laws guaranteeing a decent wage and working conditions. — Isaac

I think there's actually research showing that states with higher minimum wages do not have higher unemployment, but there may be confounding factors, so that may not simply refute the inevitable conservative argument that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. But what's the conservative answer to this: what kind of business model did you have, if you have to pay people so little even to keep the business afloat? Maybe that's a business that doesn't really work.

The pain — which will be real in particular sectors, no question — is corrective, and we should both raise the minimum wage and provide support for employers and employees to get through the transition to a better way of doing things. To say, it will hurt to change, is not an argument that where you're at is good.

It's possible, is it not, that the reason capitalist countries are rich is nothing more than that they stole resources from other counties and didn't pay their ecological 'bills'? — Isaac

Yes, that's what I was saying; I mean to leave open that explanation, at least because I don't know any better. Acemoglu and Robinson use their own scheme for classifying societies as having inclusive or extractive institutions. It's obvious that capitalist arrangements can land on either side.

Here, I'll give an example I think is okay: during the great boom in the American economy, large American corporations had endless layers of middle management. One result was that there were always promotions to be had, so there was considerable upward mobility, people bought houses in the suburbs, all that. Then management consultants convinced big corporations this was all terribly inefficient, that they could cut the number of layers between the C-suite and the workers on the line from 17 down to 4 or 5, and incidentally they could just pocket the savings. (IBM, for instance, reduced their workforce for the first time ever in like 1981 or something. Until then, so long as you did your job, a job at IBM was a job for life.) I submit there's a transition there from a business arrangement that is in some sense inclusive to one that is extractive, but not a shift from socialist to capitalist. It used to be normal for the fortunes of employees to rise with the fortunes of their employer, but then this way of doing business came to be seen as leaving money on the table. No one noticed that building in this sort of indirect profit sharing was precisely what built the American middle class and ensured the growth and prosperity of these great corporations.

what kind of business model did you have, if you have to pay people so little even to keep the business afloat? Maybe that's a business that doesn't really work. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, I think too little attention is paid to this and I suppose what I'm trying to say about corporate structures is that I think they might be partially responsible. The problem is the offloading of true costs (and risks). By true costs I mean things like social impacts of policies (say the impact of a non-living wage), or environmental impacts ('hey, that's our air you're using to store your waste!'). By true risks I mean the social consequences of taking big risks which too often the government pick up the pieces of. If people are relying on your business for their income, then risking new venture into some experimental product line isn't just risking your investment (as the model would have it) but it's risking their jobs too. One way of handling that it to pay for the full risk (and get the full benefit) but abetter way, I think, is to share both. If everyone's on board with the risk, then go for it, and everyone who took the risk gets some of the benefit if it works. The wider this network can be (business, community, country...) the more acceptable the risks are, since everyone took part in agreeing to them.

we should both raise the minimum wage and provide support for employers and employees to get through the transition to a better way of doing things. To say, it will hurt to change, is not an argument that where you're at is good. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, absolutely, and I think the argument you gave is the one to use to justify this. If you're not paying your worker enough to keep themselves alive, available, and healthy enough to do the job you require of them, then you're not paying the true cost, you're being subsidised by the government (or the employee's family, friends, etc) and the savings you make from that subsidy are going straight into your pocket. There's a rather cliched expression us tankies* are wont to use about capitalism being a system for extracting value from the masses and concentrating in the hands of the few.

* I'm apparently officially one now.

I submit there's a transition there from a business arrangement that is in some sense inclusive to one that is extractive, but not a shift from socialist to capitalist. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not yet sure how it works on a global scale. Are the old IBM inclusive nationally but extractive internationally? Did their subsidising of middle management jobs come out of profits, or out of exploitation elsewhere (cheaper costs of living from cheap goods, low environmental restrictions, 'slave' labour in the third world, etc). I don't know, I'm inclined to think it was, but only because I'm wired that way from decades in the Trotskyist pit that was the pre-millennial British university social sciences departments.

us tankies* — Isaac

Hmmmm.

Are the old IBM inclusive nationally but extractive internationally? Did their subsidising of middle management jobs come out of profits, or out of exploitation elsewhere — Isaac

We're neither of us economists or historians, so I'll not be answering that, but I'm going to ask you to question what someone else might be able to explain to us. That true-believer asshole who took both econ 101 and econ 102, so now he knows everything there is to know (for example, Ben Shapiro) is going to say this, and he's right: the amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.

IBM was not a middleman between consumers and third-world rare metals miners, buying predatorially cheap and selling predatorially high. Much of the value of an IBM product or service was generated by IBM employees at IBM. Some large portion of the wealth that they captured in the course of doing business was wealth that they created out of thin air.

It is a further step, and a good one, to ask under what conditions IBM could do such a thing, freedom from want, political stability, research universities, on and on. And then you may ask how those things were possible, and so on, and we all know that colonialism is out there in the explanation somewhere, at some level.

But what's not going on is IBM taking, for itself, some fixed amount of wealth from some third-world society. Colonialism is an important part of the story, but it's not a simple matter of theft (as you put it earlier). What about exploitation? Yes, of course, but we have to start with an analysis that doesn't treat exploitation as simple theft.

what's not going on is IBM taking, for itself, some fixed amount of wealth from some third-world society. Colonialism is an important part of the story, but it's not a simple matter of theft (as you put it earlier). What about exploitation? Yes, of course, but we have to start with an analysis that doesn't treat exploitation as simple theft. — Srap Tasmaner

OK, so I suppose we'd have to be clear what we mean by theft. Can one steal opportunity (future resources)? Can one steal labour? I think these are the kinds of notions by which the whole 'theft' narrative is held up.

As to whether there's a fixed pot of wealth... well. What was it you said earlier about turning fossil fuels into civilisation? I'm not so convinced there isn't such a fixed pot. The earth can only sustain a fixed rate of resource extraction (efficiency improvements, yes, but not infinite ones). Since 'wealth' is really only the ability to purchase 'stuff', then the limited rate at which the earth can sustain having the resources to make that stuff extracted presents a fixed limit on that wealth (as measured by purchasing power) does it not?

Since we're talking about rates here, we don't have to be about to run out to consider us having breached that limit. It's the sustainable rate that matters, otherwise we're stealing from future generations.

Likewise with labour. We're biological machines. The reason that a ten hour work day is cruel is because it breaches a limit our biology places on us. Plus we have other calls on our attention - family, recreation, idle drifting off... Another set of limits. Another rate of use that can be breached.

So since wealth (in terms of purchasing power) comes from a combination of resources and labour, both of which have limits on their rate of use, I'd say wealth must be limited.

I think that the impression it isn't comes from the fact that as technology develops we've grown (the rising tide, boats and all that). But this confuses maxima with rates. The fact that the maxima might change over time doesn't mean that the rate at which it changes isn't itself a limit.

So I guess I'd say to Ben that he's wrong. The limit on wealth is the current maximum resources that can sustainably be extracted from the earth using our current technology and the maximum labour effort that can sustainably be expected from the current population. If you've got more than your fair share of that, there's a strong chance you nicked it.

While interesting, that's all about the max. Not what I was talking about, and really it's probably clearer too use a word like "value" instead of wealth. And it's important not to think just in terms of stuff, but to keep in mind services and intellectual property. My point was that IBM created a lot of value, meaning stuff, services, and intellectual property, that did not exist before, and their customers handed over wealth to get it. I'm not sure there's an argument about whether the earth could sustain high-level programming languages, which Jim Backus and his team invented at IBM, but if there is, it is a very long way around. In there meantime, there is an increase in the *amount* of value in the world, whatever the max. That's why the concept of theft is of somewhat limited use here.

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, Pierro Sraffa (Wittgenstein's friend at Cambridge) builds an economic theory from the ground up along vaguely the lines you describe. Interesting little book I read many decades ago, and the focus was on stability, or so my memory tells me.

My point was that IBM created a lot of value, meaning stuff, services, and intellectual property, that did not exist before, and their customers handed over wealth to get it. — Srap Tasmaner

OK, so ideas don't have a maxima, not even in rates. That makes sense (I might quibble about limits to the bandwidth of the working memory, or remind you that the brain is a calorie consuming organ and doesn't work for free...but I won't).

How is that value translated to wealth without theft? As a value in its own right its all fine and dandy, the world can now programme in a way it never could and IBM ought, quite rightly to be thanked wholeheartedly for that. But if there's a limited pot of wealth, then what material form could that thanks take other than a bigger than before share of that pot. And, let's face it, in America, the share they had before was probably grossly unjust.

So how can we cash out this growth in value that we've plucked from the jaws of entropy? Can we cash it in for anything in terms of wealth without theft, or must the reward be informational too, like the product. Gratitude, satisfaction...

But if there's a limited pot of wealth, then what material form could that thanks take other than a bigger than before share of that pot. — Isaac

But is there a limited pot of wealth? I buy my IBM mainframe on credit backed not even by how much fiat currency is attached to my name within the banking system, but on how much the bank expects me to have available to me over the coming five or ten years. There's a lot of something going on here, but it doesn't look much like one doubloon being passed around and bits getting snipped off it.

Truth is, I assume you're right. If we could cash out all the social systems in play, we would eventually get down to rocks and plants and water and animals, and it's inconceivable that anything else actually sustains us — you can't eat notional value. (Now we've wandered into schop's thread!) So I'm arguing against myself here along with you, but in part because an idea like theft — well that's social right? How far would you want to take the claim that British colonists stole North America from its inhabitants at the time? Did they own it? These were societies too. Some of them famously said no one owns the land, but there were a lot of wars over territory, so a lot obviously believed they could at least defend claims to exclusive use. Were their claims to ownership "natural" somehow? Or stronger than our later claims because earlier? Is that how we divvy up the earth — whoever gets there first?

I believe in the material basis of culture and society; I'm just wary of analyses of that basis in cultural or social terms, as if the basis of society was a certain amount of wealth, wealth that could be stolen.

But is there a limited pot of wealth? — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe 'wealth' isn't the right term either. There's definitely a limited pot of stuff and labour, and at the end of the day, that's what things like wealth and value are for.

I have thought of a caveat though. Savings. It's possible we could point to savings, call it wealth, but not treat it as a 'slice of the pie' because it's not being converted into pie, its just waiting. I mean, it's going to be converted into pie, and it would be valueless without being converted, but... Maybe savings is different if only in a small way?

an idea like theft — well that's social right? How far would you want to take the claim that British colonists stole North America from its inhabitants at the time? Did they own it? — Srap Tasmaner

Mmm. 'Theft' is for rhetorical purposes, it's just to waive a red rag against the notion that the rich deserve their wealth. I think the British did steal land from natives because I think they held it in common. Ownership is always about power. I own my phone here because I have the power to do what I want with it uncontested and you don't. That means that with something like land there can be multiple types of ownership because there's many things one might of might not have the power to do (incidentally why no ownership makes any sense without enforcement).

It may well have been the case that no other tribe could hunt or camp there, although unlikely (on my limited knowledge) that they couldn't even be there (in peacetime of course). Nor was it the case that the tribe which could hunt and camp there could do so with impunity. So in taking a European-type possession, the British stole something because they took away power.

Were their claims to ownership "natural" somehow? Or stronger than our later claims because earlier? Is that how we divvy up the earth — whoever gets there first? — Srap Tasmaner

I think this is where power is the more useful metric. With warring tribes, they may well have to have put up with first-come-first-served type of claims, having nothing better (might-makes-right, maybe?). But non-warring tribes need not have had any kind of notion because, being egalitarian within themselves, there's just no power to divvy up, each is free to do whatever. There's no much point in saying "we own this" - the label confers nothing more than just "this". "I own this", however, confers that you can't do what you like with it, I can. So there seems to be some necessary denial of some out-group for ownership to mean anything at all.

Maybe the extent to which wealth is the basis of a society is the extent to which that society defines itself by in-groups/out-group distinctions, such that "I own..." has real meaning, whereas for societies where out-groups are rarely even encountered, wealth might be less relevant as there's not much meaning to "we own..." if there's no-one that excludes from those rights.

There's definitely a limited pot of stuff and labour, and at the end of the day, that's what things like wealth and value are for. — Isaac

In the abstract, maybe? But practically there are two issues: first, it's not the total at a given moment that matters, but what's available, what's controllable, and that changes; second, we have credit, and the future is a long time, even at a discount.

Ownership is always about power. — Isaac

There's an old Carl Sandburg poem: guy tells a tramp to get off his land, the tramp asks what makes it his, guy says he got it from his father — where'd he get it? Got it from his father. Where'd he get it? Well, he fought for it. Alright then, I'll fight you for it.

I own my phone here because I have the power to do what I want with it uncontested and you don't. — Isaac

Hmmm. That sounds like right not power, but power is ever so slippery, and we don't want to confuse it with capacity or force. We both have the capacity to doom scroll on your phone, but only you have the right to, and I'm obliged to respect that right. You're saying further that there is some entity (perhaps yourself and some of your friends who work out, perhaps cops and courts, perhaps just the vocal disapproval of surrounding citizens) with the capacity to force me to respect your right, so rights come down to power in that sense, and thus property as well.

That's as may be, but how does it help us?

So in taking a European-type possession, the British stole something because they took away power. — Isaac

I mean, I'm getting the rhetorical effect there, but you've talked yourself into a circle: now power — the guarantor of property — is itself a possession that can be stolen. What would underwrite possession of power, since it can't be power? Is it going to be right after all?

(I hope it doesn't seem like I'm nitpicking here — I think this is the most productive disagreement we've ever had. You take care of the forest, and I'll look after the trees.)

Maybe the extent to which wealth is the basis of a society is the extent to which that society defines itself by in-groups/out-group distinctions, such that "I own..." has real meaning, whereas for societies where out-groups are rarely even encountered, wealth might be less relevant as there's not much meaning to "we own..." if there's no-one that excludes from those rights. — Isaac

I think that tracks. No anthropologist here, but we tend to name isolated societies for the word in their language that just means "people" right? But from my studies in college (wonderful lefty anthropologist who taught us from a book called Europe and the People Without History) and my son sharing what he's learned from Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything, population contact goes back as far as you want to go. The isolated tribe in a state of nature is mostly myth.

So the story of property is the story of power is the story of in-group/out-group. The first use of power is the denial of some land use by an out-group. With such a social technology available, a group within a group could deny the rest of the group use of something, claiming ownership the other members of the group are bound at spear-point to respect.

Now if that's the story, then the Europeans are just another out-group, and rather than being denied use of land and resources, they have the capacity to deny those already here such use. Seems like more of the same, not a break with history. The difference may be qualitative though, if the Europeans have a much more comprehensive conception of use and what exclusive rights they're inclined to enforce.

This starts to look a bit Hobbesian, or Trumpian, or even Hitlerian — it's always the struggle for power, everyone's a crook it's just that Europeans were better at it.

That's not where we want to end up is it?

Would be nice to cast a fond glance back toward where we started, with the nature of employment, the connection between risk and profit, all that. It's not that far at all, if it's all power struggle all the time, but I'm not convinced. I think there are genuine changes between the deep past and the present, and those changes include new forms of political economy that don't just amount to gang warfare. Economics may be the science of decision-making under scarcity, but that scarcity is relative, defined by opportunity, and not necessarily some definite depletable amount, but a pool we can grow and shrink by our actions.

first, it's not the total at a given moment that matters, but what's available, what's controllable, and that changes — Srap Tasmaner

This first I think we can dispense with because even if the total changes, the rate at which is changes if still fixed. If I triple my share of a pot which I have only doubled the size of then I've still taken more than my fair share. If we extract at a rate faster than we increase, then we're exploiting.

second, we have credit, and the future is a long time, even at a discount. — Srap Tasmaner

This I find harder to avoid. Measuring wealth in terms of how much it could buy us in the future when than amount of stuff happens to become our fair share (when the pot has grown big enough) - well, that seems fair and reasonable.

If a billionaire had £10 billion in the banks, but we had sufficient laws against exploitation (either of people or the environment) then he might not be able to actually spend that (there wouldn't be enough stuff or labour in the world at the time for him to purchase), but he could spend it if technological innovation ever got to a point where that amount of stuff could be extracted without exploitation.

Would that rescue capitalism?

We both have the capacity to doom scroll on your phone, but only you have the right to, and I'm obliged to respect that right. You're saying further that there is some entity (perhaps yourself and some of your friends who work out, perhaps cops and courts, perhaps just the vocal disapproval of surrounding citizens) with the capacity to force me to respect your right, so rights come down to power in that sense, and thus property as well. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, that's the sense in which I meant it. MY power to use my phone how I like (and not you) comes from the government, their police force, etc. The community who backs my use not yours. Might-makes-right in a sense, although in this case I've had to persuade them to agree to my use, not yours. If we live in a community of rational actors we can assume I didn't manage to do that by any ferocious display of strength! But we don't. And more likely they were strong-armed into accepting my claim not yours. Of course, now we're all civilised an' that, we've stopped all the shenanigans, but only by cementing the injustices of the past into money and saying "from now on, no more strong-arming".

So yes, power as in ability to make others act some way, is what I was meaning.

how does it help us? — Srap Tasmaner

I suppose the aim was to eliminate the seemingly 'supernatural' elements of ownership and pin them down to something real. I mean nothing real can just get bigger without cost, it defies several laws of physics, surely? So to help with that I want to find a proper 'conversion' for ownership into something physical. It's not just labelling (like putting a name tag on) because, we seem to be able to merely reify categories of ownership out of thin air (like we do when we claim to "own" aboriginal land but they don't even think land is the sort of thing anyone can own). Power seemed like a good candidate.

now power — the guarantor of property — is itself a possession that can be stolen. What would underwrite possession of power, since it can't be power? Is it going to be right after all?

(I hope it doesn't seem like I'm nitpicking here — Srap Tasmaner

Not at all. Yes, it looks circular. Let's say instead that stealing is the removal of power to act over some material object (whether that's a phone or a country), then one cannot steal power, but one can steal a country, and, most importantly for our aboriginal example, you can steal a country by removing a freedom the others used to have, even if those others never would have placed such a restriction on you.

We can (should we want to) have our noble savage not care two hoots about who walks about in the forest he lives in, but along come the British and take away his power to walk here and there (by force of arms), then they have stolen something from him, even though he didn't consider himself to own it in the first place.

No anthropologist here, but we tend to name isolated societies for the word in their language that just means "people" right? But from my studies in college (wonderful lefty anthropologist who taught us from a book called Europe and the People Without History) and my son sharing what he's learned from Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything, population contact goes back as far as you want to go. The isolated tribe in a state of nature is mostly myth. — Srap Tasmaner

I think that's right (limited expertise here too though), but that doesn't tell us much about the status of the 'other' in that tribe's language and culture. From what I understand (various pop-sci anthropology books) it varies depending on terrain - mountainous, hard to traverse terrain like Papua New Guinea tend to lead to very negative views of the out-group, lots of wars etc. Flatter more easy to traverse terrain tends to lead to more positive views, fewer wars.

I ought to disclose my biases - I only donate to a single charity and that charity is Survival International. I'm not an impartial contributor to the discussion about Tribal rights.

With such a social technology available, a group within a group could deny the rest of the group use of something, claiming ownership the other members of the group are bound at spear-point to respect.

Now if that's the story, then the Europeans are just another out-group, and rather than being denied use of land and resources, they have the capacity to deny those already here such use. Seems like more of the same, not a break with history. — Srap Tasmaner

I think that's right, but for the first part you hint at "With such a social technology available" - the point made by people like Peter Gray, or Jared Diamond is that the 'social technology' you need for that kind of action is a combination of sedentary lifestyles and systematic excess of resources (ie in most cases - agriculture). As such It may not be a break from the history of say, the Incas or the African pastoralists, but it may well be a significant break from the history of say the Amazonian tribes or the Australian aborigines.

I think there are genuine changes between the deep past and the present, and those changes include new forms of political economy that don't just amount to gang warfare. Economics may be the science of decision-making under scarcity, but that scarcity is relative, defined by opportunity, and not necessarily some definite depletable amount, but a pool we can grow and shrink by our actions. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree in theory with the notion that opportunity is expandable by our actions. I just think that it's merely a theory. We have not expanded the wealth of the world by expanding opportunity, we've done so by stealing opportunity from future generations via over-exploitation of non-renewable resources. We've not expanded opportunities for services by creating new services we didn't even know we wanted, we've done so by constraining others' freedoms sufficiently to force them to do jobs they wouldn't otherwise do if they were free.

So 'yes', in theory, 'no' in practice. Maybe there's a rosy future out there, and I'm probably ignoring many exceptions to the rule I've just outlined, but if we're talking about justification (as we were) then I don't see much in what we currently have, maybe though in what we could have?

We have not expanded the wealth of the world by expanding opportunity, we've done so by stealing opportunity from future generations via over-exploitation of non-renewable resources. — Isaac

I'm broadly in agreement, of course, but there are still some interesting puzzles here. The non-renewable resources are finite (but may not be finite in a way that matters to us if in a hundred years we're mining asteroids with robots), so that fits your story that there is a fixed amount of wealth. But part of my point was that what has value depends on what you can do with it. Rare metals don't have inherent value; they have value once you invent electronics that need rare metals for components. (There is a cobalt mine re-opening in the US because cobalt is needed for the batteries of electric vehicles and wind turbines. Cobalt is precious again.)

Leaving that aside, what is the fair way of handling finite resources across all future generations? They will run out, unless we go extinct or leave the planet. Do we calculate how much fossil fuel we can burn per year working backwards from the sun going supernova? Every lump of coal we burn is a lump of coal countless future generations have a claim on. I don't think there's any plausible solution to that sort of double-bind without the invention of new possibilities. And I think we can do that.

Humans being kinda dumb, and greedy, even that doesn't always work. I think of the example of Norman Borlog and the green revolution. It's a tragic story, because he only intended his work to provide a stopgap, a way to relieve starvation and buy humanity 20 or 30 years to get its shit together. Instead, it was rolled out everywhere at terrible cost, and integrated into the new world system to enable even more population growth and the ever faster consumption of resources. In some ways, he's more to blame than anyone else for our current climate catastrophe, but it's not what he wanted at all.

what has value depends on what you can do with it. Rare metals don't have inherent value; they have value once you invent electronics that need rare metals for components. (There is a cobalt mine re-opening in the US because cobalt is needed for the batteries of electric vehicles and wind turbines. Cobalt is precious again.) — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting how this links to power though? What you can do with it is not only a question of technical know-how, but of power. Even here the country which can secure the more resources (see I used the word 'secure' there, I think I've grown), gets the bonus win of now being able to extract 'value' from a whole tone of resources it didn't even have a use for before. The poor country that cannot afford batteries might be lousy with cobalt but find it of no use whatsoever. There's trade, of course, but like sustainability and labour respect, trade (to be fair) would need also to be legally protected from exploitation.

Leaving that aside, what is the fair way of handling finite resources across all future generations? They will run out, unless we go extinct or leave the planet. Do we calculate how much fossil fuel we can burn per year working backwards from the sun going supernova? Every lump of coal we burn is a lump of coal countless future generations have a claim on. I don't think there's any plausible solution to that sort of double-bind without the invention of new possibilities. And I think we can do that. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, a conundrum. Impossible to resolve in terms of resource use perhaps. I mean, I've got no clever answer. Using no no-renewables at all seems a bit silly ("if we can't all have them no one can!"), yet it's undeniable that any use means some generation in the future will run out. But I think the sort-of-solution lies with rates again. We're going to run out of fossil fuels in 50 years. Are we going to be mining asteroids by then under any realistic prediction at all?

It sounds complicated (all about growth predictions etc) but it's not the accuracy of the prediction at stake - we're talking here about moral justification. There's no moral justification for using a shit ton of fossil fuels without giving a fuck about the future generations. There is a moral justification fo using some fossil fuels (to improve the lives of peoepl now) if one has a reasonable, and well-informed, view that technology is moving at a sufficient pace as to give an equitable replacement by the time our current fuels source has run out. One is theft, the other diligence.

But on top of that, there's lots of other aspects of the non-renewability of Western growth that don't suffer from that problem - exploitation of labourers, pollution, habitat loss... These are all direct 'thefts' which don't have the problem of simple finite resources. We could just leave all the potential value from labour exploitation, pollution, and habitat loss untapped. We could just say it's not worth it.

Humans being kinda dumb, and greedy, even that doesn't always work. I think of the example of Norman Borlog and the green revolution. It's a tragic story, because he only intended his work to provide a stopgap, a way to relieve starvation and buy humanity 20 or 30 years to get its shit together. Instead, it was rolled out everywhere at terrible cost, and integrated into the new world system to enable even more population growth and the ever faster consumption of resources. In some ways, he's more to blame than anyone else for our current climate catastrophe, but it's not what he wanted at all. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, I feel the same way about Borlog. It's one of those emergent properties. I think this is one of the fascinating insights of some of the early social psychologists (and probably economists too, but I wouldn't know) that when you but a bunch of people together and set them all to try an achieve one thing, they end up achieving something else, something none of them intended, nor would have rationally wanted - like the murmuration of starlings. Much of the negatives we see from society aren't because humans are dumb, or greedy. I think humans can be quite nice really (once you get to know them). It's just that they systems we set up have emergent properties which none of us would rationally want individually.

It's, in my opinion, the biggest problem we face.

What you can do with it is not only a question of technical know-how, but of power. — Isaac

Yes, good point.

there's lots of other aspects of the non-renewability of Western growth that don't suffer from that problem - exploitation of labourers, pollution, habitat loss... These are all direct 'thefts' which don't have the problem of simple finite resources. We could just leave all the potential value from labour exploitation, pollution, and habitat loss untapped. We could just say it's not worth it. — Isaac

I think this is where we started.

Let's suppose there is a way of using the earth's resources that is largely sustainable — perhaps only up to a certain total population, whatever constraints we end up with — something more than using no resources but less than what we've been doing so recklessly. Can there be some similar happy medium with labor? Is employment inherently exploitation, or can we imagine an arrangement with safe working conditions, reasonable work/life balance, compensation above some level we'd see as fair?

I am somewhat attracted to universal basic income schemes, because I think the idea of at least partly detaching livelihood from employment could be very powerful. If you could be an adult with a secure, let's say "lower middle-class" lifestyle, and working only part-time, that would allow you more time for pursuits that could be of value to other people as well as yourself — volunteering for a charity, at your church if that's your thing, political activism, even the sort of civil society institutions like bowling leagues that have famously dwindled because people lack the time and energy. (It's what you do in retirement now.) Even civil service: maybe we should all be a garbage man once a month for our community, or help mind a kindergarten.

Anyway, question there, before waxing rhapsodic, was: as there might be an amount the earth can give sustainably with ruining her, might the same be true of people? Is it inevitable that employment be onerous? (God, feels like we're starting one of schop's threads.)

the systems we set up have emergent properties which none of us would rationally want individually. — Isaac

Oh yes, and by "dumb" I really meant not noticing that. Some of this is well-known to game theory. Schelling's segregation model, for instance. I've never had a close look, but I believe Robert Thaler's choice architecture stuff would be one way of attempting to address this sort of thing.

(3) Where do the profits go? — Xtrix

To the owners to do with as they please.

The reason employees do not have a say in where the profits go is because they are not owners.

Let's suppose there is a way of using the earth's resources that is largely sustainable — perhaps only up to a certain total population, whatever constraints we end up with — something more than using no resources but less than what we've been doing so recklessly. Can there be some similar happy medium with labor? Is employment inherently exploitation, or can we imagine an arrangement with safe working conditions, reasonable work/life balance, compensation above some level we'd see as fair? — Srap Tasmaner

I think so. For me it would be around autonomy and egalitarianism. For a labour arrangement to be fair, the labourer has to have a genuine other choice. I too am a fan of UBI, but in a sense see it as only a replacement for the 'theft' of property held in common to private ownership. This is the comeback to another common conservative talking point - the 'sweat of your own brow' rugged individualism. I'd be equally happy with each person having their acre (or return to common land) and then if you don't want a job, you can grow your own food, build your own house etc. It's the theft of that opportunity that I see UBI as appropriate compensation for.

As to measure of labour 'extracted'. I think this is where choice is paramount. All things being equal, we have two limits.

Firstly, you can't survive on no labour at all, if you choose 0 labour, you become a drag on others, or you die - so we have a lower limit of global labour. This isn't a problem in a dog-eat-dog, hyper-individualist world, but the moment we introduce welfare (as we ought) those choosing to supply 0 labour are 'stealing' labour from others.

Secondly, it's probably the case, on average, that more labour yields more stuff, so there's another potential 'theft' if someone chooses a labour rate which yields little beyond survival, but expects to benefit from the 'stuff' generated by those who worked harder.

These are both typical conservative responses to UBI, of course, but need to be addressed.

The answer to the first, I think could simply be "well give us the land back then". UBI is an imperfect sticking plaster over the injustice of private property, so it's no-one's fault but the land-owning classes if it's got flaws. But in a less confrontational bent, I don't see any reason why UBI shouldn't be linked to a choice of community work, so long as the work yielded no private benefit and had a wide enough range to suit most people.

The answer to the second is more complicated, I think there's a strong egalitarian argument that if one is putting in work to yield some technological advance solely to benefit oneself, then it is you, not the eponymous sponger who have lost your way morally. I'd challenge the notion that it's normal, or morally neutral to expect a reward commensurate with the effort one puts in. It's all too individualistic, If you're not working for the betterment of your community, then you don't deserve the reward.

As I think we may have discussed before, I raised both my children with complete autonomy - no rules, no chores, no school etc. We had to (difficult at times) face the choice when confronted with what seemed like lazy 'sponging' - either we put up with and hope they'll better themselves by example, or we impose our will on them. The latter hardly seemed an improvement, morally, on the behaviour we would be trying to prevent, so we opt for the former. Generally it worked. I believe we're in the same boat with communities and welfare (UBI would come into this category). We either accept that it's possible to thus 'sponge' off others and simply hope that people don't, or we force them to not by imposing our will on them. I can't see how the latter morally improves on the former.

I believe Robert Thaler's choice architecture stuff would be one way of attempting to address this sort of thing. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, definitely (I assume you meant Richard Thaler, yes?). Returning to the autonomy argument, I think it's ideas like the choice architecture which are crucial to the success of autonomous collectives too. We turn the 'emergent properties' problem on its head by deliberately creating a system where autonomous individuals would naturally, on average, choose paths which promote community well-being. After all, not to go all evolutionary-psychology on us, but that is what we're designed for. Humans don't have a random set of objectives and desires.

The reason employees do not have a say in where the profits go is because they are not owners. — creativesoul

But ought they be? The system by which owners own what they own isn't some law of physics, we made it up, it's written on paper under our respective countries' property laws. We're asking here if we ought change those laws.

. I'd be equally happy with each person having their acre (or return to common land) and then if you don't want a job, you can grow your own food, build your own house etc. I — Isaac

Terrible idea. Not all land is equal. Nor is human capability. I'd prefer a capabale individual tending to valuable land over the state issued bum, in all cases.

Humans don't have a random set of objectives and desires. — Isaac

Except those that do. They are the trailblazers of human progress. And they are usually hated by the norm.

Terrible idea. Not all land is equal. Nor is human capability. I'd prefer a capabale individual tending to valuable land over the state issued bum, in all cases. — Merkwurdichliebe

It was rhetorical. The point is that the wealthy who might complain about the loss of their exploit-ready labour force are in that position because of a past theft of common land depriving those workers of their ability to make their own living.

But let's address the issue on its face. Firstly, if you take all the viable farmland in the world and divide it by the population the average family of four gets about 2 and a half hectares, so we don't even need to think about poorer quality land. Secondly, if the unequal-ness of human capacity is your concern then you need a welfare system. You need that either way, so I don't see how this fact has any bearing on the choice of system. Thirdly, I don't see any reason at all why increased efficiency should be a target at all. Do you?

Sequere pecuniam, eh OP?

The reason employees do not have a say in where the profits go is because they are not owners.
— creativesoul

But ought they be? — Isaac

I personally believe that employee owned companies are better frameworks for a variety of reasons. However, not all people make good business owners. I think also that a big problem arises when a company's loyalties are conflicts of interest between shareholders' financial statements and employees' livelihoods.

I suspect we may be in agreement regarding what's best for a country's citizens when it comes to how the country sets up and creates its own socio-economic landscape.

Posting this here. Helps shed light on the real answer to where the profits go: right back into the pockets of the shareholders via stock buybacks.

https://stocks.apple.com/AjVpCcZ1LTbKD5qK2teiaIA

With top executives' compensation often linked to share price performance metrics, buybacks have emerged in the past decade as a relatively simple, quick means by which to raise a company's stock price, much simpler in many cases than it is to grow sales, expand operations, or increase profits.

Markets have also seen an increase in the practice of public companies issuing debt in order to buy back their own shares, a practice that some economists believe poses a threat to the long-term health of the U.S. economy.

Glad the SEC is making some minor changes to this blatant wealth transfer from the workers to the “owners.”

I'm starting to wonder if capitalism is entirely fair?

, I think capitalism itself is more concerned with profit maximization. :)

The problem I see with any economic discussion is that we pretend like people have no agency.

"I don't like capitalism" is a value.

I am born into a society that has capitalism, is a descriptive statement.

The value as compared with the "throwness" or "situatedness" of the societal context I am brought into is at odds. The harm is entailed with not with the system, but with being brought into the system at all.

Humans are not like other animals. A chimp, gorilla, elephant, dolphin doesn't say, "I am born into this system of survival, and I don't like it".

Where do the profits go? Why am I being exploited? This is unfair. It's already in the equation from the start- prior to even being a part of capitalism or any political economic system.

capitalism itself — jorndoe

Is capitalism itself though, or is it something else?

Where do the profits go? Why am I being exploited? This is unfair. It's already in the equation from the start- prior to even being a part of capitalism or any political economic system. — schopenhauer1

It doesn’t have to be.

Also, there are many forms of what we call capitalism. I’m not arguing about that. The answer to my question isn’t simply caked into the system. It’s a very specific and fairly recent way of transferring wealth to shareholders, and it’s worth understanding.

It doesn’t have to be.

Also, there are many forms of what we call capitalism. I’m not arguing about that. The answer to my question isn’t simply caked into the system. It’s a very specific and fairly recent way of transferring wealth to shareholders, and it’s worth understanding. — Mikie

Sure, it's not mutually exclusive. It could be worth understanding, but my point is all systems are unfair to an extent that (unlike other animals) we are self-reflecting creatures that can dislike (and yet still must be a part of) any X system. Your version of a good system, might be different than mine. I might not like any system, in fact. And, it may be unfair that we are self-reflecting animals that are put into any system at all. That is indeed caked in. This is unlike any othe animals, where this isn't even a problem.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under circumstances of their own choosing, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionising themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honoured disguise and borrowed language.

That’s great. I want to say Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault. I can’t place it.

Uncle Karl, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (chapter 1)