Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Capitalism: Yesterday, Today; Valid and Not

We are at the final stage. The distribution system is for money alone. The goal, or motive, now is not the creation of some item of worth, which might be simply called "value." (There does not exist any "better" use of the word that economists have discovered.) Rather, the task is to get one's paws on a hunk of dough; the only point is: pull your own hunk, off of the ball of dough. OK. So, I am trying to say that it is just money. Money alone. That's all. When this is the only idea left, that not capitalism, or, better, not validly. What the different kinds of capitalist systems have in common, though, is that there is the same general idea or motive. One want to get one's own piece of the system. In one sense, then, it is ongoing and that is what persons have been doing all along.
     How do you do that? -this is what economic actors have been asking for five, six, seven, or eight generations (in my family's history maybe four---before that the "shtetel" only! Only that...ha ha ha) During this period of legitimate or valid capitalism the choices or ways of getting that piece of money were really not so great. But now? This is totally different. This we must distinguish from the other, more "valid" capitalism.
     Now it is all about to end, if not reformed. Economics needs to be modified.
     We need to ask: what kind of capitalism shall it be? Valid or invalid? Which sounds better? "Valid" sounds better. And it is better.

     Let's move on to another take on this that I wrote  the same day:

     Economics can be reduced to a simple question. The question is about how you get your money.
     There are two ways of doing it. There are ways that are valid, and, there are the invalid ways of getting money. Or, just right and wrong ways, which has the same meaning. From 1800 to 1999, capitalism functioned. It functioned, at least to some degree. It existed. So, the way in which persons did it (got money) was basically alright (which is to say, "valid").

     We can say in general that there is no way capitalism could last forever. It is not perfect or immaculate. It depends on its causes and conditions, it has many subtle things that need to be there, some countries still cannot do it, etc. When is it "time up," then. If it is not never, it has to happen sometime. Now, the time is up!
     But that doesn't mean we cannot reform! This idea of reforming the system is that so bad. There is zero option of creating a different system out of capitalism, however you may conceive of that. (Socialism, etc., you know.) But if reformed---then we may get a few more years. There could be a reform and then another small period of "correct function," or "vital capitalism." The reforms could be made. (My ideas are available so contact me.)
     If your way of getting money is invalid, you are now of no use to anybody. Your worth as a human being has come to an end.
     What the world really depends on is good will. If we can express our good will through capitalism, that is fine. Life has some hope.

Friday, January 22, 2016

How Problems of Growth Exist, at the Present Time

The big secret is that since before WWII capitalism depends on what the experts call "growth." In the 19th cent., Malthus said poverty was uncurable.
Capitalism was still new.

Wages began to rise in 1850 (in England) or 1880 (US). (see: F. Braudel) Until then, capitalism was just a convenient way of killing poor persons (Engels, the 1844 book). The wealthy, upper-class elitist types were surprised at the advent of growth. Now -- today -- after @one hundred years -- they regard it as essential. What happens if the ability to keep growing is lost to the system? Up until recently, the professional so-called "economists" refused to even discuss the notion. After all, growth had become practically their number one favorite notion.

Obviously, if inequality increases, and the "rich" get more and more, a failure of sustainable systemic growth would mean that commercial wealth production is going to be transferred away from many persons. If the problem is in t he nature of the system, then the solution is to change the system. It is to create a "capitalism version 2." That would at least be change, if not "Growth," in the fashionable sense that economists have gotten used to. On the other hand, it would be a kind of healthy growth in the way we think about economics.