I am waay behind but this thread is most interesting. It may take days for me to catch up and I might miss some sleep but it looks worth it. One point I thought I should bring up in reply to this statement:
Vam's preference (one which I would personally share) - if I > understand him correctly - is to broaden the aspects of human nature > on which we base the structures along which we order our societies, to > include such concepts as solidarity, fairness and compassion; also, it > can be argued, fundamental characteristics of human nature. A fine goal to strive towards. But why put Congress in charge of dispersing the goodies? Many large companies donate to charities and some have their own foundations that do much for the betterment of society. One such company right here in my very own beautiful city of Houston was the much maligned Enron. Ken Lay was an icon of philanthropy around here right up until he was arrested. Ok, so maybe not the best endorsement for corporate compassionate characteristics but I thought it was necessary to point out that profits(even ill gained ones) can contribute to society. I'm sure there are many, many companies large and small that contribute to charities and support foundations that supply scholarships etc. if for no other reason then good PR. Increase corp. taxes and this leaves less goodies for charity. Remove write-offs for these donations and things get even worse. This, > however, does seem to involve a more socialist vector, in which the > primacy of private property becomes more relativised. I, of course, disagree with this statement. I have much, much more reading to do and I won't do it all tonight. Thanks to all that have contributed to this most interesting topic. dj On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:20 PM, frantheman<[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, gruff, I'll jump in - a bit! > > This thread started being about what it means to own something. It's > meandered a bit, as threads do, and has arrived at questions > concerning the recent financial crisis and what has been done, not > done, done badly, done well, could have been done, etc. This has given > rise to considerations about systems, fixing systems, changing > systems, whether systems are central, peripheral, whether we should be > more concerned with basic questions of human nature. > > Phew! Cooking stuff down like this is strenuous, but I often find that > it is helpful in a complex discussion to briefly recapitulate what's > been going on. > > I'd like to try to look at some of the stuff you and Vam have been > working on within the original context of the thread. One of the basic > characteristics of "free-market capitalism," which gruff prefers, is > the primacy it gives to the concept of the sanctity of private > ownership. (I won't go into the issue of whether, or how far, this > system is actually free and fair - although it is a major point for > discussion). But, simplified, the basis of capitalism is personal > possession. Using a very old way of thinking (followed, among others, > by Marx), agreed units of energy, surplus to the basic needs of > survival and living, become the property of individuals, who use them > as they wish (money/capital). They can be traded for goods or > property, given to others (inheritance or gifts) or "invested," put to > use in such a way that their values multiply. This "surplus value" > becomes the property of the one who has invested the original units > (and, no, I don't want to get into a discussion of Marx's theory of > surplus value here), less the ensuing costs (particularly labour > costs). If a "fair" price is paid for this labour, and those involved > in the value-increasing project are genuinely empowered in the process > and given a share of the proceeds of success then it need not > necessarily seen as exploitative (although, for Marx, it always is). > It is, however, a system which invites both exploitation (both of > people and environments) and speculation. This has been, historically, > one characteristic of market capitalism. Another has been a massive > creation of surplus value. Gruff sees the way forward in preserving > this while regulating to minimise the opportunites for and adverse > effects of exploitation and speculation. > > This is, now pay attention, my US American friends ;-), what Western > Europeans have been practicing since the 1950s. It's called "Social > market economy" (soziale Marktwirtschaft) and is one of the basic > ideas behind the European Union. It has been under strong pressure > since the 1980s, particularly by neo-liberal thinkers inspired by > economic thinkers like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (and their > political avatars, Reagan and Thatcher). > > The crash is, to a large part, the result of the prevelance of those > trains of thought, the end products of the developments in the > eighties, which saw state/societal regulation as deeply suspicious, > something to be reduced as much as possible, and inclined to see > markets as being largely "self-regulating." > > The chance which the crash gives is to critically examine some of the > basic premises behind the capitalist system, particularly in the free- > wheeling incarnation which was praised as being so successful from > 1989 to 2008. You can choose to repair the system, but otherwise leave > it basically intact. Maybe move more towards social market economics, > increasing controls and (trying to) close off avenues for abuse, > exploitation and speculation. The basic principle of private ownership > remains unchanged, perhaps, because it is argued, that it best takes > into account the idea of the centrality of self-interest as a > fundamental characteristic of human nature. This, it seems to me, is > the path gruff suggests. > > Vam's preference (one which I would personally share) - if I > understand him correctly - is to broaden the aspects of human nature > on which we base the structures along which we order our societies, to > include such concepts as solidarity, fairness and compassion; also, it > can be argued, fundamental characteristics of human nature. This, > however, does seem to involve a more socialist vector, in which the > primacy of private property becomes more relativised. This need not > mean a new Soviet system (I would sincerely hope not!). It does have > the advantage of allowing us to examine some sacred cows a bit more > honestly. For example, what about ideas of guaranteeing all members of > society a basic income which would guarantee their material existence, > irrespective of work? Should we think about imposing limits on how > much can be inherited (given that people would no longer have to worry > about the existential security of their offspring)? Could we develop a > sense of communal moral suspicion of the idea of making profits out of > the illness of others, or the basic principle that health, like clean > air, water, food and a roof over one's head, is a basic human right? > > Personally, if the result of the crash of 08 is more "social" in the > market economy, then I'd be happy enough. Although I would regret the > (once more) lost chance to look more deeply at the ways we organise > ourselves. But the window of of opportunity is closing. Still there > are other things going on in the world. Maybe we should be looking > more closely at South America. People like Evo Morales in Bolivia, for > example. I don't dare mention Hugo Chavez, for fear that Don will come > over here to beat me up :-) > > Francis > > On 3 Aug., 19:03, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: >> Chris actually got this round going back on Aug 2, 1:11 pm with his >> series of one-liners but I'd like to see the both of you in this as >> well. >> >> Nice summary Francis. Yes, I can see we are both arguing along very >> similar lines and aiming at the same goal. But I'd like to see you >> and Chris get into the fray as well. The more voices the more stable >> and productive the discussion would be. After all, we each know each >> other well enough to assess each others words fairly well. >> >> /e >> >> On Aug 3, 9:23 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Now this is what I call a discussion, Vam and gruff! (BB47 and >> > deripsni could both learn from you :-)) >> >> > Maybe it's because the three of us have been around here for a while >> > that I can really appreciate what both of you are saying, because I >> > know something about the way the two of you think about a lot of >> > things. Actually, I see you both arguing along similar lines; Vam has >> > a professional background in systems analysis and quality management >> > and has a lot of experience in the practical work of building, using >> > and changing systems, while keeping his gaze frimly fixed on the goals >> > (QM as it should be be, but, in my experience, so seldom is); gruff as >> > someone who sees people/societies trying stuff, getting into messes, >> > starting over and, somehow, sometimes, getting it a bit more right the >> > next time (that old 51%/49% optimistic analogy that I often doubt but >> > always admire). >> >> > So ... I think I'll stay out of this for a while and hope you both >> > carry on! >> >> > Francis > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
