I think one important difference between the world today and the world pre-1980s hasn't been mentioned yet.
In the hoary past, there were four factors in production; the entrepreneur, labor, capital, and government (the entrepreneur absorbed the risk and the capital provided the means of production (factories, financial investment, etc.).
In some parts of the world (such as the US) today, labor and capital are inseperable (since instead of hands vs. factories, we have fingers working keyboards vs. the brains designing/developing software). The same person owns labor and capital. Also, the connection between entrepreneur and government is much more obvious than it ever has been (eg. "banks too big to fail"). Which is to say that government is merely another way to do business.
So, today, unlike in the hoary past, we have labor-capital vs. entrepreneur-government. The significant difference between the two is that entrepreneur-government is empowered to apply force to labor-capital.
I really have no idea what on earth you're talking about.
The THREE factors to production are the same as they always were: LAND, labor and capital. Land meaning raw materials, and it should slip past no one's attention that capital requires both land and labor.
The capital didn't "provide" the means of production, that's the definition OF capital. In economic terms, by the way, money is not capital, money is FINANCIAL capital, but the sciences of economics and finance are pretty disparate.
Labor and capital are not inseparable. No one "owns" labor, they rent it through wages. Labor, by definition, is not a good but a service.
Nevertheless its utterly nonsensical to insist that the laborers own the capital, it's patently untrue. I do not own the building in which I work or the computers there any more than a factory worker owns the factory. On a construction site, a crane is considered capital, and unless you're living in a goblin/communist utopia, the construction workers don't own it or have any say in its use.
The entrepreneur-government connection is about as tenuous as can be; I'll bet only a tiny fraction of entrepreneurship is affected one whit by the big banks, entrepreneurship is about sweat equity.
I just...it sounds again like you went to the first day of class for Econ 101 then just continue to use the terms you heard however you see fit. It's astonishing.
But what percentage of the population do you imagine are self-employed app programmer/entrepreneurs? A vanishingly slim portion I imagine. How that purports to topple the entire neo-classical economic paradigm is beyond me.
Strangely enough, the term "arachnocapitalism" is only used by leftists who feel the need to disparage those with whom they disagree.
** spoiler omitted **
interesting. Very interesting. I would counterargue, however, that a lot of what you are proposing here sounds less like libertarianism and more like anarchy. I have no problem with choice, but you're pushing a paradigm that could turn into utter chaos in one bad moment.
A) I'm amused by arachnocapitalism.
Oh god. That's incredible. How did I miss this?
I just...it sounds again like you went to the first day of class for Econ 101 then just continue to use the terms you heard however you see fit. It's astonishing.I went to the first day of Economics 101 all the way through five years to the last day of Economic Anthropology 5something.
And what you just typed is Economics 101. It gets much more involved after that and you come to learn that some things are over-simplified in Economics 101 and the truth is a lot more complicated.
As for your gripe that I presumably confused capital with the capital providers, that is very, very petty on your part. My point was clear.
I know. I'm an econ major. It gets more complex, but black doesn't become white, up doesn't become down, and dogs and cat's don't live together.
Your point was (and is) clear as mud. I genuinely have no clue what you're trying to say or get at.
Your point APPEARS to be that the current economic paradigm is labor-capital (which isn't a thing, because your assertions about labor owning capital are groundless) vs. entrepreneur-government, and encouraging entrepreneurship I would think is a worthwhile role of government.
Certainly you realize this isn't the paradigm under which the vast majority of us operate, right?
The solo software developer isn't the modern equivalent of an industrialist, but of a craftsman. You can make a living at it, but you're not going to get rich.I get that craftsmen always existed. But, I was focusing on the difference between the Industrial Age and the Information Age. The role of craftsmen and their visibility in the larger economy is becoming more pronounced.
That's true, but I don't care whether he gets rich. I care whether he can provide for his family's subsistence.
The software guy could get rich if his thing takes off, but if it does he's going to have to scale up fast and that's going to require capital investment: a labor force, a place to put them, computer infrastructure, etc. That's where the Venture Capital comes in. And claims an ownership share.
hm.
But what percentage of the population do you imagine are self-employed app programmer/entrepreneurs? A vanishingly slim portion I imagine. How that purports to topple the entire neo-classical economic paradigm is beyond me.I agree that it is a vanishingly small part of the world who are doing it. Many more can do it, but choose not to. Still, that's why I wrote
In some parts of the world
How many is many more? Enough to alter economic paradigms?
But what percentage of the population do you imagine are self-employed app programmer/entrepreneurs? A vanishingly slim portion I imagine. How that purports to topple the entire neo-classical economic paradigm is beyond me.I agree that it is a vanishingly small part of the world who are doing it. Many more can do it, but choose not to. Still, that's why I wrote
In some parts of the world
Which doesn't change the fact that, until replicator technology is available, we still live in a world with scarcity and physical goods are in demand. It is infeasible for an entire economy to exist on self-employed entrepreneur/programmers and app purchases. (Though I'll admit that is an enticing utopia)
Regardless of that, even your theoretical post-scarcity economic paradigm is under threat right now because of threats to net neutrality.
Oh, oh! I took Econ 101, 102, and 330-something. Can I play, too?
Oh, oh! I took Econ 101, 102, and 330-something. Can I play, too?
Pish posh! I listen to talk radio.
Tangentially, I'm fascinated by the idea of America finally attaining the Jeffersonian ideal of farmer-philosophers --sans slavery!-- due to micro-manufacturing technology, a robust satellite-borne information network, and plentiful, clean energy.
Discuss!
I know about the "land, labor, and capital" view of production. But, there isn't just one possible view of production and, by definition of a complex system, no view is complete.
Regardless, your assertion was that the economic paradigm has changed and that labor now owns capital. Which is patently false for the vast majority of us.
I know about the "land, labor, and capital" view of production. But, there isn't just one possible view of production and, by definition of a complex system, no view is complete.Regardless, your assertion was that the economic paradigm has changed and that labor now owns capital. Which is patently false for the vast majority of us.
Yup. I think labor is in much greater danger of becoming irrelevant than is capital. Just look at our tax structure...
I didn't ignore scarcity.
No? Then how is your entire theoretical economy sustaining itself on app purchases alone? Have humans learned to photosynthesize?
Anywho, I'm done having a go at you. My main criticism stands, that regardless of the theoretical micro-economy of freelance programming, the macroeconomy functions altogether differently.
your assertion was that the economic paradigm has changed and that labor now owns capital.In some parts of the world, it has changed.
Which is patently false for the vast majority of us.I never said that it is true for the global majority. For many (perhaps most) of the people in this forum, it can be true.
When you say "in some parts of the world" you really mean "for some people", because, even in America, we needs ta eat!
If you see my post upthread, you'll note that I'm fascinated by the possibilities of your theoretical microeconomy, but it isn't currently feasible.
how is your entire theoretical economy sustaining itself on app purchases aloneI challenge you to point out where I said that the entire economy sustains itself on app purchases.
I'm only extrapolating from your assertion that the US is now working under your labor-capital model. It isn't, and it can't.
That's rather obvious, I think, given that people live all over.
When you say "in some parts of the world" you really mean "for some people"
What are you even saying here?
Look, your assertion was that the paradigm has changed in the US. When you say something like "in the US" I assume you mean that it applies to everyone. Like if I say "In the US, marijuana is legal" that would be incorrect.
If your model isn't applicable to the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the US, it is hardly worth stating that it applies.
Certainly you realize that your model cannot apply to everyone.
If your model isn't applicable to the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the US, it is hardly worth stating that it applies.It is a very powerful metanarrative and it applies to a rapidly increasing percentage of the economy.
So, yeah, its worth stating.
You might as well tell people to win the lottery. That's how "worth stating" it is.
Certainly you realize that your model cannot apply to everyone.today?
No. We still need nurses, counselors, etc.
But, that doesn't mean that our economy hasn't gone through substantial changes. The number of nurses, counselors, etc. that we need is decreasing.
Based on what data?
Certainly not the aging population, which would require more nurses. Nor on returning veterans from a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which would indicate more need for counselors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Checked against AI?
Today, every doctor's office I go to (and its a lot) is computerized and linked to every other doctor's office I go to. This information is kept up to date and checked against AI to catch errors.
People in the medical field are able to work more efficiently than ever before. That efficiently means that fewer nurses/counselors/etc. are needed to do the same amount of work.
1) You live in a wonderful future with competent healthcare.
2) No, those aren't things doctors or nurses do anyway. What you're saying is that there is less of a need for administrative staff, with which I concur.
But, that doesn't mean that our economy hasn't gone through substantial changes. The number of nurses, counselors, etc. that we need is decreasing.
Literally the opposite of true.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Projections 2010-2020 released in February 2012, the Registered Nursing workforce is the top occupation in terms of job growth through 2020. It is expected that the number of employed nurses will grow from 2.74 million in 2010 to 3.45 million in 2020, an increase of 712,000 or 26%. The projections further explain the need for 495,500 replacements in the nursing workforce bringing the total number of job opening for nurses due to growth and replacements to 1.2 million by 2020.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(which is old news at this point- it was hotly debated around here back in 06, the article is a bit out of touch on that bit).
Although, nowhere near as old as news about Dash's career with the Pinkertons or the Ludlow Massacre.
Strangely enough, the term "arachnocapitalism" is only used by leftists who feel the need to disparage those with whom they disagree.
Already addressed, I see, but far from true. I know Harry Reid was on the news a bunch during the events this thread was about, calling the Tea Partiers "anarchists" (which duly upset my drunken anarcho-syndicalist hetero life partner), but anarcho-capitalism is quite a real thing that has nothing to do with "leftist" disparagement.
My hetero life partner recently found a fellow Teamster brother who lives down the street from him who was also interested in anarchism. They swapped a bunch of books. My friend lent him books by Murray Bookchin. He received books by Murray Rothbard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that he dared to express views about having no government, private armies, and basing society on ownership.
So?
I don't agree with him. I even told him so a bit further upthread. It isn't as if arachnocapitalism is going to suddenly grow to dominate the political spectrum, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. He can probably be allowed to keep believing that.
Even so... growing into a thought-out, useful political view is a long, difficult process. Everyone has phases. We take to some expressed thoughts and try to incorporate them into our world views, and eventually, if they don't function as we hoped, we reevaluate them. I have been there, you have been there. Scott Betts probably hasn't been there.
If you don't like what someone is saying, you need to understand that they hold those views because they see the world differently from you. People of different ideologies are generally NOT disagreeing on the goal: Letting most people live a reasonably good life. We're disagreeing on the road there. There are many different views of how society should work, and many alternatives that work more or less well. But... bashing their views has two results: They write you off as a moron or a monster, and they keep more firmly to their cherished beliefs than ever. After all, the moron/monster just attacked them about it.
And that's why people need to learn how to debate properly.
Au contraire, Madame Sissyl. I have come to the conclusion that Citizen Betts is the nastiest of the Obamabots because he is overcompensating (my speculation) for a misspent youth (my characterization) as a teenaged Objectivist and Bush II voter (his own words).
I, on the other hand, haven't changed my mind about much since I was 16.
Vive le Galt!