Inner Banks Philosophy
"...the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated. The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism were the intellectuals, not the [blue collar folks]."
-- Ludwig von Mises, Brilliant Austrian economist
Still true today. It is the arrogant elite, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett... and all the over educated college professors... who love Obama and his socialist bilge.
posted by Dean Stephens @ 7:12 AM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
If you think Obama is a socialist, then you need to study the history of economic thought and realize what we have in America is no where close to socialism. Maybe you should read Book V of the Wealth of Nation, the part where Smith speaks of the Paradoxes of the Commercial Society.
When speaking of the Division of Labor: "it makes [the workman] as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become"
“The torpor of his mind renders him, not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life… but in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the laboring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.”
- Adam Smith, Book V, Wealth of Nations
And then when Smith speaks of merchants and master manufacturers (what will later be termed by Marx as Capitalists):
They complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effect of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people… the interest of dealers in any particular branch of trade or manufactures is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers… [By narrowing the competition, dealers are enabled] to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow citizens… [They are] an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
And of course the classic passage: “People of the same seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
- Adam Smith, Book V, Wealth of Nations
But of course you only hear mention of the Invisible Hand, which he only mentions once in passing, when people discuss him. My guess is that people don't actually read, because you know, that an elitist thing to do, and those people only support Obama and the Left. And we are over educated apparently.
I guess by this measure both Adam Smith and Thomas Paine were Socialists.
To try and claim that socialism as a term has not evolved, and that what Obama practices is not intentional support for the current "slow" revolution to destroy free enterprise by global socialists, is an ignorant and indefensible position. 19th century philosophers may still have a lot to say, but they don't define the language or meanings of today. Obama is a socialist as socialism is practiced today.
Nor does the "invisible hand" justify the evil of the current crony capitalism practiced by Wall Street and the Democrats. Socialism and various other statism philosophies always lead to abuses by govnerment goons. It also inevitably leads to the murder of millions as the power of the bureaucrats grows stronger while their incompetence becomes more obvious.
America has been built on free enterprise. It is not perfect, but it is provably superior. Superior as long as the American penchant for elimination of monopolies is allowed to flourish. If you do not ban monopolies, capitalism leads to lack of competition and ceases to exist.
The left is not just over educated. They are the epitome of the arrogance that leads to mudering millions for the flaw of disagreeing with the state. Anyone who defends socialism must first defend the evil which follows like night follows day.
I still don't see any practice of socialism in Obama. I do see Etatism in his practices by taking over GM, which the government is getting out of, which is very unsocialist like. Also he created a Health Care plan that would give money to corporations, a very big no-no for a socialist, but something an etatist would do.
I do agree that socialism has changed but so has capitalism for that matter. I think the problem you have is that you are confusing Socialism with Totalitarianism. I can see why when you look at the history of socialism in the world. I do not advocate for authoritarian regimes or Totalitarianism for that matter. The reason that Socialism gets a bad reputation today is because. The problem with Marx is that he was a very brilliant man in seeing the Materialist Dialectic, but he was also a very bitter man for being fired and black balled in his native Germany for being part of the Hegelian Left. This bitterness drove him to such a negative and morbid view of life. Building on Smith and Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value in which capital is accumulated labor, he goes on to say to say in section II of the Communist Manifesto: "living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labor" which he then refers to as "dead labour" and goes on to describe how capital is replacing living labour and therefore the "Dead is dominating the living". If one reads this enough times it becomes depressing, I think he really could have used some Zoloft. But the point is that from all his studies of history and philosophy he came to view the world only progressing through revolution and not through a natural flow. And the older he got, the more discouraged he became that in his lifetime he would see progress. And in sense he believed that the only vehicle of carrying this progress was through totalitarianism. In a sick but sincere way he actually believed that this totalitarianism was liberating, while I disagree, which can be seen in his quote also from section II of the Communist Manifesto: "In bourgeoisie society capital (dead labour) is independent and has individuality, while living labour is dependent and has no individuality" therefore he believed that by eliminating a bourgeoisie society he could give living labour independence and individuality. The man is much more complicated than he is made out to be, whether you agree with him or not. Not to focus to much on Marx, but it is Marx's Scientific Socialism that was more appealing and persuasive then John Stuart Mill's Utopian Socialism (and to a degree Thomas Paine falls under a Utopian Socialist) to the likes of Lenin. And then of course Stalin completely betrayed with Stalinism and you got today's modern interpretation of what a socialist state is like. Although if you want to really see a socialist state visit France, and see what an amazing place it is, Paris is lovely this time of the year, although the Metros really do reek of perfume of BO.
The point is that you can't paint all socialism with a big brush, and not all socialist want to get rid of all free enterprise. Free enterprise that actually innovates is very much needed, but most of the commanding heights of the economy don’t innovate anymore. Tell me the last time an insurance company or a financial bank innovated something that was productive to society. Why then if you are not innovating something do you deserve to make profit from something just because you have the most capital investments in that market? I could say the same for land line telephone companies. What are they innovating of value that can't be done by the government or even a publicly elected official and which merits them receiving profits for? Society needs a more equitable way of distributing its resources, why does a CEO make over 400 times what his workers make a year. That also seems like arrogance and greed to me.
While I will agree with you that over-educated people on BOTH the left and the right are arrogant, if it wasn't for over-educated people we would still be living in caves and throwing stones at people. looks like I wrote an essay.
You do ramble on a bit. I'll try to keep my response brief.
Neither insurance companies or banks are capitalism. They are a part of a monetary system that may aid in the flexibility of settling accounts within capitalism and trade but are not a part of capitalism. What makes you think they are capitalism?
I agree that I can't see anything monetary companies have innovated recently except for derivatives, Mortgage back securities and CBOs. I would not call those an advance or even desirable. (see comments on Glass-Steagall below)
Your belief that there is such a thing as a "land line telephone company" and that it is a part of capitalism is truly intriguing, or perhaps bizarre would be a better term. Is IP Telephony or Skype a "land line telephone company"? Communication services are certainly a part of capitalism. They are service companies and they most assuredly compete. I challenge you to successfully defend your belief that government can manage them as well as free enterprise can. The waste and corruption of government bureacrats always vastly exceeds the profits of competitive free enterprise. And I promise you IP Telephony and sevices like Skype would NEVER be "innovated" by a government phone service.
I don't plan to participate in a discussion to change your mind though since it will take a huge amount of energy and you will never concede you are wrong in any event. That makes the discussion a waste of energy and time.
FYI, the current excessive compensation of CEOs owes much more to the crony capitalism (or my prefrered term, corporate socialism) of the Democrats and Wall Street than it does to an inherent process of comeptitive free enterprise.
If we return to the non corrupt financial eterprises under something like Glass-Steagall, and also elminate the Wall Street created monopolies from government sanctioned mergers and acquistions, I predict compensation would plunge back to historical levels. Competition always purges waste and useless compensation.
As for the over educated professors, unless they are teaching something usefull like enfineering, you are deluded in thinking they are improving our future lives one iota.
And FYI, I lived in France and can assure you, the high unemployment and bureacratic dominance does not make it a nice place to work, no matter how nice it may be to visit.
Finally, Obama is a socialist. Whether you concede that does not change that.
I'm going to address a few points here
"Your belief that there is such a thing as a "land line telephone company" and that it is a part of capitalism is truly intriguing, or perhaps bizarre would be a better term. Is IP Telephony or Skype a "land line telephone company"?"
Yes they were the former AT&T corp which was broken up into the Baby Bells in the 1980s. Skype itself is not a phone company, Skype is a software application that allows you to make a call over the internet, a Voice over IP. And I may add that skype was not innovated by the traditional ("land line") telephone companies.
"Neither insurance companies or banks are capitalism. They are a part of a monetary system that may aid in the flexibility of settling accounts within capitalism and trade but are not a part of capitalism. What makes you think they are capitalism?"
I would like to borrow a line from you here, "To try and claim that [Capitalism] as a term has not evolved is an ignorant and indefensible position. 19th [and 20th] century philosophers may still have a lot to say, but they don't define the language or meanings of today." Capitalism in the truest form that is laissez faire is about capital accumulation, private ownership of the means of production (which includes financial and insurance corporations because of the constant need to avoid risk and have access to liquidity) and the reliance on market forces to set prices (based on supply and demand). While I don't want to make the same mistake as you and paint all forms of capitalism with a broad brush, I must disagree with your assertion that these are not part of capitalism in which has been practiced for centuries now, from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman. By the way Glass-Steagall isn't going to be enough, mostly because of these non-bank banking institutions, who additionally carry with them systemic risk, but I don't want to get into that.
"FYI, the current excessive compensation of CEOs owes much more to the crony capitalism (or my prefrered term, corporate socialism) of the Democrats and Wall Street than it does to an inherent process of comeptitive free enterprise."
Okay, I have to ask you to look back in history before the 1930's, the time of the Robber Barons, a time before FDR. I will agree that the Democrats have recently (Clinton years) contributed to the rise the rise of Wall Street, but you seem to be ignoring the 12 years before Clinton in which Republican governments were deregulating Wall Street. You can't seriously believe that it is only one party causing this?
"I challenge you to successfully defend your belief that government can manage them as well as free enterprise can. The waste and corruption of government bureacrats(sic) always vastly exceeds the profits of competitive free enterprise."
I completely disagree with this belief. When my grandfather worked for the USDA in Peoria during the 50s and 60s and he discovered and patented discoveries (including uses for the proteins in soybeans) for the U.S. Government, he did so as an employee of the government. He was quite competent and ended up working for the UNESCO before retiring into academia. If it wasn't for the research that was and still is done by the USDA, most of the Petrochemical and Biochemical companies in the United States wouldn't be world leaders today. Government isn't inefficient, people are inefficient. The reason our government has been inefficient in the past might be because of our political system, and our own choices in who we elect.
While I doubt you will convince me or that I will convince you, I have enjoyed this challenging back and forth. I think this will probably be my last post here, Thank you for being civil.
I knew what Skype was before your explanation. I am, if you note my career, a computer consultant. My intent was to imply that communication companies must be part of free enterprise or they will, as they have tried in socialist Europe, be kept from innovating.
Anecdotal claims of your grandfather notwithstanding, Goverrnment has done little to allow the great progress in agriculture, biochemical and certainly not petrochemical our country has led. Most of the USDA still thinks that petroleum comes from dinosaurs.
I don't defend the Republican Party in its support for Wall Street and have never failed to fault them for it. Since the era of Reagan I have been among the libertarian gadflies in the Republican Party who have decried the country club wing and its love for monopolies. I have tried not to impute attitudes of some "default" progressive stand to you. I would appreciate the same consideration.
If you truly think that our system of government is not the best in the world... and you can drop the implication that it has somehow held back the most productive and inventive society in history, your bias really is so extreme that further discussion will have little value.
Most of the USDA still thinks that petroleum comes from dinosaurs.
The generally-accepted theory of the origin of petroleum is that it comes from ancient zooplankton and algae, not dinosaurs. A very small minority of researchers, such as Thomas Gold, think otherwise. Distorting the mainstream view is ignorant and silly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home