Rog,
Thanks for the comments, you showed me where my research needs to be more fully
elaborated. Alas, I would need a long LONG post for that (see Jared
Diamond...hehehe)
After I sent the post, I realized that I didn't address fully, or even hardly at
all, an alternative vision. As I condemned the usual alternative (i.e.
socialism/communism) where do we go? You probable aren't going to like the
generality but here goes:
Just as capitalism became the logical outgrowth of mercantilism, which was the
logical outgrowth of the commercial revolution, and etc., I think there is a
beyond capitalism that takes into account more fully human Quality of life, as
defined by our abilities to choose completely their life work(and change if need
be) and that also increases our ability to spend time with friends and
community. What we have now actually discourages these activities. Indeed, a
recent documentary on PBS, cited research that we spend on average 40 minutes
playing with children and 4 hours shopping a week, even more working overtime.
There is not the time and space, and I am not trained enough in economics to even
try to label my ideas, but I belive in the amzing creative potential in the human
being. If we want to provide a stable environment for all humans, so they can
enjoy the kind of quality of life we enjoy in the west, we can. We are just not
trying to do that exactly. We hope it will be a by product of the market. That
isn't good enough for me. I want to state the goal in humanitarian terms and
begin trying to achieve it.
ROG:
Welcome! My name is Roger and I have been a member for over 3 years. I too
teach and debate capitalism, though from a different perspective. (I am an
Executive at a Fortune 500 company.)
TRIP:
One of my friends said "I would like to see capitalism, totally unfettered,
work,
because it has never been truly tried." I found this comment interesting and
I always
keep it in mind when discussion flaws in the current system.
ROG:
I agree that unregulated capitalism would be an unmitigated disaster. If
there weren't rules against colluding and cheating and lying then at least
some would do it to exploit others, potentially crippling the overall system.
TRIP:
.....However, I do believe that world population, resourse use and abuse,
and environmental problems will occur faster than the market will allow.
What appears
to me to be the greatest problem isn't the functioning of the marketplace,
but the
measurements we use to define the health of our economy. The GNP is a lousy
measeurment.
ROG:
OK, I agree that it is an INCOMPLETE measure. It (using GNP as a measure)
doesn't necessarily lead to any of these, but it won't lead you away from
them either. (Interesting correlations exist between where capitalism runs
amok and where evolution runs amok. But I am getting off topic) I guess what
I am getting at is that it seems you are suggesting the GNP is some type of
feedback mechanism that controls the economy. I see it more as a mismeasure.
Big, REALLY BIG, difference. (I am frequently wrong though, as anyone on
this forum will attest.)
Trip:
It is both. It mismeasures, but anytime you set what the goal is, in this case
the limited measurements of economic growth, the government and industry will
strive to meet that goal. If it is profit at the expense of peoples jobs and
livihoods, so be it. S, yes, I believe it guides the economy.
TRIP:
Capitalism, which has given use incredible technological
breakthoughs, is tied to this arcane system of measurement that IMO, holds it
back.
This measurement was created to help grow the economy back in the 50's during
the Cold
War to ensure we could continue to spend money on the arms race.
ROG:
Could you please list your reference for this last fact? Is it indeed a
fact, or are you just saying that for effect? (I'm really asking, not arguing)
Trip:
Actually, it is an historical interpretation. The GDP was created before,
actually during WWII, we just changed to GNP in the last 2 decades I believe..
"Designed as a planning tool to guide the massive production effort for World War
II, the GDP was never intended to be a yardstick of economic progress; yet,
gradually it has assumed totemic stature as the ultimate measure of economic
success. When it rises, the media applaud and politicians rush to take credit.
When it falls, there is hand-wringing and general alarm. " www.rprogress.org
TRIP:
The major industries(Air, car, now utilities and etc.) are controlled by a
very
few interests becasue they function best with some sort of controlled
planning.
It is very easy for these interests to collude and evade anti-trust laws.
Some
things, like public transit, are best left to government control.
ROG:
Again as in evolution, cooperation and competition must balance each other
out. Excessive 'interests' leads to inefficiency, too few to centralized
bloat and monopolistic exploitation. Some things are left best to government
control or influence, though which is best is better left to argumentation
and experiment. A proper role of government and competing interests is to
ensure collusion doesn't occur.
Trip:
Isn't this too hard with the mega-industries we have, and their enormous
political power through campaign finace practices?
TRIP:
Our giant corporate interests OWN their own news divisions.
ROG:
Good thing then that all corporations aren't in collusion. As you know
though, they can have competing interests, and one can play the role of
watchdog protecting against others. (btw, who are you suggesting own them, if
not private stockholders? And for that matter, do you think 'corporate
interests' are different from those that own them?)
Trip:
Yes, while corporate stockholders, all want the company to profit, they also want
clean air and water, and more time for their family and etc. The corporation
doesn't take this into account. AND as it is presently constructed, corporate
CEO's can't because then they are using business dollars for non-profit. Even
charitable contributions, while nice, do not make up for the damage occurred.
Even, tasks meant to create good pr, also fall short. If you worked for any
other goal than to increase the stockholders profit, then you are working for a
non-profit.
TRIP:
Our gap between rich and poor is dramatically more than any other
industrialized
nation
ROG:
Do you think this is one of our exportable success factors? I am asking
facetiously, but I wonder if it isn't a big part of our incredible,
unprecedented cultural success. Our freedom allows massive wealth production
and allows us to easily
Trip:
(define this, because it seems as if more people are working ever harder to do
that task, and are not doing it very well if you look at global hunger and
malnutrituion statistics)
support the less successful. Remember that there are
two definitions for Equality. The first is that of children...equality of
outcome. The other is that of adults, equality of opportunity. Of course
both are relevant, and of course imbalance creates opportunity of
exploitation, but I am just pointing out that the gap isn't necessarily all
bad.
Trip:
I don't think we have equality of opportunity. But also, why do you consider
equality of outcome as childish? Im not talking about everyone having the same
thing, just the essentials as our amazing productivity can now provide.
TRIP:
We, due to the pressure to grow our economy, commit horrendous human rights
abuses
worldwide, not to mention the destabilizing effect our CIA has had on thrid
world
development.
ROG:
You need to support this argument. I don't buy it, but will keep an open
mind if you can prove abuses and destabilization are caused by "pressure to
grow our economy".
Trip: Corporate interests need to increase profits to grow the economy. They do
this, among many ways, by laying off high wage american union employees and
subcontracting the labor to third world countries that have little or no labor
protection or minimum wage laws.
In the global battle of the Cold war, we used the CIA to destabilize leftist
regimes. Including the PDF in Afghanistan in 1978, one of the major reasons the
Soviets invaded in the first place. look at the history of South America, and
the middle east (Iran is a prime example)
Is that enough of a link?
TRIP:
The effect of big money from labor and corporations is to weaken democracy at
the
expense of capitalism. The power over our lives is decreasing except for
artificial things like appearance. What real choices do we have. We either
join
their system or get hounded by the police or other government agencies.
ROG:
Huh? What choices would you have otherwise? Picking berries? Hell, don't
join the system, go start your own. This point really makes no sense. What
system (ie social system) do you want instead? This sounds like something
cynical college kids say when they want to whine about everything and offer
nothing in return. Sorry, maybe I just misunderstand you.
Trip:
I think you did, as most do. When planning how to spend 20-30 years,. 40 hours a
week, of our lives, we often choose what will provide the most resources as
opposed to where our intrinsic interests lie. Thus, people become so
dissatisfied with their lives in America that we are 80% of the international
drug trade - and no the really heavy druge are available by prescription. People
do have ANY choice, but often they don't recognize and society doesn't validate
those that aren't renumerative. SEE high school teacher - hehe
As for weakening "democracy," I take it as a teacher that you have read the
Federalist Papers? I think the system of checks and balances and competing
interests( is quite similar to that espoused by Madison (James, not Dolly),
one of the premier creators of our Constitution (the longest in existence, as
you know, most of the rest of the world wrote theirs post WWII)
Trip:
How can any interest compete with the impact that global capitalism has on people
and how they live their lives. Capitalism is no longer about filling a need. It
has become, CREATE a need, thru advertising, then fill it is socially
destructive. "Anti-social behavior, in pursuit of a profit, is a good thing."
(Affluenza, PBS) This is a direct quote from a video of a marketing conference.
TRIP:
Capitalism is a very inefficient method for many things: including
child+elderly
care;
ROG:
Trade-offs and inefficiencies definitely exist in free enterprise systems.
Btw, what are you suggesting, if anything, instead? Can I find it in the web
site you mentioned?
Try the www.rprogress.org website
TRIP:
Rob, I appreciated the cogency of you thoughts about how this relates to
quality. The
true test of a government and an economic system is the quality of life of
its citizens
and we have replaced that with economic growth.
ROG:
Again, I agree with how you start, but then you seem to go off with an
unsupported statement that is compared to nothing. You are right that a free
economy doesn't necessarily lead to maximum quality of life. Some of your
examples were true as well. However, to properly criticize capitalism
(especially in light of Rob's Churchill quote) you have to offer up a better
alternative. Now you and I (and Churchill) agree that unfettered free
enterprise is suboptimal. Is that your point? If so I agree. If not,
please share....
Trip
See above
Roger Parker
Teacher (of a sort)
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> Hi again Trip!
>
> TRIP:
> Actually, the concept of human nature was created by
> enlightenment philosophers (Locke, Hobbes) largely as a
> justification for economic inequality as they were the ones
> beginning to amass wealth by commerce!
>
> ROG:
> I really want to apologize, but you are doing it again. I need you to
> provide support of this statement. I also need to introduce you to my friend
> Wim (also in this forum). He too is very pre-occupied with "justification"
> of wealth. I don't find people pining over justification for health or
> intelligence or other forms of quality. Why all this focus on justifying
> wealth? My theory is that it comes from a complete misconception that wealth
> is a zero-sum process and that to have it one must take it. I find this to
> be very untrue, and would be willing to share why if you are interested...
>
Trip:
Try to find a copy of Ariadne's Thread by Mary Clark. It is a large research
project undertaken as a multi disciplinary study of global issues by a group of
faculty.
I am interested. I know that wealth is not finite (as mercantilists believed),
but 6-9 billion of us can not lead the average americans life or global
envoronmental collase will certainly occur
>
> TRIP:
> Hobbes state of
> nature was his imagination of how hunters and gatherers
> lived, not an anthropological study, which we now have.
> Their lives were actually very very different from Hobbes
> imaginaton. Nasty brutish and short decribes medieval
> Europe, not he Kalihari Bushmen or the Navajo. Human Nature
> therefor, was a concept created using only about 1% of the
> availablke data.
>
> ROG:
> Hunter gathererers (studied by anthropologists) did too lead short and brutal
> lives. The average life expectancy in the stone age was 21 years, and the
> best estimates are that half of all children died by age 5. As for nasty,
> the leading cause of death for most tribal or band societies studied by
> modern anthropologists is murder. (per Jared Diamond)
One way to find out is to actually look at stone age people's as Diamond does. I
do not remember reading that statistic, but as it is so out of whack with all
other measurement I have come across, I would like you to direct. For instance:
The Dani of the Baliem Valley
in the central highlands of Irian Jaya are among the most primitive people on
earth. Unknown to the outside world before 1938, 60,000 of them lived a stone age
existence when Archibald landed his Consolidated Model 28 flying boat on their
lake. They still live a very independent existence, surviving on a diet
consisting mostly of sweet potatoes.
The life expectancy of these gentle people was 60 years in 1938, about the same
as the Western world.
Just one example, I also found a 34 average age on the web. Granted, the child
mortality rate was outragreously high. But that also deflates the average age
dramatically. With better child birthing, the average would be comparable many
industrialized countries, I belive, but I want to do more research. I will.
Do you mean personal murder or war killing?
>
>
> Now, I have to admit that I have yet to read Hobbes -- at least directly --
> but he is on my list. The weird thing is that I am not sure why looking at
> hunter-gatherers is even expected to lead to "human nature". Is the theory
> that these aren't cultures?
Trip:
Hobbes, as did most of his contemporaries, thought the world was created 10,000
years ago as per religious dogma. He didnt take them into any account. He just
imagined what it would be like. A good summary can be found at
www.philosophypages.com. I teach history and philosophy.
> Or that they have less cultural impact on human
> nature than 17th Century English society? If Hobbes says this, I hope he
> supports it.
Trip:
He doesn't realize that these cultures had any impact becasue he didnt know they
existed for so long. We didnt find that out until the previous century, after
evolution theory. So he doesn't support or discredit it.
>
>
> TRIP:
> We know better now and the concept of
> enlightement human nature must bend. People are not greedy
> by nature. They are made greedy by culture, including most
> importantly the mass media. People will always act stupid,
> foolish, arrogant, selfish from time to time, bu they will
> also be alturistic, compassionate, caring and loving. Which
> one is our nature? There is no Human nature beyond the
> innate desire to create culture, any culture that serves the
> needs of the people.
>
> ROG:
> Again, you make bold statements ( which is commendable in a way). I have
> read up on human nature and studies (and Hobbes wasn't the direct source),
> and have not seen anyone even begin to prove that 'greed comes from culture'.
> The best views of human nature that I have read come from James Wilson (The
> Moral Sense). His conclusions, similar to your second-to-the-last sentence,
> are that we are both selfish and altruistic, sympathetic and self-centered,
> dutiful and free-spirited. Cultures influence, support or undermine these in
> chaotic ways to create the variety of societies and people.
>
> I agree with one sentence you write, and find the rest to be unsupported by
> my experience (and by your argument). Again, I will keep an open mind, and
> can easily be swayed!
Trip:
This is my personal theory after having studied the full scope of humanity. What
is the one common element in all the different cultures of the polynesian
expansion that Diamond discusses? That is the question I have been trying to
answer.
>
>
> TRIP:
> Our commonly held beliefs are
> fallacious and simply continue to justify the accumulation
> of wealth by the few. They used to be called aristocrats,
> now they are entrepreneurs, same wolf though.
>
> ROG:
> Owooooo! Ow Ow Ow Owooooo! (Wolf sounds GRRRR)
>
> You need to make a better argument. You start with a combination of an ad
> hominem and an incorrect rejection of Hobbes/Locke, and then go on to making
> up statements on human nature and mass media with no attempt at supporting
> them, and then back to the ad hominem attack combined with your unsupported
> "wealth needs justifying" (hint-hint unless justified it is UNJUST!)
> silliness.
Trip:
Sorry I did not more fully support my ideas. I may write a book one day, until
then, you will have to humor me. In Mediavel Catholic Europe, dying wealthy was
considered sinful. If you did achieve wealth (and were not a King or a Pope) you
gave it away or to the church when you died. Usury was illegal. They took the
anti-rich passages of the bible seriously (rich man and the eye of the needle...)
So Locke and Hobbes did need to create a philosophy to Justify their own wealth,
becasue they lived in a time when wealth was considered unjust.
Thanks again for the dialogue. I seek always more input. This is why I posted.
I do, however, do not appreciate being called childish or silly. I think it is
obvious from my post that I am neither. As I tell my students, it is fine to
disagree with someones ideas but not fine to belittle them personally. A little
bit of debating techniques are ok :) in our search for truth.
Take care,
trip
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST