If by applause you mean agreement, then yes, that is what I'm waiting for. But all I've met with is disagreement - some of it, quite vitriolic. In part, I believe that's because I don't subscribe to the 'limits to growth' approach to sustainability - promoted by the left as an anti-capitalist trojan horse.

In my view, a left wing, stop this, carbon tax that, pay more and have less approach to sustainability - isn't necessary, and wouldn't work anyway. If they had an honest desire to secure a sustainable future - they should be delighted all these cuts, taxes and prohibitions aren't necessary. But they don't want to know. The left love telling people what they can and can't think, say and do. They get off on it.

I can show windmills cannot produce enough energy to meet our needs. Don't want to know. Battery powered cars are an environmental and economic disaster. Don't want to know. Fusion is a non starter. Don't want to know. That's what I mean by an apparent determination to misunderstand and stumble into extinction.

I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it.

If by applause you mean agreement, then yes, that is what I'm waiting for. But all I've met with is disagreement - some of it, quite vitriolic. In part, I believe that's because I don't subscribe to the 'limits to growth' approach to sustainability - promoted by the left as an anti-capitalist trojan horse.

In my view, a left wing, stop this, carbon tax that, pay more and have less approach to sustainability - isn't necessary, and wouldn't work anyway. If they had an honest desire to secure a sustainable future - they should be delighted all these cuts, taxes and prohibitions aren't necessary. But they don't want to know. The left love telling people what they can and can't think, say and do. They get off on it.

I can show windmills cannot produce enough energy to meet our needs. Don't want to know. Battery powered cars are an environmental and economic disaster. Don't want to know. Fusion is a non starter. Don't want to know. That's what I mean by an apparent determination to misunderstand and stumble into extinction.

I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it. — counterpunch

Leftists are trying to stop me from having sex with my own brain, but I won't let them.

I'm sure the "Icelandic" will be sending you a cheque for you excellent suggestion that they use pipes.

But when people are so attached to their opinions, having those opinions challenged becomes a loss of identity. — Garth

I think about the issue in a similar way. Identity is sacrificed in the pursuit of truth. But what motivates the pursuit of the truth? One identifies with rationality. So really we have an internal collision of sub-identities. A network of belief and desires is constantly modified. Identity is unstable, especially when people are young and running through a gallery of alternatives, as they discover this or that fault with their current persona, which is only a mask in retrospect, at the moment of transcendence/detachment.

A side point: to be rational is to be virtuously depersonalized. A reality in common is acknowledged, along with the limitations of any individual perspective on this reality.

Leftists are trying to stop me from having sex with my own brain, but I won't let them. — Maw

Is that the entirety of your remark, or should I be waiting for something....more substantial to follow?

I'm sure the "Icelandic" will be sending you a cheque for you excellent suggestion that they use pipes. — Banno

ditto.

It's a movement that considers every economic theory had something useful to say and that economist should be aware of all of them.

See for instance this guy :

If that private ownership were truly considered complete and sacrosanct, then the taxes that fund the social programs of a welfare state would rightly be considered theft. — Pfhorrest

I don't think that industry being owned privately means this "complete and sacrosanct" libertarianism you talk of. The kind of Ayn Randian libertarianism in the US isn't any kind of natural consequence or end result of capitalism, it is just one result that has happened in one specific country, which has a multitude of reasons why it has gone the way it has. The idea that if you have capitalism, then you social programs and welfare state is considered theft is just quite bizarre.

In short, who owns the industry and trade doesn't define everything in a society nor does it define how the society holds itself together. There are many other issues here as every society has developed from a past version of itself that existed prior modern capitalism.

If the laws of the land hold it justified and right for the state to confiscate some of the wealth of those private owners for the benefit of all of society, that is in effect saying that the people as a whole, represented by their democratic state, have some rights in that wealth, i.e. a stake in it, a bit of ownership of it. — Pfhorrest

Well, actually no.

It's simply called taxation.

And people are and have been perfectly OK with taxation for millennia to fund the state. And that state can be a monarchy, an Empire, a theocracy or whatever. People have understood that if you are going to have something like armed forces to defend the society, that obviously costs something. That libertarian individualism you refer to is a quite recent idea in the history of nations and them taxing their people.

Thank you for correcting my shoddy memory: heteredox economics!

I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it. — counterpunch

You think truth and politics can be easily separated, but that is a naïve notion. I believe in rational discourse too, but the questions we ask produce the answers we get and the questions we ask are a result of politics, not truth. You simply buy into a different set of assumptions than most people who are considered to be on the left would. You believe in free markets, but just think about the enormous apparatus of rules required to keep a market free. In free market societies we have constructed a whole battery of rules and regulations, top down, to protect our 'free market'. Now leftists would say if we have that battery of rules anyway and if free market requires an infrastructure, why not tax people for its use? We can use it to steer society in the direction we find desirable.

Now liberatrians would say that no such steering is warranted, but they forget that a free market is itself a steering mechanism. It promotes certain values and penalizes others. One is not inherently more free than the other, it simply depends on your assumptions. This clash of people with a different outlook on life, the values worthy of protection and the virtues that are to be cultivated is what is called the political. The left is no ore 'getting off' on telling people what to think as the right 'gets off' on exploitation of others.

I think about the issue in a similar way. Identity is sacrificed in the pursuit of truth. — five G

You're twisting my words to say the opposite of what I wrote.

to be rational is to be virtuously depersonalized — five G

This is evocative of a "magic formula" which is nothing but a vain belief that it is possible to search after the truth in a way that protects you from ever being wrong.But if you feel you've come upon the proper attitude, it only leads you to overconfidence. You come to believe you understand everything because, in truth, you are refusing to make assertions or formulate ideas out of a fear which you won't acknowledge.

The opposite is true. One must acknowledge ones own personal interest. To be rational is to believe in what you are arguing for and to be emotionally invested in the world. Only then does it become possible to have your opinions challenged and learn something. But in order to actualize this possibility, it is further necessary to distinguish between your own argument and what you believe is true based upon that argument. It is necessary to distinguish between the goal of the social movement and the social movement itself. And so on.

Marx wrote about the limitations of treating supply and demand as an economic law as it was the predominant bourgeois economic theory in his own time (e.g. Say, Bastiat) — Maw

Say and Say's law isn't part of the economic theory of supply and demand on which modern mainstream economics is based on. I'm not familiar with what Bastiat has said on this.

Value for Marx in his Labor Theory of Value is determined by socially necessary labor time in a given society — Maw

Which doesn't take into the account of demand in the equation. That simple.

But let's think about the brief example within Menger's quote using Marx's actual analysis and see why the former's criticisms is so absurd. Menger asks why the consumer should care about the productive origins of a commodity in regards to price (which Marx would call commodity fetishism). Fair enough, but what about the capitalist? In order to have a product in market she has to have a labor force comprised of wage laborers who require monetary compensation (and also require reproduction, i.e. they need to minimally feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and begin the working day again). She will additionally need the raw material along with the machine(s) or other technology that the laborers will use in producing her commodities. Likewise, the raw material requires wage laborers to extract and distribute to producers, as do the machines which need laborers to be build. — Maw

And here what you have described the market mechanism of both supply and demand tell far better what is going to happen.

Because if those costs the capitalist faces, the proletariat she has to keep alive at the bare minimum to gather those raw materials and to produce the good, is only one part of the equation. How many are willing to buy that good and for what price is needed and is absolutely crucial. If the costs are so high that only an eccentric millionaire can buy the good and is indeed willing to buy the good at the price that covers the capitalists costs and gives her a reasonable profit, then not much good will be produced. If that doesn't cover it, then the good won't be manufactured in the first place. No production, no proletariat working for the capitalist, no capitalist, actually. Only people doing some other stuff. If at a lower price more people are willing to buy the good, the capitalist might prosper more.

This just shows how more in line with reality is the supply and demand model to the Marxian model. The idea that the work put into the production is a one sided model which doesn't take into account how the market mechanism and pricing works.

I don't think that industry being owned privately means this "complete and sacrosanct" libertarianism you talk of. — ssu

It can be partially private without that kind of completeness, sure. I'm not saying that the only options are Randian capitalism or uniformly distributed social ownership. I'm saying that the less total the privacy of ownership is, the greater the public ownership in proportion: that granting the legitimacy of a public interest in something, like the right to tax it, is granting a limit to its private ownership.

Ownership of something is just is having rights in it, and vice versa. If the public has rights to the profits of industry, e.g. if taxation is legitimate, then that is in effect (even if not in name) at least partial public ownership.

I'm not saying anything at all here about whether that's good or bad, just that it is what it is. If someone doesn't have completely exclusive rights over something, it isn't completely private property of theirs. They can have partially exclusive rights and so it can be partially private, sure, but the exclusivity of their rights and the privacy of their property are the same thing.

The kind of Ayn Randian libertarianism in the US isn't any kind of natural consequence or end result of capitalism, it is just one result that has happened in one specific country — ssu

It's not a consequence of capitalism, it's a cause of it. Capitalism is the concentration of ownership of capital in relatively few hands. Randianism supports and leads to that; not vice versa. So yes, you can have some capitalism without that. But to the extent that there are limits on the privacy of property, that is also a limit on the possibility of capitalism. (But not vice versa; it is possible to have socialism with completely private property, so long as it remains distributed in many hands).

It's simply called taxation.

And people are and have been perfectly OK with taxation for millennia to fund the state. And that state can be a monarchy, an Empire, a theocracy or whatever. People have understood that if you are going to have something like armed forces to defend the society, that obviously costs something. That libertarian individualism you refer to is a quite recent idea in the history of nations and them taxing their people. — ssu

The notion that taxation is legitimate is the same notion as the state having a stake in the property being taxed. That is an old idea, yes: in feudal systems all capital (that being only land at the time) was technically owned by the state and only leased to other holders, and that lease was what legitimated the taxation of it: it's the Crown's land, and you can pay the tax on it or get the fuck off. That system technically persists to this day: "ownership" of a plot of land even in the United States is usually "fee simple" tenancy on the state's land, with only the extremely rare "allodial title" being actually completely and legally landlord-free ownership.

Nowadays in a post-agricultural economy there is capital other than land, which is not subject to exactly those same old feudal laws. But if it is legitimate for the state to tax the proceeds from that capital, then the state in a practical sense owns an interest in it, regardless of the words used in statutes to describe that relation.

It's a movement that considers every economic theory had something useful to say and that economist should be aware of all of them. — Benkei

With that I can agree with. Any economic theory that gets support usually have a point and a kernel of truth in them. And what is obvious is that real economic policy and real economic structures don't follow the pure ideological theories, but are a mixture of many.

And Marx talking about the obvious problems in the 19th Century societies does have a point. I'm not saying that Marx as a philosopher would be unimportant. What I was saying that his economic theories haven't been so successful as neoclassical economics and there is a reason for this, even if Marxian economics is taught in various universities around the World. When I was in the university, Marx was taught to us in several courses while for example Austrian school economics was only covered in a voluntary study group by a small group of students, which I unfortunately turned down when asked to join. That tells a lot, actually.

I remember a professor in the university telling that Marx also made the prediction that the proletariat might not focus it's efforts on creating a communist revolution, but simply to demand more pay. Looking at the labor movement in the West, that is the way it went. What is notable is that capitalist societies in the West did make an effort to improve the situation. If someone like Bismarck introduces the first social-welfare legislation to counter the socialists demand, who actually is then behind the improvements, Marx or Bismarck?

Capitalism is the concentration of ownership of capital in relatively few hands. — Pfhorrest

Capitalism is the ownership of industry is held in private hands. Private ownership doesn't lead to that. For example, land ownership hasn't concentrated into relatively few hands, there are lot of small landowners in every country. Competition leads to larger producers being more efficient than smaller ones and the most likely situation is an oligopoly situation where there are a few large companies which dominate a large part of the market, but a huge portion is made up of a vast amount of small companies with niche segments of the market. Perhaps here one should make a difference between capitalism and market economy.

Ownership of something is just is having rights in it, and vice versa. If the public has rights to the profits of industry, e.g. if taxation is legitimate, then that is in effect (even if ot in name) at least partial public ownership. — Pfhorrest

And how do you explain absolute monarchies then? Hobbes? How much different is the state actually if it's a monarchy or a republic? The postman is the same postman even if the monarchy is overthrown and is replaced with a republic.

Nowadays in a post-agricultural economy there is capital other than land, which is not subject to exactly those same old feudal laws. But if it is legitimate for the state to tax the proceeds from that capital, then the state in a practical sense owns an interest in it, regardless of the words used in statutes to describe that relation. — Pfhorrest

For the state it's not only an issue of checks and balances, it's also interested in it's own power.

If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state. Bismarck wasn't a leftist, but he went on with social-welfare legislation. — ssu

Bismarck is not perhaps the best example you could pick here, since the reason he added the "drop of socialist oil" to the mix was to avoid a socialist revolution.

But yes, capitalism has been successful. Quite remarkably so, in fact. But that doesn't mean there isn't always the inherent danger of unrestrained capital accumulation leading to unrestrained power. I think the struggle between welfare, unions and regulation on the one side and the profit motif on the other is hard to overlook.

You are absolutely correct, but corruption is part and parcel of all human activity. I do realize that the temptations are perhaps greater when wealth (power) is involved, but it's everywhere (all the time). — synthesis

Then you do realize the problem. I don't claim that any change would lead to a perfect system.

The fact that capitalism does appear to result in increasing concentrations of wealth can be attenuated by keeping the system as "honest" as possible, i.e., maintaining competition, keeping the politicians somewhat under control, using real money, etc. At present, it's a complete mess. — synthesis

You seem to be under the impression that the politicians need to be kept "under control", but they aren't the ones who have all the capital, are they? What about keeping the capitalists under control?

And I am not convinced that all but the few have such a maniacal propensity to go towards avarice. Just the same, keeping those things that can be regulated (within the context of freedom), regulated, you will get the best result possible. — synthesis

What I am talking about is not really avarice. That would imply that the problem is specific people of bad character. But accumulation of capital is part of capitalism, regardless of individual greed. It's the force driving the expansion of the economy. Capitalism takes the very natural inclination of humans to accumulate resources and turns into a tool to drive the economy.

This has worked very well for some time, but the problems keep mounting. Regulation helps, of course, but unless you are regulating with the goal of actually fixing the problem, instead of just addressing the symptoms, you'll always risk to be too late.

Capitalism (like all human systems) has it's issues, but it's so incredibly efficient and has lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty. It also a system that rewards merit, hard work, and most importantly panders to the market, where it is the masses [mostly] that decide what is going to be a successful product/service.

Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster. — synthesis

There are, however, other approaches that are also meritocratic and market based and not top-down economies. There are already businesses right now that are not capitalist and yet compete in the same market as everyone else.

The dark shadow hanging over Marxism is his stages of history analysis which is complete bunk. Ironically the "communist future" is probably the most wrong theory Marx ever wrote yet it is the only thing 99% of people know about Marx.

It's hard to take seriously claims that capitalism 'is incredibly efficient' as anything more than mythmaking on the order of Aztec Gods and magical witch-doctors: one only needs to look at the black hole growth of finance in the 21st century, sucking up capital into the hands of a tiny cabal of state-supported lottery winners to explode that myth in all its thin, hot air. As for the idea that capitalism has 'lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty' - no, people have been lifted out of poverty in spite of capitalism, not because of it:

As for the idea that capitalism has 'lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty' - no, people have been lifted out of poverty in spite of capitalism, not because of it: — StreetlightX

On what basis do you say that?

Feel free to watch the linked video.

The video addresses the last four decades of globalism. Of course the success of globalism is a lie. But the idea that capitalism brought people out of poverty is true historically. Interestingly the video states that no advanced country has achieved low poverty rates without high levels of government spending. Government spending is the result of taxation. No Capitalism, no taxes, no public spending.

But the idea that capitalism brought people out of poverty is true historically. — Brett

So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be. Agreed. There are also circumstances where pushing someone into a road might save their life. But don't push people into roads generally.

Interestingly the video states that no advanced country has achieved low poverty rates without high levels of government spending. Government spending is the result of taxation. — Brett

Wait - you think taxation is capitalist?

And conversely, you think "globalism" isn't capitalist?

Wait - you think taxation is capitalist? — StreetlightX

Yes, it's just the free market of ideas that taxing the rich to pay for social programs in Nordic countries that have free health-care and free higher education proves capitalism works. If they have a high quality of life in Nordic countries it's capitalism succeeding, because capitalism is about success, and all success must be due in some vague way to capitalism. That's pretty obvious I think.

As per the OP, US style conservatism committed to anti-intellectualism starting with Reagan and the "southern strategy".

It's so far down the anti-intellectual path that conservative pundits need to say things like "it isn't true, literally, but it feels true and it's an important truth that's being felt here that speaks to conservatives".

Due to false balance in the media, there's built up the expectation that "there must be just as good arguments for my side as the other side on this issue", but this isn't true, and the expectation that an anti-intellectual movement would create good arguments is just stupid.

Now, does this mean contemporary US conservatives are stupid?

Yes.

What we have witnessed with Bush the Second and a more extreme repeat with Trump is the terminal phase of an anti-intellectual movement in which the leaders of the movement are no longer real intellectuals simply manipulating a bunch of fools to increase their power and wealth, but fully buy the propaganda and can simply no longer manage in a strategically competent way, as they truly do not understand how reality works. That fools follow them despite making zero sense is seen as strength and legitimization of positions that are known to make no sense. One that can repeat a lie and make decisions without justification without consequences is by definition more powerful than one who can't, indeed it's the only proof of real power and the sweetest cocaine of the power hungry. However, reality cannot be managed from a position of effectively arbitrary decisions for any extended period of time.

Wait - you think taxation is capitalist?

And conversely, you think "globalism" isn't capitalist? — StreetlightX

No I’m not saying any of those things.

So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be. — Kenosha Kid

No I’m not saying that either.

Bismarck is not perhaps the best example you could pick here, since the reason he added the "drop of socialist oil" to the mix was to avoid a socialist revolution. — Echarmion

Actually that was the reason and which shows that politicians that supported a monarchy can still see the needs of the people and react to social issues before they turn into open revolution.

But that doesn't mean there isn't always the inherent danger of unrestrained capital accumulation leading to unrestrained power. I think the struggle between welfare, unions and regulation on the one side and the profit motif on the other is hard to overlook. — Echarmion

Yet doesn't unrestrained socialism lead to unrestrained power? Look at history.

And I simply don't buy it.

Where I live, which has the so-called "Nordic model", has an capitalist free market system, yet might look like to people in the US as socialism. Still, the country is capitalist. Here the welfare model is promoted by the right also, no political party has here as it's intension to demolish the welfare state. So I don't really by the argument that the right or conservatives are against welfare state and that the only ones arguing for it is the left or capitalism inherently leads to unrestrained power. It simply isn't true.

And trade unions? Trade unions don't have to believe in a socialist ideology. They are there just to promote the interests of the employees towards the employer. It's quite reasonable. What isn't reasonable is not to have trade unions and then think that all employers would behave decently. Perhaps if you are part of the workforce that is highly sought after, you can get a great deal, but if there many people to replace you, look out!

To give an example why trade unions are non-political: the vast majority (likely 99%) of officers in the Finnish army belong to their own trade union, which is part of the academic trade union. And none, literally none of them is a leftist. During the 20's and the 30's the Communists tried to infiltrate the Finnish Army (on the belief that they could do it just like they had infiltrated the Russian Imperial Army). They had no success, not even one person, which is pretty dismal. Again these issues aren't things just pushed by the left.

. Of course the success of globalism is a lie. — Brett

Apart from seriously diminishing global povetry, but who cares about little things like that.

No I’m not saying that either. — Brett

How about saying something you actually believe with some precision, rather than saying something not generally true then denying when it does or does not hold true?

Exactly the trash the video I posted debunks.