🇳🇱
@jeffowski Good post, not related to billionairs, but otherwise a good post I wish more people understood.
You can't have billionaires without capitalism. Billionaires imply capitalism.
You can't have capitalism without enclosure of the commons. Capitalism implies enclosure.
You can't have enclosure without homelessness. Enclosure implies homelessness.
Therefore billionaires imply homelessness.
Wrong on literally all accounts…
You can’t have billionaires without capitalism. Billionaires imply capitalism.
you can have billionaires without capitalism, you only need money to have billionaires and simply having money is not enough to qualify as a capitalism.
Stalin was estimated to be worth 7.5 trillion in todays money, and that was a communistic society.
You can’t have capitalism without enclosure of the commons. Capitalism implies enclosure.
There is also no requirement for one to engage in closure of the commons for capitalism. No capitalism doesnt imply closure. One can have closure of the commons both with and without capitalism. Although generally some degree of this is a good thing anyway, so the fact that it is common both in capitalism and non-capitalism is a good thing.
You can’t have enclosure without homelessness. Enclosure implies homelessness.
You absolutely can. It is entierly possible to have some closure of the commons and still eliminate homelessness. Its also entirely possible to have no closure of the commons and still have homelessness. Having common ground doesnt necessarily mean you have the means to build a home (the resources or ability).
@freemo @jeffowski Soviet Russia was a capitalist society. There are no billionaires without capitalism.
Without enclosure there's no reliable labor force to exploit, so no capitalism. This is why there has never in history been a capitalist economy without enclosure. The fact that there can be enclosure without capitalism is a non sequitur. You're confusing my claim with its converse.
If there's no homelessness then the commons aren't enclosed. Again the argument is historical. There has never been an economy with enclosed commons that failed to have homelessness.
> Soviet Russia was a capitalist society. There are no billionaires without capitalism.
Again, wrong. You only need money, not capitalism, for billionairs.
> Without enclosure there's no reliable labor force to exploit, so no capitalism. This is why there has never in history been a capitalist economy without enclosure. The fact that there can be enclosure without capitalism is a non sequitur. You're confusing my claim with its converse.
Either you really dont understand what enclosure of the commons means or you dont understand what capitalism means.
For starters there has never been **any** form of government that didnt have some degree of enclosure of the commons, capitalism or otherwise.
Second even if you didnt have a closer of the common, you'd still need a labour force. In fact the idea that you wouldnt seems highly ignorant of even the most basic considerations, as if access to land were the only reason people work.
@freemo @jeffowski Great. Why don't you tell me what you think capitalism is. Tell me in a way that shows that Soviet Russia was not capitalist
Why don't you tell me what enclosure of the commons is, then. Also, the fact that non-capitalists may enclose the commons is irrelevant. I'm only claiming that capitalists must enclose Capitalism implies enclosure. The fact that the converse is occasionally true is irrelevant.
I shouldnt need to tell you, these terms are well defined. So it isnt something I or you get to have an opinion on.
Capitalism is where both the means and distribution of production can be privately owned, and free-markets are enforced.
There is of course some room for interpritation of what “free market” means, but generally its accepted as either unregulated, or regulated to ensure all players have equal opportunity in negotiating trade.
Since soviet russia had the means of production as state-owned it is not by definition a capitalism.
I’m only claiming that capitalists must enclose Capitalism implies enclosure. The fact that the converse is occasionally true is irrelevant.
Still not true by the definition of capitalism. It is enclosed in all societies to some degree whether capitalist or not because it is a good thing for society, something we generally all agree on. But no there is nothing inherent about capitalism that would require it. Land ownership is not a requirement of capitalism by definition.
I prefer to stick with the accepted definition than to try to make up our own.
Employer-employee relationship is not remotely unique to capitalism, and markets in general can exist in non-capitalist countries, it is not wholly unique to capitalism. what defines capitalism is **free** market, not simply having a market. Even private ownership is only capitalism when it is private ownership of the means of production. Being able to own a pocket watch doesnt make something capitalist.
@freemo @jeffowski I meant ownership of the means of production.
Employer-employee relationship is definitely a defining element of capitalism. Many critics of capitalism such as the classical laborists centered their criticism on wage labor (employer-employee relationship). Many of the modern critiques of capitalism center on workplace authoritarianism and the distribution of a firm's whole product.
Would you consider an economy where all firms were democratic worker coops capitalism?
Employer-employee relationships is the norm in both capitalist and non-capitalist society. You still have jobs in non-capitalist economies and if you have a job there is an employee employer relationship. It just so happens sometimes the employer is the government or a co-op.
@freemo @jeffowski Nah a democratic worker coop is joint self-employment not employer-employee relationship
Thats not in line with any of the normal language used. Someone owning the companyt hey work for along side other people doesnt stop that entity from being an employer.
All the companies I run have a stock-options program where my employees are part owners int he company. Despite the fact that they are owners there is still the same employee-employer relationship.
@freemo @jeffowski Stock options are different from the kind of control rights one gets in a worker coop because they are attached to the functional role of working in the firm. You can still get stock options in a worker coop as non-voting preferred shares
The classical laborists were critiquing was having an alien legal party appropriate the positive and negative product that workers are de facto responsible for. I don't think the language we use is relevant to the theory
Would you consider an economy where all firms were democratic worker coops capitalism?
It may be, it may not. As long as people have the options to privately own means of production, then its capitalism. If no one exercised that right and everyone choose to only operate as co-ops as long as they have the option then it is still capitalism.
@freemo @jeffowski There is a misunderstanding of how the property and contract system works here. Capital ownership does not determine firmhood. The employer gets those rights in the employer-employee contract. Capital only increases bargaining power to get favorable market contracts.
Workplace democracy is actually compatible with private ownership of the means of production. A worker coop can rent capital.
In such an economy, the employment contract is abolished
Exactly, co-op based systems are still entierly allowed within capitalist system, but there is still an employee-employer relationship even if you are part of a co-op.
@freemo @jeffowski If the employed and employing legal party is the same, it is reasonable to think of that as joint self-employment.
I will use the terminology the way you do.
In an economic democracy, workers' inalienable right to workplace democracy and to appropriate the positive and negative fruits of their labor is recognized. A right is inalienable when it cannot be given up even with consent. In an economic democracy, there is no legal mechanism for creating a non-democratic firm
> If the employed and employing legal party is the same, it is reasonable to think of that as joint self-employment
Its not the same in a co-op.. The employed is you, as an individual. The employee is a large collection of people of whom you are only a small voice. Sure if you are the sole owner and employed you could make that argument. But in a co-op the collective is hardlyt he same as the individual. So you still have a employeer (the whole governing body) and the employed (you) in a relationship you may or may not like.
@freemo @jeffowski The terminology isn't that important.
In the democratic worker coop economy, I mentioned there is no way to create a non-democratic non-coop firm. Would you consider such a system capitalism where it isn't possible to have someone work in a company without getting control rights over management?
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski
Since 1980, Bowley's Law is broken, and wealth inequality increases.
This is because business owners have been creating less value, and simply taking more as rentiers. It is a business trend of cost cutting, rather than serving the market better. It starves the flow of circulating currency, and often takes the form of reducing labor costs. Lower wages. More dividends.
Massive hoards undermine the entire economic system *if they don't ever get spent*.
Wealth inequality is not an issue, what is an issue is the quality of life of those with nothing. This difference is huge.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski One doesn't get to be a ten-millionaire without being a capitalist business manager. But one doesn't get to be a hundred millionaire without also being a feudalist rentier as well. And that line is easily crossed, simply by deciding to take business revenues as the owner share, rather than paying it out as the labor share.
Once one decides that the employees should struggle and stress, what does it matter how much is doled out to them in charity?
One doesn’t get to be a ten-millionaire without being a capitalist business manager.
No only is this not true, we have plenty of counter examples. The dictators that have run many of the worlds most oppressive non-capitalist countries have been far richer than event he richest billionairs.
Stalin was massively rich, Kim Jong as well. Neither of whom did so through capitalism.
It is quite clear capitalism is not needed, nor the most effective way to get insanely rich.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski Whether that business revenue is more rightly paid out to the owners or the laborers is a matter for moral debate, but as far as the current laws go, the owners and managers seem to be doing the bare minimum for compliance, if that. Naturally, this fosters resentment among the workers that have no other meaningful recourse, especially with union busting and anti-welfare rhetoric.
As it is, the bottom end of the middle class is crumbling into poverty.
There are plenty of issues regarding wealth and equal oppertunities. Companies are under no obligation to pay out its extras to its employees. But doing so to some extent is often int he best interest of the company.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski Approaching from a math-based macroeconomic analysis, there would be zero negative effects from simply murdering all rentiers and seizing their property for distribution. And all those billionaires out there are mostly rentier, if they even have any capitalist left in them.
So if they donate a greater percentage of their income than others, it still falls short of the ideal, which is to give up 100% of all economic rents.
> Approaching from a math-based macroeconomic analysis, there would be zero negative effects from simply murdering all rentiers and seizing their property for distribution. And all those billionaires out there are mostly rentier, if they even have any capitalist left in them.
Yea thats absolute nonsense. The fallout from that would be quite noticable.
> So if they donate a greater percentage of their income than others, it still falls short of the ideal, which is to give up 100% of all economic rents.
Well I'm glad your not in charge with that sort of horrificly incorrect assumptions.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski Morally, yes, that would be horrid. And there would likely be some violent upheaval in the redistribution. But as far as the economics go, in the long run, the market would not miss them even a tiny bit. They extract value; they do not add it. For the rentiers, it really is a zero-sum game.
YEa thats just wrong sorry. The market would be greatly impacted as well, as would the economy.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski I have no problem with capitalist business managers. Take the value you add to the market and be well. But the instant they cross over to rent-seeker and start taking more than they personally add, fuck 'em.
Rent-seeking is a curse on this planet, and that is what the anecdotal OP was illustrating. Fuck that landlord, and every other landlord that takes more in rent than the value they provide to tenants. (That's not zero--landlording can be good business.)
And i have no issue with landlords so long as they are operating within a free-market. If as you say they are pulling out more money than they provide in value then the markets arent free, thats not the landlors fault.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski So you see no problem with sent-seeking behavior?
Rentiers distort the pricing signals that free markets rely upon. The more rentiers you have, and the longer they operate without counterbalances, the less that the observable prices can be trusted to clear the market.
What is a good clearing target for housing markets? Probably 5% vacancies and no homelessness.
There are plenty of issues with landlords and the pricing around renting. Those issues are **not** the fault of the landlords, but rather the fault of markets that are not free.
As you say if the "pricing signals" can be distorted and the market along with it. Then you dont have a free market.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski If we don't have a free market, it doesn't do anyone any good to live in a hypothetical as though we did.
You, and other non-fictional persons, live in the world that exists. And the landlords that exist chose to price their units to extract market value that other people have created. They have responsibility proportional to the number of units they own.
If we don’t have a free market, it doesn’t do anyone any good to live in a hypothetical as though we did.
Yup thats what I said, free markets are essential for a functioning society. If you dont have them you wont have a functioning society.
You, and other non-fictional persons, live in the world that exists. And the landlords that exist chose to price their units to extract market value that other people have created. They have responsibility proportional to the number of units they own.
No, they extract value from the resources they have created (the money to be able to build, maintain, upgrade and improve the building, and the land). In a free market there is balance and the value they create by doign so is the value they create.
If your hypothesis is true and landlords are taking more money than the value they provide then you need to fix the market so it is a free market. Expecting people to just pretend the market isnt brokent and charge less than the market value is absurdist and as you point out, not in line with reality.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski We may test my hypothesis by eliminating rent-seekers (it might not be necessary to kill them), and then seeing whether the result is improved or not.
I think you may be treating the term "free market" as a "no true Scotsman". I don't need to create one, as I don't need it to exist to make my hypotheses line up with reality. You want it? You create it.
The world that is could start fighting rent-seekers instead of paying them.
If the rent seekers provided so little value you would have gotten rid of them already... but feel free to prove me wrong... go ahead, get rid of them, ill wait, bet you cant cause their vital ::watches as you do it::
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski Two economists were walking down the street. They see a $100 note lying on the pavement. Both step over it and continue on their way.
One says, "If that were a real $100 note..."
The other finishes, "...someone would have picked it up already!"
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski Rent-seekers are economic parasites. If an animal had intestinal parasites, I would give it a dewormer and not cry for the worms.
The parasitic lifestyle is very attractive. One gets to live without doing a lot of inconvenient *work*. And a lot of people do try to get away with doing as little work as possible. Toil has little meaning without leisure, after all.
The rentier has as much meaning to me as a mosquito, or a guinea worm. Useless.
Yes you made clear your bias and hate already.. your wrong IMO of course, but no need to repeat your bias.
If you think being a landlord is free money with no work then clearly you dont understand what it takes to be a landlord.
I have a few properties. The reason I refuse to rent out any of them is because the money made is far too little for the amount of work it would take. Makes more sense for me to just let them sit empty until I or someone I know needs it.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski I suspected. Now you have confirmed.
I know what is required to make a housing unit fit for rental. What you are saying is that you value your own time too highly for any mere tenant to be able to afford the wage rate it would require to sully your hands with the labor.
Land property speculation is even less worthy in my estimation than landlording.
Sell your empty units, please. At least contract a property management company to rent on your behalf.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski If you're intent on being a bloated tick on the corpus of the productive economy, at least own up to it. You're a parasite upon those who do actually productive labor, and they therefore resent you for it. And that is partly because some wish they could be in your place. There's no point in running a public relations campaign. Suck your blood, and then drop off before you explode, and lay some eggs.
Ha... ive done more good for this economy than you could ever hope for.. I have taken in homeless people on abotu a dozen occasions, in some cases paid for their college, given them room and board for years. I feed the homless every weekend I can, I have generated huge quantities of wealth, much of which i have given away for free (either as money or as resources)...
I will take what i have done to this keyboard warrior nonsense any day of the week.
@freemo @AdrianRiskin @jeffowski Parasitism plus altruism does not equal symbiosis. They are orthogonal. Lauds for the good you have done. Curses for the bad. Same as for everyone else.
@freemo @log @AdrianRiskin -- You make charitable actions to help the homeless as you state, but you keep upholding the systems that make the homeless because you still benefit from those systems.
I don't know how to show you how morally bankrupt that really is. You find ways to placate you conscience but you won't change the real issues for fear of losing your wealth. Greedy.
It's funny that I wasn't the only one to see it, just the first.
@freemo @jeffowski
3 defining aspects of capitalism
1. Private ownership
2. Employer-employee relationships
3. Markets
This is just a general definition based on how people use the term informed by historical criticisms.
What is seen as capitalism will still depend on the particular analysis of capitalism. An analysis focused on workplace democracy would not see the Soviet Union as non-capitalist because it did not have universal workers' self-management