tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post2068101034539965023..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: What's the Mythology For, Anyway?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-45701675320470617952012-04-25T12:13:26.260-04:002012-04-25T12:13:26.260-04:00"Your defense of "capitalism and the fre..."Your defense of "capitalism and the free market" is pure assertion. Do we actually have a "free market" or simply a market in which the most powerful can exercise their power without accountability? WHO "found" capitalism to be the best?"<br /><br />I think it is more than pure assertion or speculation. Capitalism and the free market are here for a reason. They are the best means of making things and distributing them. Experience has shown that. It is not as though capitalism was forced on us without alternatives pushing back, alternatives like command, mercantile and traditional economics. Capitalism and the free market evolved. It found itself best in fitting with human needs and aspirations. It found itself best in fitting with our quirks and quarks, idiosyncrasies and badness.<br /><br />Well, if you compare it to economics under communism we do live in a free market, not only in economics but in ideas and, yes, happiness. Imagine, we are free to pursue our own means of happiness. <br /><br />I am in a business of my own making. I am not one of the most powerful who can exercise power willy nilly as you have it. But I am held accountable. Most of us are. This non-accountability of capitalism and capitalists is exaggerated. <br /><br />Marx believed that capitalism was the ultimate revolution. And it is. It is a best kind of revolution to have because the other, like the French, the Russian, WW1 and WW2, were scorched earth revolutions that left a lot of devastation in their wake. It is not that capitalism doesn't cause social upheavals, but it does it more creatively than those other revolutions. It leaves more to build on. It creates a sustainability. If today we had revolutions like those in the past there would be nothing left. <br /><br />Humankind needs constant reform to remain alive and awake, and so that societies don't atrophy. Capitalism affords us that reform, at a price, but at one we can afford without totally starting from scratch.airth10https://www.blogger.com/profile/14169039975338089997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-51596648726749486392012-04-23T20:30:43.700-04:002012-04-23T20:30:43.700-04:00Thanks, airth10. What I meant was I didn't say...Thanks, airth10. What I meant was I didn't say we should pursue happiness instead of economic growth. "What is the economy for, anyway?" is the title of John de Graaf's book, not my post. Your defense of "capitalism and the free market" is pure assertion. Do we actually have a "free market" or simply a market in which the most powerful can exercise their power without accountability? WHO "found" capitalism to be the best? Those who benefit the most? Speaking for myself, my happiness comes from creativity and personal relationships, which (in my case, at least) depend on limiting the sphere of economic activity.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-71183946151195042072012-04-23T07:32:32.079-04:002012-04-23T07:32:32.079-04:00Sandwichman,
Try. You seem like a smart man!Sandwichman,<br /><br />Try. You seem like a smart man!airth10https://www.blogger.com/profile/14169039975338089997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-8925026064145958002012-04-22T22:58:54.784-04:002012-04-22T22:58:54.784-04:00airth10,
You definitely picked up on some of the ...airth10,<br /><br />You definitely picked up on some of the questions I addressed in my post. I am afraid, though, that you have confounded ideas I was criticizing with my own ideas. I wouldn't know where to begin to try to untangle those knots.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-19348646551602517782012-04-22T12:03:31.993-04:002012-04-22T12:03:31.993-04:00Sandwichman, you bring up and interesting question...Sandwichman, you bring up and interesting question: "What is the Economy For, Anyway?"<br /><br />One of the first things that came to mind is the campaign slogan "It's the economy, stupid". Without the economy we could not sustain societies or civilization. The economy is a treadmill activity of consumption and replacement; we consume and thus we have to replace. The economy is basically about replacing what we consume and use up. It is also about repairing and maintaining the mechanics that keeps the world working. The economy and it wheels keeps at bay and combats the universal constant of entropy.<br /><br />Capitalism and the free market has emerged as the premier economic system because it was found to be the best at finding and replacing the resources we consume and use up, and in giving us the sustainable development for our survival and continuance.<br /><br />The economy is metaphysical. It more than anything has united the world in a common activity. It has combined the basic human instincts of creation and destruction, re-channeling the destructive and putting more emphases on the creative.<br /><br />You say that we should pursue 'happiness' instead of economic growth. Ironically, economic activity is where our happiness has most come from. It is the wedge behind which we have had the luxury to think about happiness.airth10https://www.blogger.com/profile/14169039975338089997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-1192306810461534832012-04-20T00:13:25.022-04:002012-04-20T00:13:25.022-04:00Will,
Yes, from the context, the authors' me...Will, <br /><br />Yes, from the context, the authors' meaning is that they couldn't have had a theory because none existed. But even the latter argument of simple ignorance of the individuals is preposterous and untenable. <br /><br />Hoover, for example, founded and directed the American Relief Administration in Europe after World War I. FDR was governor of New York.<br /><br />Now, if the authors had said that the theories in vogue at the time inhibited an effective and timely government response to the crisis, that would have been a different matter.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-13148245391255646712012-04-19T23:48:06.700-04:002012-04-19T23:48:06.700-04:00None entered office with a model or theory of how ...<i>None entered office with a model or theory of how a national economy works.</i><br /><br />If I'm understanding you, the authors contend that FDR and the Hoov <i>couldn't</i> have had a theory of the macroeconomy, because none had been put forth, and not that the two men were simply ignorant of the subject. If they're saying the former, that's absurd. If it's the latter, though, that would be understandable. I'm pretty sure the most prominent economists in America up to that time were Carey, Henry George, and Veblen. <i>Maybe</i> John Bates Clark. Good luck trying to average that set out.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14943136764424893492noreply@blogger.com