tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post2963447021001169420..comments2024-03-29T02:19:19.866-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Bill Mitchell — A basic income guarantee is a neo-liberal strategy for serfdom without the workmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-49790530064129275292017-04-07T08:10:41.706-04:002017-04-07T08:10:41.706-04:00People like fiat distributions (e.g. Social Securi...People like fiat distributions (e.g. Social Security), that's for sure. But meddling in their lives? Who likes that except the meddlers?<br /><br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-62786841572568988632017-04-06T20:26:00.454-04:002017-04-06T20:26:00.454-04:00"In any event, socialism is not very popular ..."In any event, socialism is not very popular WITH THE PEOPLE"<br /><br />Most everyone likes some aspect of socialism. The right has many police and military fetishists. People on the left and right like quality public infrastructure, publicly funded old age insurance, quality schools, etc. And there seems to be a big demand for socialist health insurance. It seems that most people want aspects of both socialism and capitalism. Whether or not they realize this is another story, due to varying degrees of cognitive dissonance. Sixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10756430577510633914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-17152330720675030982017-04-06T15:28:11.179-04:002017-04-06T15:28:11.179-04:00What is spontaneous or natural about government pr...What is spontaneous or natural about government privileges for private credit creation? For usury?<br /><br />Yet those privileges have existed since the founding of the US, at least in implicit form, since the population should not have to work through private banks or be limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, a.k.a. "cash."Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-138823800260387762017-04-06T13:16:35.861-04:002017-04-06T13:16:35.861-04:00socialism is not very popular WITH THE PEOPLE
Soc...<i>socialism is not very popular WITH THE PEOPLE</i><br /><br />Social democracy and democratic socialism have been rather popular with the people where in force, but not so much with TPTB. Neoliberalism, which aims at a market state, is a reaction to social democracy and democratic socialism, which both aim at a form of welfare state.<br /><br />The assumption of economic liberals is that a market state produces optimal socio-economic results based on agent optimization, reward based on marginal productivity, and optimal growth,employment, and price stability, all based on spontaneous natural order.<br /><br />The assumption of social democracy and democratic socialism is that the assumption of economic liberalism is false and that public policy should be determined democratically rather than being left to market outcomes.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-90042796647383062672017-04-06T12:42:32.657-04:002017-04-06T12:42:32.657-04:00In any event, socialism is not very popular WITH T...In any event, socialism is not very popular WITH THE PEOPLE, never mind the TPTB. Otherwise, we would not tolerate so much of our present system of welfare for the rich.<br /><br />So, if we wish to win against welfare for the rich, we should present a more palatable alternative than socialism since it's been tried and rejected BY THE PEOPLE. <br /><br />So how about we aim at eliminating what is clearly unjust about the present system rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water?<br /> <br /><br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-12802924529993777292017-04-06T12:25:05.687-04:002017-04-06T12:25:05.687-04:00Here's a problem - the belief that the only al...<i>Here's a problem - the belief that the only alternative to fascism is socialism</i><br /><br />Category error. Fascism is a political system while socialism is an economic system.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-39926309991632293602017-04-06T11:55:29.056-04:002017-04-06T11:55:29.056-04:00A reason that TPTB want to minimize employment by ...<i>A reason that TPTB want to minimize employment by the state is because they realize that this is part of a transition to socialism from capitalism and they want to discourage this.<br /></i> Tom Hickey<br /><br />Here's a problem - the belief that the only alternative to fascism is socialism. But neither is stable in the longer run because they both ignore justice.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-57524902408075874242017-04-06T10:53:02.767-04:002017-04-06T10:53:02.767-04:00In Marxian terms, a JG is a Transitional demand th...<i>In Marxian terms, a JG is a Transitional demand that will "abolish" (a horrible mistranslation of aufheben, that unfortunately Marx himself once used) capitalism.</i><br /><br />It's signifiant that Marx used "aufheben" in this context. "Aufheben" is a key term in Hegel's dialectic method. <br /><br /><i>Aufheben or Aufhebung[1] is a German word with several seemingly contradictory meanings, including "to lift up", "to abolish", "cancel" or "suspend", or "to sublate".[2] The term has also been defined as "abolish", "preserve", and "transcend". In philosophy, aufheben is used by Hegel to explain what happens when a thesis and antithesis interact, and in this sense is translated mainly as "sublate".[1]<br /><br />The German philosopher Walter Kaufmann argues that the word Aufhebung literally translates into English as "pick up" and that it is quite common in ordinary German speech: "it is what you do when something has fallen to the floor. Something may be picked up in order that it will no longer be there; on the other hand, I may also pick it up to keep it."[3] When Hegel uses the term in its double meaning, he usually expressly informs the reader that he does so. Kaufmann also claims that "Hegel may be said to visualize how something is picked up in order that it may no longer be there just the way it was, although, it is not cancelled altogether but lifted up to be kept on a different level." [3]</i><br /><br />The idea is that neither nature nor history move in jumps. One state blends into another and the beginning state influences the succeeding one. <br /><br />The basic logic of the dialectic that assertion of one thing (A) calls forth its complement (not A) to complete the whole, (A and Not A). This is the opposite of categorical logic where assertion of A excludes not A. But in dialectic, when one thing is asserted is opposite is also called into play.<br /><br />History is path dependent. So when one position is posited, its opposite is also called into play. Their interaction results in the formerly stonger becoming weaker and finally being replace by then formerly weaker. <br /><br />But the former is not completely replaced in that its influence is still present.<br /><br />Feudalism gave way to capitalism and in Marx's view capitalism will give way to socialism.<br /><br />But just as there are aspects of feudalism in capitalism after the transition in which capitalism became dominant and land was folded into capital as a factor, there will be aspects of capitalism in socialism.<br /><br />The JG functions historically as a transition mechanism.<br /><br />A reason that TPTB want to minimize employment by the state is because they realize that this is part of a transition to socialism from capitalism and they want to discourage this. <br /><br />Under capitalism employment (labor) is controlled (defined) by private employers (capital). In the transition of to socialism, the concept of "job," "work" and "wage" will remain in the form of capitalism, just as the servility of field workers was transferred to factory workers in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, even though factory workers were no longer serfs bound to land.<br /><br />A JG keeps some aspects of the concept of a job and work under capitalism but expands upon its, e.g., with matching the job to the employee rather than the reverse as is now the case.<br /><br />Aufheben captures this idea. We would probably be more inclined to look at now from the POV of evolutionary development involving adaptation, reflexivity, and emergence.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-75216413480365079362017-04-06T08:59:57.679-04:002017-04-06T08:59:57.679-04:00Living a life of leisure on BIG doesn't sound ...<i>Living a life of leisure on BIG doesn't sound like serfdom to me!</i><br /><br />The voice from the Ivory Tower. Living on a minimum of public assistance is not exactly the lap of luxury. You should try it sometime ... <br /><br />@AA <i>Let's please take on welfare for the rich first</i> +++ Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32654907907742552192017-04-06T04:28:36.558-04:002017-04-06T04:28:36.558-04:00Capital-labour conflict remains a central dynamic ...<i>Capital-labour conflict remains a central dynamic in our societies and only naivety would lead one to conclude it will go away, or rather, be ‘outside’ this dynamic by giving the unemployed a bare minimum BIG.</i> Bill Mitchell<br /><br />Forget a BIG and forget a UBI and we are still left with the moral NECESSITY of a Citizen's Dividend IF we are to have ethical fiat creation beyond justifiable deficit spending by the monetary sovereign.<br /><br />Forget a BIG and forget a UBI and we are still left with the fact that productivity increases have gone almost entirely to capital since 1971 despite being financed with what is, in essence*, the PUBLIC's CREDIT but for private gain.<br /><br />And yes, a Citizen's Dividend is not sufficient but it is certainly necessary in addition to asset reform lest people sell their redistributed assets in order to eat, etc. as was apparently the case in Russia after the fall of Communism there.<br /><br />*due to extensive government privileges for private credit creation.<br /><br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-10152549778011502912017-04-06T04:13:23.090-04:002017-04-06T04:13:23.090-04:00That is, if anyone is really determined to, they c...<i>That is, if anyone is really determined to, they can spend their life living on benefits for no good reason.</i> Ralph Musgrave <br /><br />Why does that offend more than the rich living off, say, positive yielding sovereign (i.e. risk-free) debt? Because the rich look more elegant when idle? And have more ways to disguise their idleness/meddling as, for example, public service?<br /><br />Let's please take on welfare for the rich first, eh? Then we should not need so much welfare for everyone else?<br /><br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-80303478826309847982017-04-06T03:42:35.154-04:002017-04-06T03:42:35.154-04:00Introduce those people to Neil.Introduce those people to Neil.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-42608890467859089432017-04-06T03:16:38.826-04:002017-04-06T03:16:38.826-04:00"Neo-liberal strategy for serfdom"???? ..."Neo-liberal strategy for serfdom"???? Living a life of leisure on BIG doesn't sound like serfdom to me!<br /><br />Moreover, we have in effect had BIG in the UK for decades. That is, if anyone is really determined to, they can spend their life living on benefits for no good reason. I know people doing it.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-52493626550862449382017-04-06T01:36:26.243-04:002017-04-06T01:36:26.243-04:00A lot of things we have now were once called utopi...A lot of things we have now were once called utopian. Economic literacy shows UBIs are dystopian, rather. <br /><br />But the wrongest thing is calling a JG "trying to save capitalism from itself," of the article of faith that the capitalists are omnipotent, when they certainly know and occasionally say how omnimpotent they are. <br /><br />In Marxian terms, a JG is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_demand" rel="nofollow">Transitional demand</a> that will "abolish" (a horrible mistranslation of aufheben, that unfortunately Marx himself once used) capitalism.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-66836348212825986572017-04-05T21:21:16.831-04:002017-04-05T21:21:16.831-04:00The JG is very susceptible to neo-liberal manipula...<i>The <b>JG</b> is very susceptible to neo-liberal manipulation.... Capital-labour conflict remains a central dynamic in our societies and only naivety would lead one to conclude it will go away.</i><br /><br />There, I fixed it!<br /><br />Look, both the JG and the various BIG/UBI proposals are utopian. Any real life JG will be workfare with strings attached and any real life BIG will be a meager subsistence with strings attached. Both fall into the category of trying to save capitalism from itself. In the long run the capitalists will always win in a capitalist society because they have more power and influence.Dan Lynchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11189866002273597534noreply@blogger.com