Arthur,
But capitalism solved the distribution very problem well indeed in
the advanced countries (at least until about 1980/90 when mean real
wages [average wages for most of the population] started declining).
Most of the population, except for young adults (not yet earning
enough) or many of the old adults (no longer earning and living on
state welfare) had the same standard kit of consumer goods (house,
contents, car, foreign holiday, entertainments) as the rich. The rich
had more of them, or higher status versions of them, but nothing
uniquely different. All had a far higher standard of living than the
ordinary person had 150 years previously; in the 1980/90s all had as
many services laid on (the equivalent of at least 150 personal
servants) as most royalty did 150 years previously.
What capitalism didn't distribute, and couldn't distribute, were
those goods and services which, for one reason or another (spatial,
logistical, ecological, social), are always in short supply, will
always be in short supply and can never be manufactured (and thus be
made cheap enough for all), no matter how much capital is available.
I'm talking of homes in highly desirable locations (city or
countryside), private jets, luxury yachts, the latest life-saving
surgical operations, access to the politically powerful (whatever
class or specialization they happen to be at any one time). (All this
was laid out in Fred Hirsch's Social Limits to Growth, 1977,
trailblazed by Thorstein Veblen 150 years previously, and only just
beginning to be taken up seriously by other economists such as Robert
Frank and Andrew Oswald.)
Keith
At 16:33 29/12/2011, you wrote:
Ed,
I said that capitalism solves the production problem but seems
incapable of solving the distribution problem.
I didn't say anything about the quality of what was distributed by
the communist govts.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:25 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933
I think that we have to be careful about communism solving the
distribution problem. Yes indeed, everyone may have had something
to eat and a place to sleep in the USSR, but in millions of cases
that consisted of a very cold bed and mouldy bread in the
Gulag. Take a look at Anne Applebaum's "Gulag, a history" for
examples of what distribution meant under Stalin. And I don't think
capitalism should be expected to solve the distribution
problem. It's job is to be efficient and productive. Government's
job is to siphon off as much income as possible from the productive
process and undertake distribution as necessary.
And Sally, I don't think the economy is a good place to try to find
meaning in one's life. Meaning has to be found elsewhere, in the
arts for example, or in spirituality and religion, or in working for
the good of your fellow man. The economy should be seen as a place
that provides you with the resources to do meaningful things, nothing more.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Lerner" <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
To: "RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION"
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933
Can part of the problem be that vast numbers of people find so
little meaningful in their lives? Of course, if
so, what to do about that and, most important, how to recognize and
avoid the dangers inherent in the yearning
for meaning.
Sally
________________________________________
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[[email protected]] on behalf of Arthur Cordell
[[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:13 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933
The tragic irony is that communism solved the distribution problem
but couldn't solve the production problem while the reverse holds
true for capitalism: production problem solved but can't solve the
distribution problem.
arthur
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:53 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933
It seems that as a civilization we have resolved the production
problems but can't figure out how to make the distribution work in
any decent and humane way.
M
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 5:29 PM
To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
Subject: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933
The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the
hands of which we found ourselves after the war(one) is not a
success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just.
It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods. In short we
dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder
what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed.
* National self-sufficiency
(1933)<<http://www.panarchy.org/keynes/national.1933.html>http://www.panarchy.org/keynes/national.1933.html>
Section 3, republished in Collected Writings Vol. 11 (1982).
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
