Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

To live and die in the "Serf Economy."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:17 AM
Original message
To live and die in the "Serf Economy."
We have heard so much nonsense about the "Service
Economy" lately that it starts to look like a viable
alternative to actually making a "product" and
selling it in the market. Nothing could be more wrong. 

Capitalism is not based on "Service." Rather, its
roots are in manufacturing and industry. Capitalism is the
bastard child of the Industrial Revolution, but its high
priest Adam Smith would scarcely recognize it now after being
twisted and mutilated by the new Robber Barons. It wasn't
supposed to be this way. 

Now the "Marketplace" in this country can be defined
in commodities trading or in the stock market, neither of
which "makes" anything; they only trade in paper.
How many times have you heard about how well the country is
doing in terms of Standard and Poor's or the Dow Jones? Not to
prick anyone's bubble, but this has to do only with who owns
the shares of the companies, not capital invested to make
profit. The only money made in the "market" is on
paper. Stocks make nothing but return on money spent for the
stock: it's sort of like a bank with a rigged roulette wheel
determining the interest rate. 

So what does all this have to do with the Serf Economy (a.k.a.
the Service Economy)? What do you need to create and support
the Serf Economy in a society? It works like this:

Poverty
Can't have serfs without poverty. 

Granted, we are not the poorest nation in the world, but
poverty in the Serf Economy is relative. Imperial Russia had a
narrower Wealth/Poverty gap than us. Serfs MUST be poor. Who
else would put up with a dreadful dead end (and sometimes
needlessly hazardous) job that pays almost nothing and goes
nowhere? 

You can't have burgers without burger flippers, and unless you
keep them there, then you have to keep the workforce supplied
with burger flippers and toilet cleaners through replacement
from below (younger workers) and either one of those takes the
next thing; respect for the position: we would rather choke
first, and we likely will. 

Propaganda
Serfs must believe that their lot is not all that bad, or else
you start to breed revolt. 

Knowledge is the yeast in the bread of revolution, so if you
keep the serfs believing somewhat plausible propaganda, then
you keep them flipping burgers or cleaning toilets. This is
much harder than it sounds: the current crop of Propagandists
is doing a very lousy job. The serfs are starting to learn the
awful truths that not only are they not getting a fair share
of the pie, but they have to gather the ingredients and bake
it for a very select few. 

This is not a hard secret to hide, but the Propagandists are
getting lazy. Take for example the Bush administration's poor
job of explaining tax cuts, profligate waste, excessive
spending etcetera. They rely on a variation of the old
"America; love it or leave it" meme, using updates
like "The Democrats want to steal your guns, turn you
children queer, put the country on welfare" and the like.
It has worked pretty well up until now, but it's reaching the
limit of believability in everywhere but the isolated
heartland, and even those folks are starting to wake up. 

Sabotage
In order NOT to be a serf, you need a GOOD job, so
intentionally or passively the Serf Owning Class has destroyed
the good jobs. 

The Auto Industry, the PARAGON of pumping capital into
consumerism is terminally ill. The NEW industries of
Information Technology and Support are being sent to places
where they have serfs to sell, like the Third World. There are
many other examples, so now the money for the soon to be new
Serf Class is evaporating like piss on the sidewalk. The logic
is, there won’t be any other jobs to do than serving the new
Serf Owning Class, and it's working fairly well. 


Security
Here's where the new masters shine: TERROR, TERROR, TERROR,
and TERROR. 

One would have thought that this would have been shown as the
lie that it is, but it actually has worked astonishingly well.
The new Serf Owning Class has made the fear of losing the
"job" so horrible that the drug industry’s best
sellers for years have been the anti-depressants. Now they’ve
made it even more horrifying with the health care debacle. 

Then the "Patriot" act and its ilk have just about
closed down any viable challenges in the security venue on a
government level. It once was said that every government has a
secret police; the only questions were how large and how
effective, and this is where the problem lies. They can’t get
too blatant because there are enough neo-kulaks to make
trouble (note: this is already happening). 

Now comes the BAD news:

Not enough Serfs to go around
There will be a shortage of good serfs, and PROFESSIONAL serfs
are EXPENSIVE.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003659959_servant10.html

The English have always known this: "Good help is so hard
to find," is straight out of the British Empire Upper
Class Lexicon. The difference is, they have always RESPECTED
the "help." WE on the other hand, having grown up as
a nation with slavery, have always treated service as a RIGHT,
not as commodity to be paid for. As an example, the rich are
always the worst tippers. 

In addition, the English have always known that you get what
you pay for. Their service staff DOES NOT DICKER OR BARGAIN,
and a deal is a deal. Our wealthy on the other hand not only
LOVE to dicker, but if they can stiff the help, all the
better. That's one of the reasons why illegal aliens have
always been such an enormous part of our Serf Economy: nothing
better than a servant who can't go to a regulatory agency to
get their rights because they are here illegally. 

Then on the other side of the fence, we have made a litany out
of not rendering good service. This may get back to the Serf
Owners not paying for what they get, but it has become so
legion that its origins may be moot at this point. NOBODY
wants a McJob. 


The Information Glut
Serfs have to be kept in the dark. 

When dialup is free, a computer to get on the net is the next
thing to free, and cell phones can get any information you
want, it’s hard to keep a determined serf stupid. Now until
recently one just could say "Fox News" and the
misinformation fed the serfs was taken care of, but now even
the worst informed are starting to laugh at the "Fox
News" jokes. Plus you don’t have be able to read
"Das Kapital" to get "subversive" ideas
like universal Health Care, you COMMIE. 

Delusion is not as rampant as it was; the level of apathy is
hiding it, but apathy does not last forever. It breeds
discontent. 


The 21st Low Level Century Bastille Decade
What we have forgotten about is that to keep DISCONTENTED
serfs in line is a full-time job for your army, and the serfs
have to have nothing more than farm implements to fight with. 
Even then you’re going to lose sometimes; one doesn't have to
hear a mob singing "The Marseilles" to figure that
out. 

But we have done the dumbest thing that people who want a Serf
Economy could have done; we have armed them, almost as well as
a modern infantryman, and we have made it part of the Serf
Owning Class’s mantra that the Serfs have the RIGHT to those
arms. 


What did those people think? That we were going to bring the
2nd Armored Division to Los Angeles to get those lawns mowed
and mansions cleaned? Never happen. 

Will this breed outright revolution? Maybe yes, maybe no: not
all empires die with a bang/some do with a whimper, but die
they do. 

What's going to happen next? Who knows? Not me. People know
that my views are a little on the bleak side, but that’s not
necessarily how it will play out. 

And the biggie: 

What can we do? Answer that one for yourself. 




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Serf"ice economy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I LOVE despair.com
My fave:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yeah, me too.
I love the one titled "Consulting - If your not part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. They had a "motivational poster" at work:
"LEADERS: Leaders are like eagles, they don't come in flocks; you find them one at a time." with a picture of an eagle flying over mountains.

I printed this as big as a poster and put it up in the "motivational poster's" place:



They didn't notice the difference for almost a year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Good on ya! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
43. LOL! I love what you did! Good for you! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
potisok Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Wage slaves - serfs
potato - pa toto

Well put, thanks, enjoyed your thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. I believe in setting up something like the SBA, except to establish co-ops/expand them instead.
It would buy up failed or failing firms or provide funds to start new firms. These firms would be established or reorganized into worker co-ops. In such a model, the adversarial relationship between the owner and the worker is removed. The workers are the owners.

The more co-ops are established, the more choice workers have in terms of working for themselves collectively or working for somebody else. The workers would decide how their respective firms are run, and they would decide how to divide up the fruits of their collective labor as well.

As the co-op sector expands and covers an increasingly bigger portion of the economy, the labor market in the private sector begins to shrink, forcing traditional firms to compete for a shrinking pool of workers still willing to work in the private sector when faced with a choice between the co-op and the private sector.

I think such a public investment mechanism would help to democratize the operations of the economy by giving more people decision-making power in terms of how capital is allocated. In short, economic democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. GREAT Ideas.
Now let's suspend the government for 10 years to let it happen.

Still great ideas, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. i'm not convinced that there's a governmental block to this
farm co-ops already exist and are treasured by many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. I don't specifically think there is a GOVERNMENTAL block...
But I do believe that the powers purchasing the government have a good chance of pulling off their endgame, at which point some sort of revolution will be the only vessel capable of carrying off change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. this would be a great model for a new WPA
ironically, i think it satisfies a certain degree of "free-marketism" in that it isn't a straight "transfer payment" concept (like WPA is criticized for).

i've been interested in "sexing-up" the cooperative concept since college, specifically to develop co-op opportunities in urban settings -- in other words -- to meet people where they live. such that, urban and suburbanites could attach themselves to rural/farm co-ops by manufacturing goods from raw materials -- which, DUH -- isn't that the model of capitalism in the first place (ship raw goods to densely populated areas for refinement).

here's a few examples of small scale urban co-op extensions --

Local Foods -- farm goods are brought to population centers for use in "Local Foods" restaurants. These restaurants would only use raw goods produced withing a short distance of the final destination.

Health and Beauty Products -- farm goods are brought to population centers for use in producing all sorts of needful things such as soaps, cosmetics, detergents.

Local Clothes -- small shops design and produce garments appropriate to local needs.

Child Care -- this speaks for itself.

there could a central motivation for participating in the co-op, in that local producers/participants would have "insider status" -- like a barter or commodity system. so, if you work in food production, you could trade your labor for other necessary co-op goods such as clothes or childcare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
42. On your last point, I've seen "labor trading" in babysitting/nursery co-ops
Edited on Tue Apr-10-07 04:08 PM by Selatius
Basically, there's a time bank (usually something like a citizen's association or a daycare center or even a homeowners' association) that keeps track of the amount of time you work to do something for somebody else, like household choirs, groceries, babysitting, etc. Basically, a dollar (a labor note or a time dollar or some other descriptive term) in this context is equal to one hour of labor doing something for somebody, usually in your community.

The more you do things for other people, the more labor notes you get, and you can use your notes to trade for some other form of labor. If you worked five hours painting Bob's house, you could turn around and trade back a labor note for his hour of labor washing/detailing your car. You could use the other 4 labor notes and trade for other forms of labor with other people in your community. To earn more labor notes, you continue to do something for somebody else in your community. It has the effect of fostering community participation, and it also builds a sense of community among peers who engage in this activity.

The only recurring problem is a labor note can't really represent disagreeableness or difficulty of a task. I don't think cleaning out Martha's septic tank for one hour is equivalent to mowing Bob's lawn for one hour. In these cases, usually the exchange rate is up to the individuals involved to settle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. Great idea, the banking industry will never allow it.
Nationalize the Fed, get rid of private banks and their system of usury, and it could be done, but until then no way.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
8. Excellent post. I also agree with the coop idea by one of your posters.
What I always think about is how really dumb the rich are. It would be fairly easy to keep the serf population satisfied: housing, food, medical care and education. I know because I asked myself what the least I would be contented with was. They have taken hope for these basics away and that is exactly why those of us on the bottom are so upset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. One would think "enlightened self-interest" would rule the rich.
Instead they seem to be following Jim Morrisons's "...I'm gonna get my kicks before the whole shithouse burns down..." philosophy.

Stupid. And inbred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kineneb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
47. See what happened in Europe
the wealthy saw that providing the proles with a "welfare state" would keep them happy and in line. Please note that the wealthy in Europe are not particularly afraid of their proles, vs. the attitude of the wealthy in the US ("screw the buggers over").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-11-07 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. Exactly. That was exactly the reason that FDR moved to build a
middle class and provide a safety net. This country was moving toward communism during the Great Depression with good reason. FDR recognized the dangers and acted. Now *ss & co. have forgotten the lesson and are going to reap the wind if the Democrats do not act soon. I think the 2008 election will tell the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
10. Yes, I've long wondered about our economy, when we don't make anything any more.
Except we do: WEAPONRY. ARMS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. There was a great cartoon in the "TOONS" thread last week...
Four captains of industry were talking in a board room:

1st Industrialist:
"Chief, we got ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to do the low-end jobs at below minimum wage..."

2nd Industrialist:
"...and we outsourced the high-end jobs to ASIA..."

Boss:
"So, what's the problem?"

3rd Industrialist:
"There's nobody left who can afford to BUY what we SELL,"


Enlightened self-interest should make these people change their ways...GREED has blinded them. We ALL will pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. I agree with your assertion
and would like to add that I also believe that another facet of the "poverty" and "propaganda" angles has recently been exposed in the housing market slow down and increase in foreclosures. People like Greenspan set the initial bar for obtaining credit so low that nearly everyone could get credit- even at rates that they cant afford the interest payments, in order to allow the people to believe that they were not in the lower classes of society. Further eveidence of this can be seen in how credit card companies will give college students with no income cards with several thousand dollars worth of credit- knowing that they cant pay it back.

If you can afford a house, you're not poor but in the middle class? right? Then what is to be said when the interest rates go up so that you can no longer afford the house? Then it is just "the market's" fault.

In this credit and debt ridden society we lie to ourselves and the corporations help perpetuate the lie. "I am not poor, I can buy stuff. I just cant afford the payments"- sure.

Welcome to the "company town". You load sixteen tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Took 1000's of years to get a fairly stable middle class....
Took the Republicans less than a generation to destroy it. RIP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. A couple of nits to pick
Capitalism is not based on "Service." Rather, its roots are in manufacturing and industry.

I wouldn't say it's really based on any of those, but simply the concepts of the marketplace when it comes to supply and demand and private ownership of the means of production. That's not exclusively manufacturing or industry or psychi readings or anything.

Now the "Marketplace" in this country can be defined in commodities trading or in the stock market, neither of which "makes" anything; they only trade in paper.

I don't think this is correct either. The marketplace is far broader than simply trading paper. It's trading skills, labor, ideas, influence, real estate.

Not to prick anyone's bubble, but this has to do only with who owns the shares of the companies, not capital invested to make profit. The only money made in the "market" is on paper. Stocks make nothing but return on money spent for the stock: it's sort of like a bank with a rigged roulette wheel determining the interest rate.

There's A LOT going on here that simply isn't correct either.

Stock ownership is essentially ownership in a profit stream. The shares you own determine your claim to that profit stream because you're contributing capital (via stock purchase) to hopefully grow that profit stream.

The money made in (and as a result of) the market is very real, and the money put into the market has very real consequences...you can't just reduce it to being a "rigged roulette wheel."

You can't have burgers without burger flippers, and unless you keep them there, then you have to keep the workforce supplied with burger flippers and toilet cleaners through replacement from below (younger workers) and either one of those takes the next thing; respect for the position: we would rather choke first, and we likely will.

This is a strange point to make considering what you said about the marketplace a few graphs up.

Knowledge is the yeast in the bread of revolution, so if you keep the serfs believing somewhat plausible propaganda, then you keep them flipping burgers or cleaning toilets.

No you don't. People lift themselves out of these positions all the time.

Frankly, the rest of this post doesn't make much sense to me.













Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. No offense, but here goes:
"Capitalism is not based on "Service." Rather, its roots are in manufacturing and industry.

I wouldn't say it's really based on any of those, but simply the concepts of the marketplace when it comes to supply and demand and private ownership of the means of production. That's not exclusively manufacturing or industry or psychi readings or anything."

If you read "Wealth of Nations," the practical basis for market capitalism, "Capital" refers to resources directly involved in the PRODUCTION of goods for the market place. "Supply and demand" are economic terms that refer to the TRANSFER of goods. Private Ownership of the means of production is a concept of MERCANTILISM, while public stock ownership and Private ownership of Capital Resources are tenets of Capitalism.


"Now the "Marketplace" in this country can be defined in commodities trading or in the stock market, neither of which "makes" anything; they only trade in paper.

I don't think this is correct either. The marketplace is far broader than simply trading paper. It's trading skills, labor, ideas, influence, real estate."

I am referring to the "marketplace as it exists NOW, and as it relates to industry and manufacturing, previously stated as the outgrowth of CAPITAL investment. Stocks do not directly effect the means of production.

"Not to prick anyone's bubble, but this has to do only with who owns the shares of the companies, not capital invested to make profit. The only money made in the "market" is on paper. Stocks make nothing but return on money spent for the stock: it's sort of like a bank with a rigged roulette wheel determining the interest rate.

There's A LOT going on here that simply isn't correct either.

Stock ownership is essentially ownership in a profit stream. The shares you own determine your claim to that profit stream because you're contributing capital (via stock purchase) to hopefully grow that profit stream."

Again, you refer to an ECONOMIC not a RESOURCE CAPITAL basis. By the way, is your "profit stream" claim reduced when new stock is issued? That's a trick question. Resource Capital is not reducible on paper.

"You can't have burgers without burger flippers, and unless you keep them there, then you have to keep the workforce supplied with burger flippers and toilet cleaners through replacement from below (younger workers) and either one of those takes the next thing; respect for the position: we would rather choke first, and we likely will.

This is a strange point to make considering what you said about the marketplace a few graphs up."

You are comparing two completely separate areas of the thesis. The area you refer to has nothing to do with the marketplace and everything to do with the denigration of entry level labor to the level of serfdom. You need to re-read it.

"Knowledge is the yeast in the bread of revolution, so if you keep the serfs believing somewhat plausible propaganda, then you keep them flipping burgers or cleaning toilets.

No you don't. People lift themselves out of these positions all the time."

"No you don't?" I must ask for your PRACTICAL expertise. I have been in manufacturing, retail sales, management since 1971, and I assure you that there are many Americans who remain in low level jobs their entire lives. They just can't support themselves on what they earn for these jobs anymore.

"Frankly, the rest of this post doesn't make much sense to me."

Either you did not read carefully enough, or your faith in what passes for Capitalism (but is in fact a bastardized form of managed economy and Mercantilism) is unshakable, and therefore we have no room for compromise in our discussion.

As I said above, I intend no personal offense. Also, from messages and recommendations, you appear to be in the minority.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. No offense taken....
Edited on Tue Apr-10-07 02:00 PM by Sammy Pepys
...but your argument and description of capitalism and economy is just not persuasive to me, and doesn't mesh with my own readings of "Wealth of Nations" and other econ texts. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but if you are right I don't think you've quite made a case.

EDIT: Oh, I also meant to ask this: where in the hell did that definition of mercantilism come from? That's a huge departure from the traditonal understanding of mercantilism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Perhaps I should have been more specific.
We never spoke of "Classical Mercantilism" but used the word as synonymous with Neo-Mercantilism based on the new American model, with credit replacing bullion, but with the same "zero-sum" theology which holds that in order for me to prosper, you, in the same business as me, must lose share of the market. This, based on export to return value combined with economic suppression of the lower classes sounds very much like what's going on today.

Smith, on the other hand, had a rudimentary "John Nash" view where the means of production and capital resources leading to a product were a method to make good for the commonwealth. A lot of people reading "Wealth of Nations" tend to miss the fact that Smith advocates a philosophy granting the greatest good for the commonwealth is a "laizze-faire" form of business that allows all entities involved in production to compete on an even playing field, and that his most valued form of capital is human capital/workers and their well-being.

I think we can both agree that is probably as far from the way things work now as they can be, and MUCH closer to Neo-Mercantilism than Adam Smith Capitalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. So I went back and read your original post in light of this one...
You made zero references to mercantilism of any sort in the OP, yet that is a major lynchpin in this whole discussion. I think that distinction would've been helpful. Would mercantilism have even been brought up if I hadn't inquired about your definition of it?

That aside, I think your comparison of credit and bullion is very interesting and thought-provoking.

As for Adam Smith, I think he'd probably be a little dismayed at how much control the government maintains over certain economic areas. At the same time I think he'd be very impressed with the kind of entreprenurial environment fostered in the US...it would certainly have been nothing like he'd ever seen in his time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Actually I always viewed Smith as the ultimate entreprenure.
It is widely said that he did not approve of "letters of Patent," the back bone of the entrepreneur (who DOESN'T want to patent something.)

As for control, it isn't GOVERNMENT control which will kill us, it's CORPORATION control.

Yeah I know this is from Wikipedia, but it does have some points to make about the American Model, also called the American System or American School/National system.

I'm going home to dinner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. One last question....
Would you want Adam Smith to approve of what he saw today?

You posted somewhere on this thread that you're somewhat of a "neo-socialist"...at least I think it was you.

So let's say the situationw as such that Adam Smith came back from the dead, saw America and what's happeneing in it, and heartily approved. Would you also approve, or would you prefer a different system.

BTW, the Adam Smith "patent" is a borderline urban legend, mostly fostered by folks unfamiliar with WoN. I wrote a whole paper on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Not "Patent" but "letters of Patent."
A mercantile construct. Smith did not seem to approve of them.

My honest opinion? I think Smith would be appalled at the greedy, self-serving, commonwealth be damned attitude of today. I think he would walk up to your typical "captain of industry" and bitch slap him/her.

You don't have to be a communist to be a neo-socialist. I don't disapprove of wealth, just greed and disregard of the least of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Letters of patent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent

"Letters patent are a type of legal instrument in the form of an open letter issued by a monarch or government, granting an office, right, monopoly, title, or status to a person or to some entity such as a corporation."

I can see where this can become a problem in terms of allowing markets to operate, especially if certain people wish to see elected people who would abuse such powers in the name of preserving one's grip on a stagnant market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-11-07 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
49. "It is widely said that he did not approve of 'letters of Patent,'....
Edited on Wed Apr-11-07 08:36 AM by Sammy Pepys
the back bone of the entrepreneur(who DOESN'T want to patent something.)"

OK...so is it the backbone of the entreprenuer or:

"A mercantile construct. Smith did not seem to approve of them."

LoPs and patents are obviously different, which fueled much of the confusion about what Smith meant (the basic crux of my aforementioned paper). From your previous post, it seems you were caught up in that because you sounded very much like you were describing what we understand a patent to be in modern times ("who doesn't want to patent something?").

Are you doing some of your research on the fly? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. capitalism is based on two things:
1. greed, and the mistaken notion that indulging greed is neutral, with no long-term negative effects

2. the mistaken notion that there is an essentially infinite supply of one or more "free" resources that can be exploited; when this lie becomes self-evident, the capitalists must resort to slavery or other immoral exploitation in order to create their own "free" infinite resource; with dwindling oil and other natural supplies, the labor of the "serfs" in the OP is the capitalist's new "free" resource

Capitalism is a grotesquely outmoded system and has no place in a rational future
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Ummm....
Edited on Tue Apr-10-07 02:23 PM by Sammy Pepys
...yeah, not the most rigorous survey of capitalism I've ever seen.

Is a proper understanding of capitalism really this anathema in some quarters around here? I'm not saying you have to like it...but that view is based on a very narrow, Randian interpretation of the system that most academic/intellectual champions of capitalism would scoff at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. stunning riposte
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Again, no offense, but I have a few recomendations:
1. Re-read Adam Smith. Compared to what we call capitalism today, he's almost a collectivist.(I exagerate.)
2. Read the entries in the Columbia Encyclopedia from Columbia University on Mercantilism (short form). It doesn't delve as far as I'd like into the new American Mercantile model 18th century, but hey. The Bartleby reference should be enough.
3. http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/Mercantilism.html Laura LaHaye gives some excellent definitions and examples, but I disagree with her last few paragraphs. Nobody's perfect.

A goat and a cow both give milk but only one makes good parmesan. Today's capitalism is NOT what Smith had in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Thanks...
Conversely, I like the following:

1) The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek (he's not the conservative most people paint him as).

2) http://www.mises.org/story/155


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. I know Hayek.
I think he'd vomit too, if he saw what passes for a free market today. A little outdated, and wrongly used to justify "trickle down" and also I don't think Reganomics is what he had in mind (from a "supply side" point of view. )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Economist and meteorologist, the only two "professions" where the practitioners
are wrong the majority of the time and (some) people still listen to, and pay, them. Oh, and the meteorologists are getting better at their craft.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
45. I Like Randi's Interpretations
Been listening to her all afternoon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Modern Capitalism, absolutely.
Adam Smith was more along the lines of John Nash ("...if NONE of us go for the blond, and instead we each go for one of the other individual women, we ALL win..."). Human Capital was his most important resource, and he abandoned the Mercantile concept of one winner, Monopolies, and tarriffs.

Not that I consider myself a Capitalist, mind you. Pure Neo-Socialist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
21. And none of that COMMIE public transit either
serfs have to spend at least half of their income to have a means to get to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
22. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
24. Wow! Excellent!!
:applause:

Nothing to add or delete - and that is RARE for me! :)

Serf Economy. You got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
28. Can't remember which one, but one of the Robber Barrons said that the best
way to control a man is to give him a mortgage. We have followed this advice and expanded it to the point that it is rare to find someone without debt.

I recently heard an interview where the interviewee compared our version of capitalism to the behavior of an addict. Addicts are, of necessity irrational, a rational mind makes a mistake and seeks a different way to avoid repeating the mistake. The addict keeps making the same mistake over and over until things get so bad that they are incapable of repeating the mistake, and then as soon as they are well enough, go back to repeating the mistake. The comparison seemed quite apt to me.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. A mortgage is pure Mercantilism at its most pernicious.
The economic suppression of the lower classes is absolutely necessary. Can't let the little devils have any of that spare money or time, y'know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
35. K & R. Your views aren't bleak-they are reality.
Everyone should get with the program and realize that they could easily be next in line for serfdom considering the way things are headed in this country today thanks to the greedy evil powers that be. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Problem is, I don't think we can de-throne the king....
That is, the corporate monster that is sucking the blood of our people then re-locating to Dubai.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyler Durden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
46. Thanks for the discussion, here's a little gift: the HEART of modern Capitalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-10-07 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
48. Bumpage
Beats talkin' about ImASS TV controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corkhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-11-07 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
50. I am bookmarking this one, you put exactly into words what I have thought for a long time
but was unable to articulate as well as you have. I look forward to reading more of your essays.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC