Bob Brinker says you're a certified fool is you question the Bernank

[Pointedstick]

There are features of capitalism that are problematic with man's nature and if you are intellectually honest you will acknowledge those problems.

JFYI: insulting the forum admin isn't really what would be on the top of my list for how to win friends and influence people. 

[Pointedstick]

Just so everyone doesn't think I'm a dyed in the wool Marxist. I've started looking into something called Thoreauvian Self Sufficieny or Aboriginal Economics.
Interesting stuff...I don't know much about it.

I think it would be a really great idea for the government to designate a large chunk of federal land to create model societies to test economic theories. You would have to get a big cross section of the population to participate, but it might be very beneficial to test a lot of these theories on a fairly large scale and see what happens. You could work in conjunction with research institutions to make sure everything was studied and analyzed. It would be like an economics version of Survivor.

The Israeli government basically did that for the Kibbutz movement. My aunt in fact lives on one, and I visited one a few years ago. They were set up as model Marxist communities; self-sufficient, no private property, all resources shared, heavy emphasis on agriculture and individual craftsmanship. They worked out for a while, but today very few remain because nearly all the children born on Kibbutzim left because they wanted their own clothes and MP3 players. Even today, the surviving Kibbutzim have had to adapt by allowing members to have limited amounts of private property and becoming more capitalist in their participation in external trade. Some people even have cars!

[doodle]

There are features of capitalism that are problematic with man's nature and if you are intellectually honest you will acknowledge those problems.

JFYI: insulting the forum admin isn't really what would be on the top of my list for how to win friends and influence people. 

Hahaha. A healthy disrespect for authority is one of my only redeeming qualities. 

Just so everyone doesn't think I'm a dyed in the wool Marxist. I've started looking into something called Thoreauvian Self Sufficieny or Aboriginal Economics.
Interesting stuff...I don't know much about it.

I think it would be a really great idea for the government to designate a large chunk of federal land to create model societies to test economic theories. You would have to get a big cross section of the population to participate, but it might be very beneficial to test a lot of these theories on a fairly large scale and see what happens. You could work in conjunction with research institutions to make sure everything was studied and analyzed. It would be like an economics version of Survivor.

The Israeli government basically did that for the Kibbutz movement. My aunt in fact lives on one, and I visited one a few years ago. They were set up as model Marxist communities; self-sufficient, no private property, all resources shared, heavy emphasis on agriculture and individual craftsmanship. They worked out for a while, but today very few remain because nearly all the children born on Kibbutzim left because they wanted their own clothes and MP3 players. Even today, the surviving Kibbutzim have had to adapt by allowing members to have limited amounts of private property and becoming more capitalist in their participation in external trade. Some people even have cars!

Probably there are some things that are great about the Kibbutz just like there are things that are great about our system. The key is to keep and open mind and always be willing to continue thinking. Heck, quantum mechanics is totally deconstructing the reality I see in front of me every day. What is this mystery all about? IMHO, that is the reason we are ultimately here....to find the answer to that question.

[Pointedstick]

Probably there are some things that are great about the Kibbutz just like there are things that are great about our system. The key is to keep and open mind and always be willing to continue thinking. Heck, quantum mechanics is totally deconstructing the reality I see in front of me every day. What is this mystery all about? IMHO, that is the reason we are ultimately here....to find the answer to that question.

You're right that there are certainly redeeming qualities, but in the end, I think the real judge of a social arrangement can be seen in how people vote with their feet. Kibbutzim have been shrinking, not growing. Evidently more people want to leave that system than want to join. Doesn't that strike you as evidence of its inferiority in the eyes of the majority of the current and former participants?

That doesn't mean it's bad for everyone, of course. Many individual participants may be happy. But IMO the out-migration demonstrates that it's perceived as bad for the majority of people who try it.

[doodle]

Probably there are some things that are great about the Kibbutz just like there are things that are great about our system. The key is to keep and open mind and always be willing to continue thinking. Heck, quantum mechanics is totally deconstructing the reality I see in front of me every day. What is this mystery all about? IMHO, that is the reason we are ultimately here....to find the answer to that question.

You're right that there are certainly redeeming qualities, but in the end, I think the real judge of a social arrangement can be seen in how people vote with their feet. Kibbutzim have been shrinking, not growing. Evidently more people want to leave that system than want to join. Doesn't that strike you as evidence of its inferiority in the eyes of the majority of the current and former participants?

That doesn't mean it's bad for everyone, of course. Many individual participants may be happy. But IMO the out-migration demonstrates that it's perceived as bad for the majority of people who try it.

I think that may be too easy of an answer. I wonder if the world was a Kibbutz and people had small capitalistic communes if we would see the same behavior. I don't know. On the whole I think capitalism is great, but the tool is only as useful as the skill of its operator and his intentions. A system driven purely by bottom line profit without the regulating hand of government or human and social concerns sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Finally, there are certain constraining natural boundaries that we need to be mindful of and respect concerning both the environment and human nature. We cannot get so caught up with the party that we don't hear the police knocking on the door.

[Benko]

Heck, quantum mechanics is totally deconstructing the reality I see in front of me every day.

So Marx/Alinsky=einstein?  Nice try.  Proof by analogy is not proof. 

[melveyr]

For me Marx is just another flawed classical economist. So much great work has been done after his death. I just can't get too excited about him positively or negatively.

Most of his work was predictive rather than prescriptive, and his predictions were largely wrong...

I think the fascination with him is largely a result of the extreme propaganda westerners were subjected to. It makes some people hate him, and it causes others to find him interesting because they are told that they should hate him. Kind of like how many teenagers do the opposite of what they are told.

To me, he is just another dead economist.

[doodle]

Heck, quantum mechanics is totally deconstructing the reality I see in front of me every day.

So Marx/Alinsky=einstein?  Nice try.  Proof by analogy is not proof. 

I am not familiar with Alinsky.

Marx wrote an analysis and critique of capitalism. Einstein's theories deconstructed our strictly Newtonian view of the world. There is some similarity. Marx would probably say that he would have never written the Manifesto or Capital if he knew it would have ended up causing the Soviet Union just like Einstein said he would have never gone into science if he knew his work would result in atomic warfare.

[doodle]

For me Marx is just another flawed classical economist. So much great work has been done after his death. I just can't get too excited about him positively or negatively.

Most of his work was predictive rather than prescriptive, and his predictions were largely wrong...

I think the fascination with him is largely a result of the extreme propaganda westerners were subjected to. It makes some people hate him, and it causes others to find him interesting because they are told that they should hate him. Kind of like how many teenagers do the opposite of what they are told.

To me, he is just another dead economist.

I agree entirely. I'm not saying Marx had the answer. I'm saying that his critique of capitalism is enlightening and certain topics that he concentrated on such as worker alienation are still relevant today.

[Pointedstick]

For me Marx is just another flawed classical economist. So much great work has been done after his death. I just can't get too excited about him positively or negatively.

Most of his work was predictive rather than prescriptive, and his predictions were largely wrong...

I think the fascination with him is largely a result of the extreme propaganda westerners were subjected to. It makes some people hate him, and it causes others to find him interesting because they are told that they should hate him. Kind of like how many teenagers do the opposite of what they are told.

To me, he is just another dead economist.

I agree entirely. I'm not saying Marx had the answer. I'm saying that his critique of capitalism is enlightening and certain topics that he concentrated on such as worker alienation are still relevant today.

Er, how can you agree entirely with melveyr if he says that Marx's critique of capitalism is largely wrong?

[doodle]

For me Marx is just another flawed classical economist. So much great work has been done after his death. I just can't get too excited about him positively or negatively.

Most of his work was predictive rather than prescriptive, and his predictions were largely wrong...

I think the fascination with him is largely a result of the extreme propaganda westerners were subjected to. It makes some people hate him, and it causes others to find him interesting because they are told that they should hate him. Kind of like how many teenagers do the opposite of what they are told.

To me, he is just another dead economist.

I agree entirely. I'm not saying Marx had the answer. I'm saying that his critique of capitalism is enlightening and certain topics that he concentrated on such as worker alienation are still relevant today.

Er, how can you agree entirely with melveyr if he says that Marx's critique of capitalism is largely wrong?

Marx was a social scientist. It's tough to give definitive right or wrong answers in hard science let alone economics. His critique of capitalism is great, he breaks down the way the system functions better than anything else I have read. His predictions haven't materialized yet but his description of how capitalism functions is pretty spot on I would say. His analysis of what that would lead to....alienation, concentration of wealth etc. still has merit. His predictions about what would happen so far has been wrong....or not happened yet. I wouldn't throw Marx into the junk pile of history. I think he is still relevant to today's dialogue. 

So I guess I agree....with some exceptions :-)

[doodle]

I think that may be too easy of an answer. I wonder if the world was a Kibbutz and people had small capitalistic communes if we would see the same behavior. I don't know.

Special Economic Zone

In the context of larger a capitalistic world.

[doodle]

Edit: better yet, you tell me exactly what questions you want answered?  You keep saying these would be worlds worth exploring, but never mention why?  What's your hypothesis?  Marx at least tried to draw a view of what he was aiming for.

Me: I want answers..
Slotine: You want answers?
Me: I want the TRUTH!!
Slotine: You can't handle the TRUTH!!

Hahahaha  I don't know why that popped into my head.

Really I want to know the answer to the quantum physics double slit experiment. Why do observed particles behave differently than unobserved particles? Or maybe some answers about superposition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0v-cvvyc-M When you start thinking about these things the "laws" of capitalism, human nature, potential and possibility seem a lot more loosy goosy.

Anyways, Im drifting again off topic. I'm not really driving at anything. I'm just saying that Marx is unfairly criticized for atrocities he didn't commit, and that his analysis of the capitalistic mode of production is worth trying to understand. It bothers me when people slam him unfairly. Yeah, he might have been wrong, but according to the quantum physics above, everything we think we know is probably wrong.

[Pointedstick]

I'm just saying that Marx is unfairly criticized for atrocities he didn't commit, and that his analysis of the capitalistic mode of production is worth trying to understand. It bothers me when people slam him unfairly.

I think we've all demonstrated that we do in fact understand Marx. We've read his stuff. We're not ignorant, brainwashed drones. We've repeatedly made substantive criticisms of his ideas, including:

* Wealth is constantly being made and lost by the wealthy, challenging Marx's "permanent wealth accumulation" hypothesis
* Marx's clean break between workers and owners has broken down
* True monopolies are only enabled by government action, which is what Marx himself advocates to prevent them
* Marx failed to account for entrepreneurial creativity breaking down large, entrenched firms
* The Communist Manifesto repeatedly advocates violence and policies that very clearly impoverish society
* Societies that have implemented Marx's advice and policy prescriptions in The Communist Manifesto became wretched genocidal hellholes in proportion to how much of it they implemented

I haven't seen you substantively refute any of these points other than to repeat that Marx's analysis in Capital is worth studying. We've studied it! We just disagree with it!

Yeah, he might have been wrong, but according to the quantum physics above, everything we think we know is probably wrong.

That's a very clever way to concede defeat. 

[doodle]

The only thing that has been "defeated" is an idea. I don't "own" the idea, (there is me, and then there is the idea) so I can't concede anything. 

Hahaha....I'm sorry guys. I have a bit of an absurdist streak sometimes. I mean no disrespect. Sometimes I just enjoy engaging in verbal gymnastics....most of the time I end up getting tangled in the dismount and break my leg.

[MediumTex]

The only thing that has been "defeated" is an idea. I don't "own" the idea, (there is me, and then there is the idea) so I can't concede anything. 

Hahaha....I'm sorry guys. I have a bit of an absurdist streak sometimes. I mean no disrespect. Sometimes I just enjoy engaging in verbal gymnastics....most of the time I end up getting tangled in the dismount and break my leg.

doodle,

I think that you are engaging an awful lot of the mental horsepower of our generous members in what seem sort of like flights of fancy.

Capitalism just seems to bother you, even though all capitalism has ever done for humanity is allow us to more efficiently exploit the world's natural resources (including human labor).  You can say that this exploitation of natural resources has been bad, but at some point your argument becomes a criticism of the predator for simply becoming a more skilled hunter. 

Will hunters who continually improve their hunting skills eventually hunt their prey to extinction?  YES!!!  That's the history of biological life on this planet, of which we are just the latest dominant iteration.  Don't let this bother you.  Accept it.  Enjoy your treasured spot at the top of the food chain.  You are incredibly lucky to be alive during this period in human evolution.  Complaining about the flaws in a system that has produced such abundance is akin to a lion cursing his strong jaws and powerful legs.  It quickly leads to nihilism.

The lion who hates the ugliness of being at the top of food chain is always free to become a vegetarian and try to make his way through life with the rabbits and sheep.  That seems like a kind of silly thing to do to me, though, in part because the rabbits and the sheep are probably going to feel pretty patronized by any lion who wanted to hang out with them because he felt that their way of life was "superior."  It seems like such a lion would be trading nihilism for something even more absurd (i.e., a predator attempting to become his prey as an empty expression of sympathy).

Capitalism is an expression of human nature.  Yes, it is destructive.  Yes, it creates amazing wealth.  Yes, it doesn't distribute that wealth equally.  It's a very pure expression of the angels and demons in our own natures.  What is the point of arguing against more efficient production?  If your argument is that it will speed up the point at which humanity reaches a point of scarcity of our "least abundant necessity", I would say "so what?"  If that point is inevitably going to be reached (and all species reach this point sooner or later), what is the point of lamenting it?

I have learned that being realistic about human nature can create a lot of peace of mind.  We are creatures of amazing ability and incredible capacity for self-delusion.  It's okay.  There is no need to be frustrated that we are not more perfect.  The one thing that you can do to address any widespread deficiencies in our species is to correct those deficiencies in yourself and the strength of your example may then help others to see the way that you have prepared. 

If I was a lion and I saw a fellow lion walking around with a sandwich board that said "Pray for the prey.  They have feelings too!" I would have a hard time not thinking to myself "I wonder how hungry he will need to get before that sandwich board comes off and he turns back into a lion?"

All of your arguments seem to come down to basically acting coercively toward others to prevent them from acting coercively toward nature or each other.  Do you not see how silly that is?  "Well, what else can I do?" you might ask.  I would say you can work on yourself and let others work on themselves as well.  When you feel that you have found a new and valuable technique you can share it with others and attempt to persuade them of your new technique's value. 

The only alternative to persuasion is coercion and over and over I am hearing you say that if people are not enlightened enough to be persuaded by your arguments you would be willing to resort to coercion, which is what every dictator in the history of the world has done, in the process virtually always validating people's initial skepticism of the aspiring dictator's new techniques.

[MachineGhost]

I have learned that being realistic about human nature can create a lot of peace of mind.  We are creatures of amazing ability and incredible capacity for self-delusion.  It's okay.  There is no need to be frustrated that we are not more perfect.  The one thing that you can do to address any widespread deficiencies in our species is to correct those deficiencies in yourself and the strength of your example may then help others to see the way that you have prepared. 

What if correcting that defenciency in oneself due to a particular unfairness of the capitalist system is going on the dole? 

[Gumby]

The only thing that has been "defeated" is an idea. I don't "own" the idea, (there is me, and then there is the idea) so I can't concede anything. 

Hahaha....I'm sorry guys. I have a bit of an absurdist streak sometimes. I mean no disrespect. Sometimes I just enjoy engaging in verbal gymnastics....most of the time I end up getting tangled in the dismount and break my leg.

doodle,

I think that you are engaging an awful lot of the mental horsepower of our generous members in what seem sort of like flights of fancy.

Agreed. Another word for "engaging in verbal gymnastics" is Trolling...

In email discussion lists, online forums, and Usenet newsgroups, a troll is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The term can also refer to someone making such a posting ("a troll") or to the action ("trolling", "to troll").

The content of a troll posting generally falls into one of several categories. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup or mailing list, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings. The result of such postings is frequently a flood of angry responses. In some cases, the follow-up messages posted in response to a troll can constitute a large fraction of the contents of a newsgroup or mailing list for as long as several weeks. These messages are transmitted around the world to thousands of computers, wasting network resources and costing money for people who pay to download email or receive Usenet news. Troll threads also frustrate people who are trying to carry on substantive discussions.

People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt discussion, and to make trouble. The best response to a troll is no response. If you post a follow-up message, you are contributing to the resulting clamor and most likely delighting the troller. Before posting a response, consider the following questions:

Have responses already been posted by others?

Will my post add any information that others are not likely to be aware of already?

Is the issue resolvable, or will discussion turn into name-calling?

Should I send private email instead of posting publicly?

Will I later regret the contents of what I am posting?

Please deal with trolls constructively, and do not participate in trolling. By refraining from doing so you will help make mailing lists and online forums much more enjoyable venues for discussion.

Source: http://kb.iu.edu/data/afhc.html

While I don't think that doodle is a blatant Troll, he does exhibit Troll-like qualities in that most of his comments appear to be for his own entertainment purposes.

It's safe to say that he's provoked a lot of negative replies from others in a very short amount of time — and he seems to enjoy it.

[doodle]

Capitalism is an expression of human nature.  Yes, it is destructive.  Yes, it creates amazing wealth.  Yes, it doesn't distribute that wealth equally.  It's a very pure expression of the angels and demons in our own natures.  What is the point of arguing against more efficient production?  If your argument is that it will speed up the point at which humanity reaches a point of scarcity of our "least abundant necessity", I would say "so what?"  If that point is inevitably going to be reached (and all species reach this point sooner or later), what is the point of lamenting it?

I have learned that being realistic about human nature can create a lot of peace of mind.  We are creatures of amazing ability and incredible capacity for self-delusion.  It's okay.  There is no need to be frustrated that we are not more perfect.  The one thing that you can do to address any widespread deficiencies in our species is to correct those deficiencies in yourself and the strength of your example may then help others to see the way that you have prepared. 

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, MT. I just happen to disagree with your conclusions. I do think there is something that we can do to help promote our incredible capacities while at the same time harnessing our destructive delusions. As a society we set rules for this game that elicit certain behaviors in humans. Man's behavior (although endowed with natural tendencies) is primarily a reaction to his environment. This is why a docile person in one environment can turn into a raging lunatic under different environmental conditions. I strongly feel that we need to promote those conditions within our society that lead to humans making decisions that serve the long term survival of our species. If we decide not to think like this and party recklessly night after night abrogating future responsibilities for the present moment, there won't be a future.

If we are intelligent enough to recognize the truth in this, we are intelligent enough to create rules that inhibit us from destroying ourselves. Football like life is a violent game, but it isn't a free for all. If you were to remove the rules in the game, death would be a pretty common outcome as well as horrific injury. We regulate the game in order to make it fun and entertaining, but not so overly dangerous that the participants destroy one another. We presently regulate the economic system that we have in such a way that provides social safety nets, and mechanisms to prevent against corporate monopolies and the like. There is no reason why we cannot regulate the market in other ways in order to force participants to consider issues related to the environment, sustainability, or the rights of future generations in a more concerted way.

Social engineering has an evil ring to it, but in reality all it means is creating rules for the game of life. We want rules that elicit positive behavior and discourage negative behavior. I know you will have some sort of problem with that, so we disagree. That is okay. In the end maybe there really isn't a right or wrong answer. These are tough questions that deal with tough issues. I find that libertarians prefer a more anarchic world, I happen to prefer a more ordered one. Sometimes it doesn't really matter who is making the rules, or what the rules are as long as there are consistent rules. I would rather live under a consitent tyranny than a system where things were in constant chaotic flux. We live under a tyranny of physical laws and thrive. Imagine how tough things would be if gravity randomly was here one day and gone the next.

[Pointedstick]

Libertarians just have no faith in your ability to judge the risks. 

Yeah, that's pretty much what it boils down to. As a Libertarian, I would actually have a lot less of an issue with regulations if they weren't usually short-sighted claptrap written by idiots. Looking out in the world, I see many more examples of well-meaning laws and regulations going down in flames and damaging society than I see ones that successfully achieved moral ends, to the improvement of society.

[murphy_p_t]

and this is not counting the regulations which are designed by insiders to benefit their industry.

The prime one which comes to mind is the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.

[LifestyleFreedom]

History is replete with unintended consequences.

One of my favorite authors is historian James Burke and his two shows Connections and The Day the Universe Changed.  I watched these shows 25 years ago when they were shown on PBS and I am now pleasantly surprise to discover that they are available on YouTube.

Connections
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL734BAB2B716CC777

The Day the Universe Changed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtWVfTiQ ... 7071FD0EFD

Burke connects the dots of history and shows that various events in the past led to the present in ways that no one could have imagined.  Taleb largely says the same thing, that how we got here is the result of random chance.

Hindsight, of course, is always 20-20; foresight, however, is not so obvious.

[Benko]

Social engineering has an evil ring to it, but in reality all it means is creating rules for the game of life. We want rules that elicit positive behavior and discourage negative behavior.

And this sums things up nicely.  You want to determine how people behave with you the arbiter of what is positive or negative behavior.

[doodle]

Social engineering has an evil ring to it, but in reality all it means is creating rules for the game of life. We want rules that elicit positive behavior and discourage negative behavior.

And this sums things up nicely.  You want to determine how people behave with you the arbiter of what is positive or negative behavior.

Benko, I think it is a little more complex than that. The problem that I see with moral-relativism (of any flavor other than the deterministic variety) is that it essentially forces people into a position of non-action or paralysis. I don't think that the world can realistically function that way unless we think anarchic nihilism is a system that would realistically be even livable. I mean moral-relativism is  in some sense a contradiction of terms itself because morality means a set of standards which then because they are relative really means that no standards exist at all. It sounds like a nightmare to me.

If that is the case, I then think we have to start investigating other systems of morality that will allow for personal freedom and individual liberty but also can function within the larger social context of the world.

One option is Moral Universalism...this is a popular tradition among many philosophic schools. Noam Chomsky (a highly intellectual man and a libertarian started with these principles. Maybe these form a good starting point that is amenable to you.

...we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others -- more stringent ones, in fact -- plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.

Noam Chomsky is a libertarian yet he realizes that somewhere along the line there must be a "moral code". I can't believe that you actually think that nihilism is ever going to be realistic. Its an interesting philosophy to thing about in abstract ways, but I don't see how it would be applied to our world today.

[doodle]

By the way...this is still a very hot debate happening today in the world of philosophy and it has been going on for thousands of years. So lets try and keep things composed and calm (i'm going to do my best  ) there are no hard and fast answers and there are plenty of gray areas for sure.

Edit: Maybe we should try a couple case study examples. Applied ethics would be an interesting way to see how we shake out on these issues. Any one have a good idea for a scenario to start a new thread? If not, I'll try and come up with one that is maybe a little more mundane and realistic than torturing babies.