An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Graeber claims people should decide for themselves what their contribution to the World should be – writing poetry being one of his examples. Well thanks, but I’ve no time for poetry. I’d rather the relevant people served me in a supermarket.
And what about the people who think their contribution is to consist of lying in bed all day allegedly thinking great philosophical thoughts, or drinking beer and thinking even greater philosophical thoughts?
Graeber claims people should decide for themselves what their contribution to the World should be..
This shows what an infantile fool Graeber is, and how utterly ignorant he is about the most basic economic facts of life. He must have been breastfed until he was 15.
Not only does he thinks everyone should have the freedom to decide entirely what to do with their lives; he also that everyone else has an obligation to supply an income out of the fruits of their toilsome labor to his delicate dilettantes.
Obviously people can attempt to do whatever they want to do. But they cannot expect others to supply them with rewards unless they are doing something those others want to be done.
"Anarchism" is libertarianism on steroids - even more unrealistic and ignorant than it's right wing cousin.
Ralph and Dan, your claims that a BIG would result in everyone laying around writing poetry are refuted by the actual results of Canada's MinCome, or the Rumsfeld/Cheney BIG experiments, or by Brazil's current BIG program.
In practice, a subsistence-level BIG has resulted in very little change to work force participation. Given a choice, most people choose to work. The people who do opt for the BIG are mostly parents with children to take care of -- and taking care of a kids *IS* work.
Dan Kervick, why do others need to supply an income out of the fruits of their labor if robots are doing most of the work? There is no shortage of labor in this country. Instead we have a surplus of labor and a shortage of leisure.
Thanks Dan Lynch. Mr Musgrave probably never had time for the Rolling Stones or Beatles, either, (whose formative years were spent on paid British dole.) No, he'd rather waste time opining about supermarket clerks who are probably going to become an extinct species anyway.
On the contrary: I enjoy the Rolling Stones, Beatles and numerous other musicians. I just doubt it’s necessary to have thousands of people doing nothing of any use in order to produce a Beatle. If someone thinks they’re seriously talented at music or anything else, that will be their spare time hobby. And if they’re really good, that will become apparent, at which point they can go professional.
7 comments:
Graeber claims people should decide for themselves what their contribution to the World should be – writing poetry being one of his examples. Well thanks, but I’ve no time for poetry. I’d rather the relevant people served me in a supermarket.
And what about the people who think their contribution is to consist of lying in bed all day allegedly thinking great philosophical thoughts, or drinking beer and thinking even greater philosophical thoughts?
Yeah I'm miffed that Graeber makes more money than I do.
Graeber claims people should decide for themselves what their contribution to the World should be..
This shows what an infantile fool Graeber is, and how utterly ignorant he is about the most basic economic facts of life. He must have been breastfed until he was 15.
Not only does he thinks everyone should have the freedom to decide entirely what to do with their lives; he also that everyone else has an obligation to supply an income out of the fruits of their toilsome labor to his delicate dilettantes.
Obviously people can attempt to do whatever they want to do. But they cannot expect others to supply them with rewards unless they are doing something those others want to be done.
"Anarchism" is libertarianism on steroids - even more unrealistic and ignorant than it's right wing cousin.
Ralph and Dan, your claims that a BIG would result in everyone laying around writing poetry are refuted by the actual results of Canada's MinCome, or the Rumsfeld/Cheney BIG experiments, or by Brazil's current BIG program.
In practice, a subsistence-level BIG has resulted in very little change to work force participation. Given a choice, most people choose to work. The people who do opt for the BIG are mostly parents with children to take care of -- and taking care of a kids *IS* work.
Dan Kervick, why do others need to supply an income out of the fruits of their labor if robots are doing most of the work? There is no shortage of labor in this country. Instead we have a surplus of labor and a shortage of leisure.
Thanks Dan Lynch. Mr Musgrave probably never had time for the Rolling Stones or Beatles, either, (whose formative years were spent on paid British dole.) No, he'd rather waste time opining about supermarket clerks who are probably going to become an extinct species anyway.
Steve D,
On the contrary: I enjoy the Rolling Stones, Beatles and numerous other musicians. I just doubt it’s necessary to have thousands of people doing nothing of any use in order to produce a Beatle. If someone thinks they’re seriously talented at music or anything else, that will be their spare time hobby. And if they’re really good, that will become apparent, at which point they can go professional.
No, he'd rather waste time opining about supermarket clerks who are probably going to become an extinct species anyway.
Surely you jest. Supermarket shelves don't stock themselves.
Replacing check-out clerks with scanning machines is a lovely example of getting your customers to do the work of your employees - for free.
Post a Comment