"You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize."
I also wish they'd get their economics straight. Exploitation is not "capitalist". Exploitation tends to occur even more in non-capitalist economies. In fact, exploitation of others is directly contrary to Smithian capitalism and free markets, which depend on purely voluntary exchanges. Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options(see modern human trafficking for details), or when you're compelling them in ways that don't happen to be illegal. The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism. I don't disagree with your implied premise that other systems such as fuedalism, Stalinism, or slavery exploited people in far worse ways, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a path where free-market capitalism is the ideal.
"You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options"
Nonsense. That isn't "consent". There's nothing "voluntary" about that at all. Coerced behavior is not "voluntary", in any sense of the term. They are mutually exclusive.
"The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism"
Smith described the provably best economic system the world has ever seen, which led to a smaller percentage of people starving than ever in history. Can you somehow show that is not true? I doubt it, since it is a fact.
Even China has fewer starving people now that it has adopted more elements of Capitalism.
You're reaching. It comes off as "Consent is defined the exactly the set of things I need it to be for my world-view to be ideal, rather than the conventional definition"
Nonsense. Those people are forced into suboptimal actions by others taking actions which limit their choices, for their own benefit. It's exploitation, there is no consent in that situation on any side.
"Voluntary" means something you VOLUNTEER to do. If you are forced or coerced into it, that isn't volunteering so it isn't voluntary. It's that simple.
Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion, and the libertarian crowd would be all for it.
"Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion"
As long as there are people constraining you to those choices, yes it does. In fact what you describe is very close to the definition of coercion.
"and the libertarian crowd would be all for it."
Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of situation that Libertarians are vehemently against. Again you demonstrate that you don't know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Libertarian party website and read about their actual position on force and coercion.
Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. Postmodern liberalism is much closer to the philosophy you're ascribing there.
"Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. "
Then you haven't been listening to "real" Libertarians. By that I mean people who are members of the actual party, or who are familiar with and subscribe to its actual principles.
Of course, it also depends on whether you are speaking of "libertarian" (a general attitude) or "Libartarian" (an actual philosophy and political party). It is unclear which because you have spelled it both ways.
Many people call themselves Libertarians who aren't. Just as many people who call themselves Republicans are really
"Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know."
Except it's not a "true Scotsman" argument. Because I'm not just defining "Libertarian" off-the-cuff, as would be required for a True Scotsman argument. The Libertarian party has a very definite, written, official platform and it is there on their website for anybody to read. So there is no ambiguity about what a "true" Libertarian is. It is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Therefore it's not a "true Scotsman" situation at all.
Seriously, man. Take a class on debate. Learn how to tell the REAL
Except during that time, the majority of the world embraced the opposite side from that, where the state owned everything, and 'planned' the economy. All it did was result in shortages, starvation, and misery.
"You see that gold mine over there? Imma exploit the shit outta that bitch, and getting your panties in a twist over nomenclature ain't gonna stop me!"
"Nomenclature" aside, exploiting a piece of ground is different from exploiting people. Some people might use them together but they are not the same things.
"What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job."
Exploit n. To take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends
If you don't leave, then you are consenting. Freely given consent implies voluntary. There is no contradiction there. However: if the consent is not freely given, then it may not be voluntary.
Just so we don't get caught up in a scuffle over terminology: when I wrote "exploit" I meant it in the sense of "to coerce".
A coerced agreement may be consent but it is not FREELY GIVEN consent. That is
But if you do leave, then you may wind up homeless, which is essentially a crime in the USA. And it's non-trivial to leave the country — just try, say, walking across Mexico. Or even driving across it, without some prior planning, not to mention funding.
So you're saying that having a job, which enables you to have a home and food is being exploited.
You have it all wrong. Being subjected to artificial scarcity is being exploited; in turn, it requires you to have a job. This is separate from having to work.
Not surprised to see a coward fail to understand the difference. Run along in fear now, child.
No coward. He never said all jobs are being exploited. There are lots of fair employers. There are also lots of unfair employers (not necessarily in the same areas, nor employing the same kinds of workers), and they are indeed exploiting their workers.
Example: American cable TV and internet companies. In most parts of the U.S., their use can be said to be coerced because there are few if any other choices.
Right, and the same thing applies to work for many people. The are exploited, the could resign, as it's not slavery. Yet they don't have any other choice of work, at least none that isn't equally exploitative. And without work, they and their families starve.
Now I'm glad that you don't consider that these people are doing those jobs voluntarily, but most right wingers and libertarians would say they do.
As I said, a better antonym for exploited is fairness (or to be treated fairly).
I should add: he also seems to have the mistaken impression that Austrian economics is somehow anathema to altruism, which is ridiculous.
To be blunt, either the author or OP needs a lot of schooling in both politics and economics. One of the two is -- or perhaps both are -- conflating completely separate ideas into a great, hopeless muddle.
Based on this review, I think this is a book that can be safely ignored without negative consequences.
Well, Austrian economics is easy to take apart as pseudo-scientific bullshit based on fundamentally flawed assumptions rather than empiricism, so forgive my lack of concern over that quibble, especially since the neoliberal policies that are treated as the conclusion of the theory are fundamentally an anathema to altruism.
"Well, Austrian economics is easy to take apart as pseudo-scientific bullshit based on fundamentally flawed assumptions rather than empiricism, so forgive my lack of concern over that quibble, especially since the neoliberal policies that are treated as the conclusion of the theory are fundamentally an anathema to altruism."
Nice troll. You didn't address the actual point but used it as a jumping off point to change the subject and rant about your lack of education in economics.
Please give us an actual example of these fundamental flaws you describe, rather than painting with such broad, vague brushes. I can say any school of economics is based on flawed assumptions, but without an actual example it amounts to nothing more than hot air.
Also, despite Wikipedia's use of the word, Austrian economics pre-dated "neo-liberalism
You didn't address the actual point but used it as a jumping off point to change the subject and rant about your lack of education in economics.
Yeah, thinking Austrian school has no bearing on reality is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal "uneducated" of me. Yep.
an example of a fundamental flaw, for the pedantic and self-righteous: The fundamental "axiom"(note this bizzare and outlandish term used for hypotheses, that in science would be tested, not assumed) of action, which posits: "human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."
Now... if you've ever met a person, you would no the frequently make no effort or action towards their personal goals. You might say "well that's just people being lazy, economics is for people who work," but almost every major praxology in the of Austrian economics takes the axiom of action as an assumption about the entire population.
Now people throw in post-hoc and ad-hoc justifications for why these things don't matter like the efficient market hypothesis, but in the end, the Austrian school has no empircal roots and can basically be considered bunk in a non-hypothetical world.
"Yeah, thinking Austrian school has no bearing on reality is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal "uneducated" of me. Yep."
Yep. Austrian economists INVENTED many of the principles and equations that other schools of economics use as fundamental tools. But you didn't seem to be aware of that.
But... nice example! It just so happens, that Keynesian economics and Neo-Classical economics (which together make up the majority of "mainstream" economists today) ALSO rely, at their very roots, on the fundamental principle that "human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."
They teach you in Econ 101 that an underlying assumption of all of economics is that human beings make rational choices to maximize their own benefit.
A statement which is not actually true. For example, the Austrian school doesn't make that assumption and a lot of economic behavior studies are about how humans appear to deviate from rational choice making.
"A statement which is not actually true. For example, the Austrian school doesn't make that assumption and a lot of economic behavior studies are about how humans appear to deviate from rational choice making."
(1) I didn't claim Austrian economics includes that idea, GP did. My comment referred to other schools of economics.
And (2) show me an Econ 101 class in a U.S. university that teaches Austrian economics. I've never heard of one. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea though.
Regardless, just about all the equations in macroeconomics are based in the idea that people are making rational decisions. They HAVE TO be: you can't predict the outcome of irrational behavior. Assuming irrational behavior woul
I made an actual argument, and you haven't defended the notion of axiomatic idiocy at all. Because guess what: sane economists, contrary to your delusions, don't use it.
"I made an actual argument, and you haven't defended the notion of axiomatic idiocy at all. Because guess what: sane economists, contrary to your delusions, don't use it."
I could find 100 authoritative sources, but I'm not going to bother.
"Economics is the social science that studies how rational individuals, groups, and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), manage scarce resources"
"OOOh, looky there you answered jack shit about why praxology isn't retarded, my key point, because, surprise: you don't understand Austrian school."
It's not my fault you don't understand how to argue.
As a reminder, THIS is what this whole exchange has been about:
"human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals"
Which, as I stated and then demonstrated via that wikipedia link, is not at all limited to the Austrian school, but is in fact a fundamental axiom of ALL "scientific" economics. If Wikipedia is not an authoritative enough source for you, try pickup up a book on the subject.
Changing the goalposts will get you nowhere. If you want to make a different argument, go ahead and make it, but don'
Yes, that is exactly what I did. I showed you that all of economics assumes what I quoted above. You were trying to use it as an argument against the Austrian school, and I pointed out that it is common to ALL of economics. So if the Austrians are wrong about that, then so is everybody else.
I'm not going to bother to prove it any further because just about any college economics book you can find will frigging well tell you the same thing.
I have nothing further to say. I made my point, I demonstrated i
It still astonishes me that people can so readily embrace the fact that humans are like other animals and yet fail to understand that humans are social animals and are most like other social animals.
What doesn't? When nothing short of people starving to death(as if that's the way people would choose to go out when crime is an option) will satisfy you, you aren't going to be satisfied in any society that works.
Congratulations. (Score:5, Funny)
You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize.
Re: (Score:2)
"You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize."
I also wish they'd get their economics straight. Exploitation is not "capitalist". Exploitation tends to occur even more in non-capitalist economies. In fact, exploitation of others is directly contrary to Smithian capitalism and free markets, which depend on purely voluntary exchanges. Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
Re:Congratulations. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options(see modern human trafficking for details), or when you're compelling them in ways that don't happen to be illegal. The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism. I don't disagree with your implied premise that other systems such as fuedalism, Stalinism, or slavery exploited people in far worse ways, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a path where free-market capitalism is the ideal.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe exploitation isn't a strictly either-or concept.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options"
Nonsense. That isn't "consent". There's nothing "voluntary" about that at all. Coerced behavior is not "voluntary", in any sense of the term. They are mutually exclusive.
"The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism"
Smith described the provably best economic system the world has ever seen, which led to a smaller percentage of people starving than ever in history. Can you somehow show that is not true? I doubt it, since it is a fact.
Even China has fewer starving people now that it has adopted more elements of Capitalism.
History doesn't lie: no eco
Re: (Score:2)
You're reaching.
It comes off as "Consent is defined the exactly the set of things I need it to be for my world-view to be ideal, rather than the conventional definition"
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Those people are forced into suboptimal actions by others taking actions which limit their choices, for their own benefit. It's exploitation, there is no consent in that situation on any side.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion, and the libertarian crowd would be all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion"
As long as there are people constraining you to those choices, yes it does. In fact what you describe is very close to the definition of coercion.
"and the libertarian crowd would be all for it."
Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of situation that Libertarians are vehemently against. Again you demonstrate that you don't know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Libertarian party website and read about their actual position on force and coercion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. Postmodern liberalism is much closer to the philosophy you're ascribing there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, I call bullshit on the fact that that's not what libertarians actually say at all. "
Then you haven't been listening to "real" Libertarians. By that I mean people who are members of the actual party, or who are familiar with and subscribe to its actual principles.
Of course, it also depends on whether you are speaking of "libertarian" (a general attitude) or "Libartarian" (an actual philosophy and political party). It is unclear which because you have spelled it both ways.
Many people call themselves Libertarians who aren't. Just as many people who call themselves Republicans are really
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, yeah, no true Scotsmen put sugar on their oatmeal. I know."
Except it's not a "true Scotsman" argument. Because I'm not just defining "Libertarian" off-the-cuff, as would be required for a True Scotsman argument. The Libertarian party has a very definite, written, official platform and it is there on their website for anybody to read. So there is no ambiguity about what a "true" Libertarian is. It is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. Therefore it's not a "true Scotsman" situation at all.
Seriously, man. Take a class on debate. Learn how to tell the REAL
Re: (Score:3)
Except during that time, the majority of the world embraced the opposite side from that, where the state owned everything, and 'planned' the economy. All it did was result in shortages, starvation, and misery.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"You see that gold mine over there? Imma exploit the shit outta that bitch, and getting your panties in a twist over nomenclature ain't gonna stop me!"
"Nomenclature" aside, exploiting a piece of ground is different from exploiting people. Some people might use them together but they are not the same things.
Re: (Score:3)
Aww, it's like capitalism for toddlers!
Re: (Score:2)
Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job.
The antonym of exploitation is fairness.
Re: (Score:2)
"What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job."
Exploit n. To take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends
If you don't leave, then you are consenting. Freely given consent implies voluntary. There is no contradiction there. However: if the consent is not freely given, then it may not be voluntary.
Just so we don't get caught up in a scuffle over terminology: when I wrote "exploit" I meant it in the sense of "to coerce".
A coerced agreement may be consent but it is not FREELY GIVEN consent. That is
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't leave, then you are consenting.
But if you do leave, then you may wind up homeless, which is essentially a crime in the USA. And it's non-trivial to leave the country — just try, say, walking across Mexico. Or even driving across it, without some prior planning, not to mention funding.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that having a job, which enables you to have a home and food is being exploited.
You have it all wrong. Being subjected to artificial scarcity is being exploited; in turn, it requires you to have a job. This is separate from having to work.
Not surprised to see a coward fail to understand the difference. Run along in fear now, child.
Re: (Score:2)
No coward. He never said all jobs are being exploited. There are lots of fair employers. There are also lots of unfair employers (not necessarily in the same areas, nor employing the same kinds of workers), and they are indeed exploiting their workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Example: American cable TV and internet companies. In most parts of the U.S., their use can be said to be coerced because there are few if any other choices.
Right, and the same thing applies to work for many people. The are exploited, the could resign, as it's not slavery. Yet they don't have any other choice of work, at least none that isn't equally exploitative. And without work, they and their families starve.
Now I'm glad that you don't consider that these people are doing those jobs voluntarily, but most right wingers and libertarians would say they do.
As I said, a better antonym for exploited is fairness (or to be treated fairly).
Re: (Score:2)
To be blunt, either the author or OP needs a lot of schooling in both politics and economics. One of the two is -- or perhaps both are -- conflating completely separate ideas into a great, hopeless muddle.
Based on this review, I think this is a book that can be safely ignored without negative consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Austrian economics is easy to take apart as pseudo-scientific bullshit based on fundamentally flawed assumptions rather than empiricism, so forgive my lack of concern over that quibble, especially since the neoliberal policies that are treated as the conclusion of the theory are fundamentally an anathema to altruism.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, Austrian economics is easy to take apart as pseudo-scientific bullshit based on fundamentally flawed assumptions rather than empiricism, so forgive my lack of concern over that quibble, especially since the neoliberal policies that are treated as the conclusion of the theory are fundamentally an anathema to altruism."
Nice troll. You didn't address the actual point but used it as a jumping off point to change the subject and rant about your lack of education in economics.
Please give us an actual example of these fundamental flaws you describe, rather than painting with such broad, vague brushes. I can say any school of economics is based on flawed assumptions, but without an actual example it amounts to nothing more than hot air.
Also, despite Wikipedia's use of the word, Austrian economics pre-dated "neo-liberalism
Re:Congratulations. (Score:4, Informative)
You didn't address the actual point but used it as a jumping off point to change the subject and rant about your lack of education in economics.
Yeah, thinking Austrian school has no bearing on reality is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal "uneducated" of me. Yep.
an example of a fundamental flaw, for the pedantic and self-righteous:
The fundamental "axiom"(note this bizzare and outlandish term used for hypotheses, that in science would be tested, not assumed) of action, which posits:
"human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."
Now... if you've ever met a person, you would no the frequently make no effort or action towards their personal goals. You might say "well that's just people being lazy, economics is for people who work," but almost every major praxology in the of Austrian economics takes the axiom of action as an assumption about the entire population.
Now people throw in post-hoc and ad-hoc justifications for why these things don't matter like the efficient market hypothesis, but in the end, the Austrian school has no empircal roots and can basically be considered bunk in a non-hypothetical world.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, thinking Austrian school has no bearing on reality is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal "uneducated" of me. Yep."
Yep. Austrian economists INVENTED many of the principles and equations that other schools of economics use as fundamental tools. But you didn't seem to be aware of that.
But... nice example! It just so happens, that Keynesian economics and Neo-Classical economics (which together make up the majority of "mainstream" economists today) ALSO rely, at their very roots, on the fundamental principle that "human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."
Which means that to the extent Austrian economic
Re: (Score:3)
They teach you in Econ 101 that an underlying assumption of all of economics is that human beings make rational choices to maximize their own benefit.
A statement which is not actually true. For example, the Austrian school doesn't make that assumption and a lot of economic behavior studies are about how humans appear to deviate from rational choice making.
Re: (Score:2)
"A statement which is not actually true. For example, the Austrian school doesn't make that assumption and a lot of economic behavior studies are about how humans appear to deviate from rational choice making."
(1) I didn't claim Austrian economics includes that idea, GP did. My comment referred to other schools of economics.
And (2) show me an Econ 101 class in a U.S. university that teaches Austrian economics. I've never heard of one. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea though.
Regardless, just about all the equations in macroeconomics are based in the idea that people are making rational decisions. They HAVE TO be: you can't predict the outcome of irrational behavior. Assuming irrational behavior woul
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I had a feeling the phrase "econ 101" would come up, because that's as far as any Austrian dipshits ever seem to pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, I had a feeling the phrase "econ 101" would come up, because that's as far as any Austrian dipshits ever seem to pay attention."
That seems like a pretty arrogant ad-hominem for somebody who couldn't find a real reason for claiming Austrian economics is wrong.
Get back to me when you have an actual argument to make.
Re: (Score:2)
I made an actual argument, and you haven't defended the notion of axiomatic idiocy at all. Because guess what: sane economists, contrary to your delusions, don't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
"I made an actual argument, and you haven't defended the notion of axiomatic idiocy at all. Because guess what: sane economists, contrary to your delusions, don't use it."
I could find 100 authoritative sources, but I'm not going to bother.
From Wikipedia's page on "economics" [wikipedia.org], paragraph 1, sentence 1:
"Economics is the social science that studies how rational individuals, groups, and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), manage scarce resources"
[emphasis added]
Re: (Score:2)
OOOh, looky there you answered jack shit about why praxology isn't retarded, my key point, because, surprise: you don't understand Austrian school.
I'm not sure you even understand your own points.
Re: (Score:2)
"OOOh, looky there you answered jack shit about why praxology isn't retarded, my key point, because, surprise: you don't understand Austrian school."
It's not my fault you don't understand how to argue.
As a reminder, THIS is what this whole exchange has been about:
"human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals"
Which, as I stated and then demonstrated via that wikipedia link, is not at all limited to the Austrian school, but is in fact a fundamental axiom of ALL "scientific" economics. If Wikipedia is not an authoritative enough source for you, try pickup up a book on the subject.
Changing the goalposts will get you nowhere. If you want to make a different argument, go ahead and make it, but don'
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That's not what you did, and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nope. That's not what you did, and you know it."
Yes, that is exactly what I did. I showed you that all of economics assumes what I quoted above. You were trying to use it as an argument against the Austrian school, and I pointed out that it is common to ALL of economics. So if the Austrians are wrong about that, then so is everybody else.
I'm not going to bother to prove it any further because just about any college economics book you can find will frigging well tell you the same thing.
I have nothing further to say. I made my point, I demonstrated i
Re:Congratulations. (Score:4, Interesting)
It still astonishes me that people can so readily embrace the fact that humans are like other animals and yet fail to understand that humans are social animals and are most like other social animals.
Re: (Score:2)
This should seriously piss off the Libertardian Social Darwinists.
Re: (Score:2)
What doesn't? When nothing short of people starving to death(as if that's the way people would choose to go out when crime is an option) will satisfy you, you aren't going to be satisfied in any society that works.
Re: (Score:2)
We're good on the "self interest" bit. It's the "enlightened" part that we seem to have so much trouble with.
Re: (Score:1)
You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize.
Too bad nobody can ever seem to agree on what the enlightened part actually is.
Re: (Score:2)