Profit.....that's what a Surplus is.

I grew wheat, harvested the wheat, and then distributed to various Classes based on Tradition as reinforced by Religion, and had two baskets of wheat left-over. I can trade that surplus -- profit -- to another group.

He also fails to define "poverty" objectively in no uncertain terms. That's because to do so would harm his fantastical nonsense.

Poverty is not a requirement for anything, in spite of the lies he spews. Poverty is the result of something. What in particular? That depends. Is it poverty when someone refuses to labor and demands that everyone else support them?

Fourthly, markets have been fragile and crisis-prone and have lurched from disaster to disaster.


So?

That is the nature of the Laws of Economics.

The EPA demands that corn-based ethanol be used for its E85 Fuel Standard. That necessitates pulling corn from other Markets -- such as the Market for corn starch, the Market for corn flour, the Market for corn meal, the Market for corn flakes, the Market for light corn syrup, the Market for dark corn syrup, the Market for popcorn, the Market for corn as live-stock feed, the Market for corn as canned corn, the Market for corn as on-the-cob etc etc etc etc.

Because Demand remains constant, while Supply has decreased, the prices of everything using corn, have increased.

Drought has further harmed corn yields, reducing the Supply even further, while Demand remains unchanged, with the result being the prices of gasoline and food --- all based on corn -- are increasing.

And then a lot of really stupid Americans will blame it all on the Federal Reserve, who apparently can control the weather in the US.

Non-market mechanism are impervious to drought? Floods? Shortages? Wrong answer.

Fifthly, market economies require imposition by violence – either natural or created.


That's a lie. Violence is never a requirement.

In the Free Market System, consumers of all classes (meaning individuals, households, business and industry et al) engage in voluntary consumer transactions.

Pardon my French, but that ass-clown is full of shit.

Lexington wrote:I do not think it is correct to equate GM and the US government with, say, the Crips, just because all exercise force.

Two of them are productive (We can argue about the measures!) and the other is not.


None of them are productive. In fact, they are counter-productive.

Were you born yesterday? 'Cause if you were, there's a documentary film you'll want to watch about General Motors. General Motors embarked on a plan to purchase all private mass transit systems in the US, and destroy them, to deny people access to private mass transit with the result being Americans were forced to buy cars against their will.

That is not a conspiracy theory.....that is reality, and if you watch the film, you will see General Motors' vice-presidents and executives admit/confess in front of their mothers and the entire world, preserved on film for posterity.

It was the US government -- along with State governments and a special interest group called the American Hospital Association -- that enacted policies and laws causing Millions of Americans to become disenfranchised and have no access to health plan coverage, which limited their access to healthcare.

How exactly is that productive?
#14455084
Mircea wrote:Let's be real here, his non-market mechanisms are nothing more than Class oppression reinforced by Religion. Yeah, I really wanna give my last cup of grain to a member of the Noble or Warrior Class so the Priestly Class doesn't cast a spell on me causing my eyeballs to bleed.
Yeah, but if you reframe it so that the Noble Class owns everything and that commoners are just renting from him, it becomes free market justice.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]