Cappies: is it productivity vs. exchange?

[Lynx]

On one hand it appears that markets require exchange. Participants must make an exchange in order to obtain goods and services they cannot (or wish not) provide themselves.

On the other hand, capitalists say that markets require productivity. Some exchanges must be productive in order to create wealth and overcome unproductive exchanges. For example, giving money to poor people stimulates exchange, but there is a "limit". This limit is easiest to see when the person receiving the money doesn't work. Obviously not everyone can receive money while no one works. Right? What is less obvious is people who are working but are not productive, thus receiving the surplus of others.

Is there an optimal balance between exchange and productivity?
For example, if an economy has lots and lots of exchanges without regard to productivity, can it thrive acceptably? Or is it preferable for an economy to only have exchanges which are deemed productive?

Which is 'optimal', a spend like crazy economy, a only spend if you can profit from it economy, or a balance of these extremes?

I presume that a no exchange (don't spend anything, ever!) and zero productivity (take whatever you want, give me whatever you want) economies are not feasible. I assume I presume too much.

[Robert]

I presume that a no exchange (don't spend anything, ever!) and zero productivity (take whatever you want, give me whatever you want) economies are not feasible.

Not feasible? Nothing free? Even after the Revolution? Careful, my friend, the thought police are lurking. You could be next.

You ask a good question, and I think the answer is ... no one knows. Wars seem to interrupt the generally upward trajectories of capitalist economies. My guess is that the optimum balance is that which keeps the overwhelming majority willing to continue getting out of bed every day and working for a living within the limits of the law. Many here have already concluded that capitalism doesn't work, and so they have either dropped out and quit their jobs and are here on the public library's (or their parents') dime, or they really work all day at Walmart and just pretend to be revolutionaries.

It doesn't matter, really. There are very, very few socialists anymore.

Exhaustion of petro reserves in the next 100 years may make for interesting times as well, from North Korea to New York.

[RevSkeptic]

Wars seem to interrupt the generally upward trajectories of capitalist economies.

Upwards according to what measure?

Further, simply to have more doesn't automatically correlate to having a satisfying life nor a life that is fully under your control. So given that the objective is to have a larger quantity of stuff without regards to personal freedom of choice to control your life because it is true that in Capitalism to not work risk the chance of you being homeless or foodless then the difference between a very productive slave system in which the slaves are well housed and fed and Capitalism in which the bosses have the absolute right to hire or fire workers are only in degree and in kind in their oppression of the powerless.

So simply because I'm a well fed member of the powerless makes the absolute power of the bosses to control my means of existence alright? So could it then be argued that because a slave is the property of his master and not just rental labour that the master would have an incentive to take care of the slave more since damage to property means damage to both the master's and slave's means of existence? It could then be argued that slavery is a more humane system because of the incentive to prevent damage to productive human merchandise.

All this is of course garbage because it is based on the false premise that material production necessary for a comfortable quality of life is mutually exclusive to personal freedom. But masters throughout the ages as masters always do deny this fact. I should expect masters of the present Capitalist system to be no different.

Further, war is quite profitable depending on the companies you run. If there was a war then armaments companies would be making a killing in more ways the one. :lol:

Unfortunately, I don't have a fat enough bank account to invest in KBR or Raytheon so I could live comfortably for the rest of my life earned from the proceeds in sales of cluster bombs and napalm.

Now If I had a few thousand to invest in armaments then a few hundred villages burnt to the ground could very well build up my retirement fund.

[Robert]

There are so many problems in that post that I despair for your future, under any political system. Here's the worst:


in Capitalism to not work risk the chance of you being homeless or foodless

Hear me well, Junior: No responsible laborers, in any system, are going to work to feed your bitter, sorry, grievance-filled ass unless you pitch in and help somehow. If you don't work, under a King, a Constitutional Republic, an Oligarchy, a Moronocracy such as you espouse, or anything else, sooner or later you will drop to the bottom of the barrel. You may get some food stamps, scraps, and handouts, but that's it.

I think you're already well on your way.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 30, 2007 06:26 pm


in Capitalism to not work risk the chance of you being homeless or foodless

Hear me well, Junior: No responsible laborers, in any system, are going to work to feed your bitter, sorry, grievance-filled ass unless you pitch in and help somehow. If you don't work, under a King, a Constitutional Republic, an Oligarchy, a Moronocracy such as you espouse, or anything else, sooner or later you will drop to the bottom of the barrel. You may get some food stamps, scraps, and handouts, but that's it.

I think you're already well on your way.
Of course, but in capitalism you are made to work for longer than needed hours, and sometimes in jobs that aren’t even necessary, all of which is counter-productive and a waste of labour not to mention soul crushingly pointless, unless you consider the enormous accumulation of wealth for a man you have likely never met or even cares about you a "point".

[Robert]

Of course, but in capitalism you are made to work for longer than needed hours, and sometimes in jobs that aren’t even necessary, all of which is counter-productive and a waste of labour not to mention soul crushingly pointless

I don't understand what "needed hours" or "unnecessary jobs" are. No one is going to pay you to do an unnecessary job, so don't worry too much about it.

[RevSkeptic]

Hear me well, Junior: No responsible laborers, in any system, are going to work to feed your bitter, sorry, grievance-filled ass unless you pitch in and help somehow. If you don't work, under a King, a Constitutional Republic, an Oligarchy, a Moronocracy such as you espouse, or anything else, sooner or later you will drop to the bottom of the barrel. You may get some food stamps, scraps, and handouts, but that's it.

I think you're already well on your way.

I think you may have missed the rest of the stuff I wrote: "Capitalism in which the bosses have the absolute right to hire or fire workers are only in degree and in kind in their oppression of the powerless"

Which means even if I "want" a job doing dangerous life threatening work or boring, mind-numbing repetitive work or dirty unsanitary work I don't get the privilege if any boss can fire me at any time with me powerless to challenge any of the bosses decisions.

You can't blame me because I'm smart enough to realize that for an intelligent person like me to pitch in would mean for me to design tractors and factories and electronics that feeds those responsible but brainless laborers causing them to multiply in hordes that would force me to be one of them because there are no more jobs for the brainy types.

But, war is always a good solution to weed out those responsible brainless goons you are so fond of. Being the brainy type like me, I get to stay behind the lines to maintain the weapon systems while the morons get weeded out of their existence.

And I think you and your kind are well on their way to extinction because I having an I.Q. of 140 and being highly skilled means I get to stay behind in any war so that brainless morons that high technology machinery help fed get to kill themselves with weapons that you need our help to design and maintain.

I'm also smart enough to realize that the smart guy that "pitch in" to invent machines that help the tribe does not necessarily make the rest of the members of the tribe any smarter than the inventor. Any caveman goon with half a brain can drive an automobile built by someone with the brains to come up with the design of one.

So tell me how I can "pitch in" again? Maybe I can pitch in during wartime to help get you and the rest of your brother in arms patriots (idiots) killed.

[Robert]

You can "pitch in" by mowing my lawn if you think you can handle a lawn mower without injuring yourself or my mower, Junior. I will pay prevailing wages, but not a penny more! I do tip generously, however.

You don't really believe you are as intelligent as you claim, because you claim it too much; but even if you are, you are going to have to get your mind right on economics if you want to avoid frustration and despair. (To be fair, intelligence is mostly genetic fate and environment, neither of which you control.)

Now to the merits of your post: "if any boss can fire me at any time with me powerless to challenge any of the bosses decisions."

We've explained this to you so many times that I guess you just don't want to understand. You can challenge the boss. And he can challenge you. The difference is that you can quit when you want and he can do nothing about it. If he fires you (other than for misconduct), you can collect unemployment from a fund to which he contributes, assuming you are from the USA. I think unemployment benefits are even more generous in Europe.

You apparently want me to think up a product that the market wants to consume, hire you to help me make and distribute it, pay you what you think is a fair wage, and then tell me how to run the company. Then you get to quit anytime you want but I can't fire you unless you consent. No, thank you very much for the offer, but no.

Maybe Pusher or Dragon will offer you a nice job on the terms you require.

[RevSkeptic]

You can "pitch in" by mowing my lawn if you think you can handle a lawn mower without injuring yourself or my mower, Junior. I will pay prevailing wages, but not a penny more! I do tip generously, however.

Don't try to insult my intelligence. I know what mowing lawns involves, I've done it before, but I'm challenging you to tell me why you have the money to dictate what I should do, in this case mowing your lawn, to receive it from you and not the other way around. Next, tell me why money isn't simply a game of power. I'm quite convinced that money simply is debt that the powerful uses to put a leash around those who don't have it be it in Capitalism or "Communism". Give me reasons to convince me otherwise.


You don't really believe you are as intelligent as you claim, because you claim it too much; but even if you are, you are going to have to get your mind right on economics if you want to avoid frustration and despair. (To be fair, intelligence is mostly genetic fate and environment, neither of which you control.)

Which convinces me that the stupid including yourself is the cause of all unnecessary suffering. There is a solution however. As stated before it includes war and natural factors like famine and epidemics. Now, you don't think I'm stupid enough to sign up as a front line soldier to serve as cannon fodder do you? You might have all the money, but who are you going to pay to fix all those high tech. war machines if you put me on the front lines? :lol:

And, you still haven't told me any of your sacred economic laws that I could tear to shreds by comparing all that academic mental diarrhea with actual reality. Like I said before anything to do with empirical reality is laboratory testable or proven using formal logic neither of which economics uses to confirm it's sacred mantras.


We've explained this to you so many times that I guess you just don't want to understand. You can challenge the boss. And he can challenge you. The difference is that you can quit when you want and he can do nothing about it. If he fires you (other than for misconduct), you can collect unemployment from a fund to which he contributes, assuming you are from the USA. I think unemployment benefits are even more generous in Europe.

Like everything else that does not make sense in this world, the one doing the challenging would be favored to win the contest if he has an advantage in social power. Now, unless the employee is in a powerful union or living in a dictatorship which favors his working conditions and pay, who has the advantage in terms of social power?

But, let's avoid social power games for the moment that is all part of politics. Let say you want to settle things in a way that is impartial. Who's going to be the impartial judge in this lopsided contest? And, who's to say that the judge is any more impartial than the one who gives him his pay check?


You apparently want me to think up a product that the market wants to consume, hire you to help me make and distribute it, pay you what you think is a fair wage, and then tell me how to run the company. Then you get to quit anytime you want but I can't fire you unless you consent. No, thank you very much for the offer, but no.

No, I don't want you do that. I'm simply challenging you to tell me why you think the way society works, including things like companies and factories and stores and churches and families and politics make sense.

And, how economics as traditionally been taught has anything to do with running a society that benefits people willing to work for it's progress. I'm not challenging you simply because I'm bitter at playing in the rigged game, although the frustration tells me that the game is set against me, but I'm challenging the game itself as well as the players in it.

[Robert]

You might have all the money

I do. I have it all. And you can't have any.




I'm simply challenging you to tell me why you think the way society works, including things like companies and factories and stores and churches and families and politics make sense.

If we don't share the same values, and at the moment we do not, then nothing that makes sense to me will make sense to you.

But since you ask, my current view is this in a nutshell: everyone, from North Korea to Bangor, Maine, is born insecure, helpless, and afraid. As they grow and become self aware, they and their families need and demand security, shelter, food, sex, myth/religion, joy, entertainment, justice for themselves (on edit: this includes, I think, freedom to start a company, to earn as little or as much as I can without defrauding others, and to seek employment on equal terms with others of different gender and race) and (dead last) social justice for their fellow man, in that rough order.

That society that works is that which provides the greatest possible degree of those wants to the greatest possible number. Based on what I have seen of the world, and I don't pretend that it's enough, liberal western republics appear to do best, so far, in satisfying those primordial demands. We can do better, sure, but not under a socialist system such as I see espoused here.

We tinker around the edges, with conservative policies opening markets, reducing taxes, and worsening the environment, then liberals reacting to counter the resultant abuses, ad nauseam. But no one on either side (I am not talking about young, marginalized radicals) really wants revolution because they fear (there's that primordial emotion again) that with revolution, even a watery one under, say, Ralph Nader, society will unravel into chaos. When the machine is rebuilt, they believe, they will just end up with what we have now anyway. Right or wrong, that's the lesson of the USSR and China.

But, as you see, here I am as a conservative debating with you, a ... skeptic still seeking answers, I imagine, which is proof that I know things are hardly perfect and that I don't know the answers. I worry for my children as you do or will for yours. But the biggest problem in the USA at the moment is not economic IMO, it's social (balkanization along racial, tribal, and ethnic lines).

Okay, thanks for asking for my world view. Now I'll listen to yours.

[Lynx]

I don't read enough about cappies wanting to tinker with capitalism. On this board, the cappie message is mostly triumphalism with nothing offered other than the status quo.
I'm interested in marginal and radical tinkering of capitalism, as steps toward considering more revolutionary changes of economy and society.

[Ugge]

I'm not quite sure that I follow you Lynx. I would say, that exchanges does not have to be productive at all. It is that exchangees who needs to be productive, in order for them to have anything to trade.

Of course you can get by as a seemingly unproductive beggar in a market-economy. Then again, you could say that a beggar merely is producing and selling pity.

[Lynx]

I'm not quite sure that I follow you Lynx. I would say, that exchanges does not have to be productive at all. It is that exchangees who needs to be productive, in order for them to have anything to trade.

Of course you can get by as a seemingly unproductive beggar in a market-economy. Then again, you could say that a beggar merely is producing and selling pity.
One question is: If a welfare recipient spends money to buy food, is the exchange less productive than when a wealthy person makes a similar purchase?


The other questions relate to extremes:
An economy where everyone works and is productive, but don't spend.
An economy where everyone is non-productive, and everyone spends.
It seems clear that these two scenarios don't work, so productivity on its own and exchange on its own don't work. There is a balance in today's capitalism, I don't know where exactly, that encourages productivity (work) and exchange (spending).

[pusher robot]

One question is: If a welfare recipient spends money to buy food, is the exchange less productive than when a wealthy person makes a similar purchase?

I think you need to distinguish between "productive" and "wealth-creating." Generally, when economists speak of something being "productive" they are referring to its ability to physically create goods or services. A productive person creates more goods or services than an unproductive person, without regards to whether those goods or services are profitable. A productive assembly line manufactures more than an unproductive one, without consideration of whether that manufacturing is wanted or needed.

But "wealth creation" can occur - and usually occurs - through exchange. If I produce a million barrels of beer but only the first barrel has any real value to me, I am highly productive but not particularly wealthy. By exchanging those barrels with others, my productivity remains the same but enormous wealth is created, of which I receive a goodly amount. The exchange alone has not physically produced anything, but it has created wealth that would not exist if my 999,999 surplus barrels went unused.

[Lynx]

Thanks pusher robot, this might help to clarify things.
Productivity is thus mostly tied to work effort, with optimal use of skills and equipment.
Wealth creation is mostly tied to exchange, with accumulation or concentration of wealth possible.