We’re all through with the matching funds. My thanks to all who gave. Further donations, while appreciated, will not be matched.
Month: December 2021 Page 2 of 4
A generous reader has offered to match donations up to a total of $600. So, if you value my writing and can…
When the matching funds are used up, I’ll put up a quick post.
We’re at $9,535.18 raised. The next tier is at $10K, and is:
A longish look at the theory of revolutions: How, when and why do they happen? I’ll be drawing on people like Randall Collins and Michael Mann. Most of what they have is based on the experience of Agrarian empires, so I’ll try and extend it a bit to industrial nations, and also look at what it means for a world system to collapse. World systems prior to capitalism didn’t include the entire world (and capitalism didn’t till the mid-19th century), so we can see what comes thinking about it.
If we hit 11.5K, the last tier is:
An essay on the effect of computer and telecom technology on humanity. Back in the 1990s, in his book Technopoly, Neil Postman predicted it would be bad for most people. I would argue it has, or will be, but we’ll take a look at the ups and downs, the effects on economics, geopolitics, and daily life. As with the advents of writing, printing, and firearms, the early results may not be the same as those in the longer term, so we’ll try and figure out some of those.
I’ll shut the fundraiser down next week (I’ll write one last update before I do.) I deeply appreciate everyone who’s given this year; it’s been a tough year.
And tomorrow’s center will be today’s extreme.
(We’re coming towards the end of my fundraising. I write to explain the world and to help introduce the ideas that may change it for the better in the future. The more people who donate, the more I can do. Please DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE if you can.)
In the 1950s US, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent. In 1925, the idea of such a rate was an extreme position. Today, it is an extreme position.
In 1935, the US had a small standing army and believed that was the way to be. After WWI, it had demobilized a huge army, but after WWII it chose to keep a large standing army.
Segregation was the normal position for much of the country before the 1960s; today it is theoretically illegal.
Women could not, effectively, hold most jobs in the 1950s; today they can. Married women couldn’t even have their own bank accounts without permission from their husbands; today they can.
Before the 1940s, almost no countries had universal health care, now virtually all developed countries (except the US) do.
Limited liability corporations didn’t exist throughout most of the history of capitalism, and were opposed by many capitalists when introduced; now they are the norm.
Most land was owned and managed by the commons for most of history; now, most of it is private land or government-owned. The idea that every local shouldn’t have access to local land and resources was EXTREME for almost all of human existence.
(Capitalism, generally speaking, is an extremely radical ideology when viewed through the lens of human history and pre-history.)
The center, of any period, is the extreme of a previous period. Truly, new ideas start from the extremes, then, when radicals win, they become centrist ideas. Adam Smith did not agree with the orthodoxy of his day, any more than Karl Marx did (though he had the advantage that he was championing a wealthy minority, not a poor one ,and thus didn’t live his life in poverty and misery like Marx.)
Confucius was an extremist who could not get hired by those in power. Jesus was an extremist. Muhammed was an extremist. Thomas Paine was an extremist. Luther was an extremist, and so was MLK.
The center does maintainance and refinement of ideas, but they have few if any truly new ideas. It is radicals who create new ideas, and centrists support them only afterwards.
by Tony Wikrent
Strategic Political Economy
Masaya Kobayashi [Frontiers in Psycholog, via Mike Norman Economics 12-14-2021]
This manuscript explores the relationship between positive psychology and political philosophy, revealing an inter-disciplinary approach that speaks to the concerns of the common good. Since positive psychology has been expanding its reach into social and political spheres, its relationship to philosophical arguments has been worthy of exploration. Positive psychology is associated with utilitarianism, and aspects of hedonic psychology. However, an alternative concept of eudaimonic well-being has enabled this psychology to have links to other political philosophies. Therefore, this manuscript provides an overview of contemporary political philosophies: first, it discusses the debate between liberalism and communitarianism, and secondly, it summarizes the subsequent developments of liberal perfectionism, capability approach, and deliberative democracy. Then, the configuration of these political philosophies is indicated by the figure of two axes of “individual/collective” and “ethical/non-ethical.” The following section compiles the inter-relationships between the conceptions of citizenship, justice, and well-being, regarding the main political philosophies: egoism, utilitarianism, libertarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, and conservatism. Utilitarianism is associated with happiness, while liberalism and libertarianism rely on the concept of rights, which is almost equal to the idea of justice. Accordingly, utilitarianism is a philosophy of well-being, while liberalism and libertarianism are philosophies of justice. However, there is little connection between well-being and justice in these philosophies because the two kinds of philosophies are incompatible. The latter kind criticizes the former because the maximization of happiness can infringe on people’s rights. Moreover, these philosophies do not particularly value citizenship. In contrast, communitarianism is intrinsically the political philosophy of citizenship most attuned to increasing well-being, and it can connect an idea of justice with well-being. The final part offers a framework to develop an inter-disciplinary collaboration. Positive psychology can provide the empirical basis of the two axes above concerning political philosophies. On the other hand, the correspondence makes the character of political philosophies clearer. While libertarianism and liberalism correspond to psychology as usual, utilitarianism and communitarianism correspond to positive psychology, and the latter can be regarded as positive political philosophies. This recognition leads to the interdisciplinary framework, enabling multi-disciplinary collaboration, including work with the social sciences, which could benefit the common good….
…Sandel typically argued for the resurgence of republicanism as a public philosophy in America instead of the liberalism that has been dominant since WWII (Sandel, 1996). Republicanism originates in res publica in ancient Greek and Rome, and it means active political participation for self-government by people with civic virtue. If people lack civic virtue, they tend to fall into political apathy or become manipulated by demagogues. Thus, civic virtue has a vital role in making democracy sound and better in quality.
Although liberalism sometimes supports republicanism, it respects the institutional mechanism against dictatorship, typically separation of powers. Accordingly, it sometimes supports people’s political participation: this version is liberal republicanism (Ackerman, 1993/2000). Nevertheless, liberalism, including even this version, tends to disregard the ethical aspect of republicanism. In contrast, communitarianism emphasizes the vital significance of civic virtue for political participation. It advocates civic virtue as one of the essential human virtues, and therefore it frequently accompanies republicanism to be termed communitarian republicanism.
In sum, while liberalism and libertarianism are individualist and non-ethical, especially concerning public spheres, communitarianism has an ethical and communal (or public) orientation: it attaches importance to various collaborative activities and communities, as well as to the good life sustained by morality and virtue, not only in private lives but also in public lives.
“The force of historical decline.”
Haydar Khan [The Scrum, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 12-17-2021] Galbraith v. Thiel.
Galbraith: “The institutional, infrastructure, resource basis, and psychological foundations for a Keynesian revival no longer exist.”
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, December 15, 2021 [The American Prospect]
(Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and one of the most cited legal authorities of United States constitutional law and federal civil procedure.)
I fear that our society has entered an age of vigilantism that reflects a profound distrust in government institutions and individuals. It is a path that only can lead to disaster. Consider several quite different events of the last few weeks….
Justice Sonia Sotomayor outlined this danger powerfully in her dissent when she declared, “While the Court properly holds that this suit may proceed against the licensing officials, it errs gravely in foreclosing relief against state-court officials and the state attorney general. By so doing, the Court leaves all manner of constitutional rights more vulnerable than ever before, to the great detriment of our Constitution and our Republic.”
Use the comments to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.
Omicron is VERY contagious. Where I am, we have doubling of cases every three days, and that seems typical.
No matter how much politicians don’t want more closures, this is going to overwhelm ICUs and force closures — unless politicians are willing to see people dying in the streets (which some may be).
So, expect new closures, soon. I would suspect that most governments will try to hold off until after Christmas, but even that may not be possible.
You can read our full analysis here:https://t.co/5Yh8tNNwM6
— Bharat Ramamurti (@BharatRamamurti) December 10, 2021
This isn’t caused by supply chain shortages, it’s caused by pure greed operating through an oligopoly which is sure that governments won’t stop them.
When we let insulin prices go up to hundreds of dollars for a vial that costs under $4 to produce, something we knew would kill a ton of people, when we let them raise prices on a bevy of drugs which cost almost nothing to produce, we let every businessman know that, no matter what the consequences, price-gouging was A-OK. If it’s okay to kill sick people with price gouging, what’s off the table?
(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating.)
The solution to this is to break up the oligopolies and to charge executives with conspiracies under RICO, which allows all their money to be removed as the product of a crime and forces them to use public defenders. (If it’s okay to do this to serial killers, who kill a lot less people than most oligopolists, then I don’t see why the real criminals should be spared).
As I’ve written in the past, modern capitalism is simply predators feasting on herd animals.
Our era is built on three ideological assertions:
- There is no such thing as society.
- Greed is good.
- There is no alternative (TINA).
Whatever makes a profit, according to this assertion, is good. There is no society, and, therefore, no social goals. There are only competing people and whatever they get is fair. And this is the only way to run society; there is no alternative.
Your lords and masters, for that is how they see themselves, hurt, impoverish, and kill you for money they don’t even need. You are the sheep, and they are the herders, and the cops are the sheepdogs, just like the cops say.
They have even less regard for you than most farmers, though, since they figure there are more of you than they need, and thus, they see no need to care for you the way a good farmer cares for his animals until he kills them for food.
Remember, everything evil they do and are rewarded for simply leads to the question, “What else can we do to make even more money?”
Until the consequence of them hurting and killing “sheep” is that they start dying, or have something worse than dying happen to them (time in ultra-max’s counts), they’re going to kill and hurt more and more, because they are rewarded for it, and most of them get off on it.
(Introduction and Table of Contents)
The economy turns the ideology of who should have a good or bad life and what sort of life that is into reality.
An economy is a way of deciding who is allowed to use resources and in what ways they can use them.
In modern capitalism, money is power: It lets you determine what other people do. You can do that directly by hiring them, or you can do it indirectly by buying what they offer. Either way, your money directs their efforts.
Not all economies are like this. In feudalism, money was not the most important thing, land and serfs were. You controlled land and serfs by being part of a web of feudal obligations such that other members of the feudal nobility would send you knights and men-at-arms. Military force and feudal ties determined who had the power to control what the peasant majority did.
There are always limits on what you are allowed to do. In an economy, these are political limits. In the modern developed world, slavery is usually illegal and children don’t work. You may not be allowed to work people more than a certain number of hours a day. Some areas won’t let you own water rights or restrict access to beaches; some separate “above ground” land rights from mineral rights (to the ruin of many farmers).
Children are forced to go to school by government, thus claiming the right to choose what children do away when they’re away from their parents (and the right was taken away from parents who did choose what their children did previously). There may be environmental regulation, there are certainly taxes which change costs, and there are subsidies as well. Railroads are far more efficient in physical terms than roads for transport, for example, but roads are far more subsidized and, thus, often cheaper.
How an economy works: What can be sold or earned. Through regulation and taxation, what the cost structure is, and thus what types of people and businesses make how much profit are political decisions. This is why businesses spend so much time and money lobbying government: Government is the ultimate determinant of their success.
Modern stockholder capitalism would be impossible without a vast array of legal rights and their enforcement. The limited liability corporation is a political creation (and was opposed by many businessmen when it was created). Corporate person-hood is not obvious, and many would argue, it is obviously incorrect (corporations aren’t people) but it is legal reality.
Property itself, is entirely a political creation and requires vast enforcement by the state. Owning ideas is something you couldn’t do for most of history, but so-called “intellectual property” is core to modern capitalism. Indeed, for much of history most societies didn’t even allow the ownership of land, and personal possessions were often freely shared. It takes immense amounts of force and huge institutions to keep our complex property systems going; accountants, bookkeepers, and banks are best viewed as keeping track of complex ownership relationships.
You will remember that, in the legitimacy and ideology chapters, we discussed the idea of the “good life” and of who the “good people” were. Economies are designed to translate that into reality. So, for example, the US has had vast subsidies for suburbs for about a century, because suburbs represent the “good life.”
While governments set the rules of economies, decisions within that rule-set are made by people who control a lot of money, whether personally or through companies. When those people do something bad, even often something which is illegal, we often don’t punish them at all (as in the 2008 financial crisis), or we fine them for less than they made. This is because rich people who make decisions are acting legitimately; they are the people who are supposed to make decisions.
If drug companies make insulin so expensive that many people die, that isn’t murder, even though far more people are killed than even by the most prolific serial killer. As with politicians declaring war, rich people are considered to have the right to kill or harm others, so long as it is done through markets.
Where the line on this is varies by time, with much more permitted before 1933 and after 1980 in the US, but because basic legitimacy, in a capitalist system, resides in markets, those who control markets are “good” and have the legitimate right to hurt people.
Capitalists use the state to obtain the resources they need for business: road and railroads, employees trained by schools and universities, basic and advanced research, the court system and the police. All of these resources are used far more by capitalists than ordinary people; they benefit more than they pay. Likewise they often have the right to pollute, injured workers have only limited ability to sue them, and so on. Direct subsidies of billions to trillions are common.
All of this is so because capitalism is legitimate, so doing what is required to make business profitable is legitimate.
The word profitable is important here: It is usually government which decides which businesses make money and which don’t. The combination of property rights, enforcement, and subsidies, along with letting businesses pollute or not, pay other damages they inflict, determines not just whether money is made, but how much.
The best business to be in is generally the financial business, as banks and most financial institutions can create money literally out of nothing, which is what happens when a bank makes a loan or a brokerage extends credit or leverage. It’s hard not to be profitable when you can just change a computer legerd and, “Voila, money!”
Joseph Schumpeter regarded banks as the command centres of capitalism because of this ability to create money and because lending a business money to do something is deciding if that something should be done. and In general, financial institutions plus the state determine who can do what, and who makes a profit. Because financial institutions are, or can be, regulated by the state, and because just anyone isn’t allowed to create money, this is all, ultimately, a creation of the state or at least allowed by it.
The economy, then, is how the ideology of legitimacy, of what the good life is and who should enjoy it, is brought into being. The right activities are made profitable, the wrong ones are made less profitable or unprofitable, or are made illegal. Taxes are arranged to distribute money from the rich to the rest of society, as from 1932 to 1979 in the US, or they are arranged to distribute money from the majority to the rich, as from 1980 to the present.
Money and power thus move to the chosen and legitimate groups of people, and those people use it that money to create society in the image of their ideologies.
The economy then, is not a result of inevitable economic laws, but of choices made by those in power, who are in power because enough people identify with them and agree with the ideology they claim to champion.
Economies result from power and confer power, and power is what we will discuss next.