All good stories usually start here. This is the beginning, or is it? If we are truly going to solve any problems, we must first realize there is a problem, and then seek out the root of that problem. However, as we have often discovered, where we typically think the problem begins is where we first noticed it. However, in this, we are often mistaken.
For instance, we may look upon an instance of theft, and determine the theft was a direct result of one person having what another desired. By this logic, we may also figure this act was brought on by greed. Finding agreement in this notion, we may decide to punish this person for being so greedy. Thus we have prisons and so called correctional institutions.
Similarly, we may determine that all of the bankers and lawyers are also greedy, and thus seek jobs which will offer them the highest reward for the least work. Such a conclusion can easily lead us to believe that not only are some people greedy, but that many are also lazy.
Next, we may examine the lifestyle of those who live on welfare subsistence living. It is really easy to arrive at the conclusion that these people are not as greedy as bankers or lawyers, but are certainly lazy.
So far, all of our observations seem to confirm our suspicions. However, it is important to realize here that we have only conducted the most cursory of examinations, and we have relied solely on intuition for our source of knowledge. These are the types of queries which lead us to such faulty conclusions as the human nature argument.
Further, deeper analysis will reveal that our hypothesis doesn't always hold true. Some people are more altruistic than others, even given the same genetics/parentage.
If our hypothesis were true, we would expect all people to be greedy and lazy. Such is the nature of nature, or more specifically human nature. Nature is what occurs naturally, regardless of environment, or otherwise external influence. So that, a person who is greedy, would, by the human nature argument, have been born that way, the same would be true of laziness. So, if not all people are born lazy, and or greedy, then these traits do not belong to the human nature argument.
If they are not a part of human nature, then they may be genetic traits. However, if this were true, then we would expect all people of a particular genetic profile to be one, or the other, or both. However, this doesn't hold true either.
Given all that we apparently only thought we know about this phenomenon, is there anything about it we can honestly claim to know? Well, I'm glad you asked. The answer is, yes and no. We do know some things which we have learned in the process of studying this situation as well as several others. We know that at least the vast majority of what influences our behavior in environmentally borne. This is to say, we are more nurture than nature.
In fact, recent research into epi-genetics would tend to support this notion. It appears that we are so tied to our environmental influences that even our genetics can be remapped according to our surroundings.
If, we are so environmentally influenced, the question asks itself, "How is it some of us are so aggressive, violent, greedy, or lazy?" and, "What, within our environment, could possibly have caused so much aberration?"
Delving ever further into it all, we can see that almost all criminal activity is linked directly or indirectly to money and the monetary system. However, this doesn't really explain, in any detail, why some only steal merchandise, or food products, and others only steal money. After all, if one were to steal enough money, one could purchase those items which are coveted, brand new, rather than taking them in slightly to very used condition.
However, we could determine that since so much criminal activity is so closely tied to money, and the monetary system, that money itself is to blame for the behavior. This seems to be supported by the following quote from 1 Timothy 6:10, "for a root of all the evils is the love of money, which certain longing for did go astray from the faith, and themselves did pierce through with many sorrows" - Young's literal translation.
However, upon reflection, this approach seems a bit foolish since money has no conscience or will of its own.
So, if it isn't human nature and it isn't money, then what could it possibly be which causes so much aberrant behavior? and, Just exactly how deeply do we need to dig to get at the roots?
Since it would seem that we have traced most crimes to money, perhaps we should stick with that one a while longer. Where does money come from anyhow, and what purpose does it serve?
Money has long been used as a system of trade convenience. In fact, the precursor was the barter system, of trading goods for goods... the precursor of which was the gift economy. So, let's start there and work our way forward for a little while.
Before Man was Mankind, he was a hominid, or so the story of evolution goes. I, for one, subscribe to this theory. At that time he was no more than a hunter gatherer, who lived in family groups, or extended families known today as tribes. During those times, food was often scarce. In time, through pattern seeking behaviors we still recognize today, and can recognize in other animals in lab tests, he began to tell time and seasons. He became capable of recognizing certain types of edible food items and this knowledge was passed down through the ages, often by example, and then eventually through communication methods which were gradually improved. Eventually, he became capable of not only harvesting crops of grain, fruits, and vegetables, he also learned to plant and raise these crops and cultivate them. Almost simultaneously, he learned to domesticate animals for food, clothing, shelter and tools. Previous to this time, we can see examples of what looks a lot like a gift based economy. In this gift economy items are exchanged, but not as a form of direct barter or trade. There is no expectation of immediate reward, or return in kind.
Upon having learned these agrarian traits, Man began to build settlements, which eventually became villages, and then towns. It is during this time that Man, having learned to tame the land and the beasts begins to think more highly of himself. In some cases they could even be said to have seen themselves as rivaling the gods they had so long worshiped. They felt they had dominion, and would claim property rights. Rights which were often defended by brute force when challenged. It is around this time that a system of exchange begins to arise. This system, in many cases is conducted with strangers along trade routes. Strangers who may never be able to repay the customary kindness of the gift economy. Such an economy, in such a system could get quite costly, and so, this new system would require an immediate exchange in kind. Thus the barter system is born.
As civilizations grew, and trade routes got longer and busier, and products became more abundant, it became necessary to lighten the load, as it were. So, a system which seemed beneficial to all parties arose through a process of social agreements. And thus money was born. Or at least some primitive form of it. This new system was so successful that it caught on everywhere. Soon everyone was using this money system of trade and a new business arose. Since some people used differing materials in their coinage, of alternate qualities and quantities, some coinage was quite well lent to melting and re-smelting into an alternate coinage, thus increasing its value amount. So, the money changers were born. This, is who eventually becomes the bankers, by the way. Although they were more like the "Foreign Exchange Commission. "
So, as we can see, the true root of money is in the sense of ownership, and property. Gift economies didn't have such an idea. In a gift economy it wasn't really possible to own anymore than you could carry. Thus, it was impossible to own land.
This is something of a condensed version of the story, but none the less as accurate as I can currently get in so little space. It is also, perhaps, more accurate than I may really need for my purposes here. The story does vary slightly from location to location, but as generalities go it should serve our needs here. We know as much as we do about gift economies because many still exist to this day in remote corners and pockets of the world. The people who live in these societies, admittedly, live a much simpler and more agrarian lifestyle. They are not very technologically advanced at all. But, these people do live in much greater balance with nature and the natural world around them. They are truly sustainable societies, as evidenced by the fact that they still exist so many thousands of years later, while we, in the "civilized" and technologically advanced world, stand at deaths door.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends...
What is the SIDE SHOW, you may ask. It is a rag tag group of "freaks" for lack of a better term who have latched on to the circus train. They present themselves as a diversion before the big show.
How fitting that term is these days as I look around at all the growing numbers of people who have begun awakening from a long slumber in the comforting arms of blissful ignorance.
What you are about to witness here will astound and amaze you as the secrets of the universe reveal themselves to such wandering eyes. You will stand in awe at the majesty of our ecosystem, as well as the beauty and wonders of galaxies of mysteries once believed to be improbable.
There are so many mysteries awaiting us to discover for ourselves. I cannot teach you anything, but, if you will but allow me the privilege, I can serve as a guide along that path. It may seem a bit dark, bleak, and ominous at times, but together we can and shall persevere.
So, join me as we awaken that sleeping giant within each of us, and rediscover that curious child within us all. We will explore the deepest crevasses of our "souls," and journey through worlds untold to discover ourselves and become as beacons of light amidst the darkness.
A world of wonders await us just around this bend.
How fitting that term is these days as I look around at all the growing numbers of people who have begun awakening from a long slumber in the comforting arms of blissful ignorance.
What you are about to witness here will astound and amaze you as the secrets of the universe reveal themselves to such wandering eyes. You will stand in awe at the majesty of our ecosystem, as well as the beauty and wonders of galaxies of mysteries once believed to be improbable.
There are so many mysteries awaiting us to discover for ourselves. I cannot teach you anything, but, if you will but allow me the privilege, I can serve as a guide along that path. It may seem a bit dark, bleak, and ominous at times, but together we can and shall persevere.
So, join me as we awaken that sleeping giant within each of us, and rediscover that curious child within us all. We will explore the deepest crevasses of our "souls," and journey through worlds untold to discover ourselves and become as beacons of light amidst the darkness.
A world of wonders await us just around this bend.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Answer to the Economic Calculation Problem
Get ready folks, this is going to be a long one. But, since there are those who say we haven't adequately answered the question, it begs the length and girth.
Okay, admittedly, I essentially cheated... rather than reading what Mises actually had to say on the subject, I referred to what is basically the Cliff's notes of the internet age... I went to wikipedia on the matter. Here is what I found.
Mises projected that without a market economy there would be no functional price system, which he held essential for achieving rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive use.
This is a BS answer. Any sane, rational person can quickly and easily see that this is a BS answer without even having to sniff at it for a bit. In fact, this is such a BS answer that it hardly counts as an answer. The only reason it has been accepted as an answer is because it supports the existing system, and doesn't require the truly lazy people to do anything.
Remember, that the argument isn't simply that a fully automated moneyless system won't work, but that it will create lazy people. But I would say it is truly lazy to come up with a cop out answer like this one.
So, let's not be lazy, and let's take the time to examine this answer for a bit to see what fits and what doesn't, and to see if my assertions are the least bit correct.
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive use?
I know, let's define our terms first.
ra·tion·al
/ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]
-adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7. Mathematics .
a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.
–noun
9. Mathematics . rational number.
ef·fi·cient
/ɪˈfɪʃənt/ Show Spelled[ih-fish-uhnt]
–adjective
1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4. utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.
capital goods
–plural noun Economics .
machines and tools used in the production of other goods ( contrasted with consumer goods).
wikipedia:
A capital good, or simply capital in economics, is saved-up wealth or a manufactured means of production.[1]
Individuals, organizations and governments use capital goods in the production of other goods or commodities. Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings which are used to produce other products for consumption.
pro·duc·tive
/prəˈdʌktɪv/ Show Spelled[pruh-duhk-tiv]
–adjective
1. having the power of producing; generative; creative: a productive effort.
2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile: a productive vineyard.
3. causing; bringing about (usually followed by of ): conditions productive of crime and sin.
4. Economics . producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.
5. Grammar . (of derivational affixes or patterns) readily used in forming new words, as the suffix -ness.
6. (in language learning) of or pertaining to the language skills of speaking and writing ( opposed to receptive).
All of my terms are as defined by this site: dictionary.reference.com except where otherwise noted.
There are really only two best fits for definitions I can find within these sources as to the suggestion at hand. The first looks a little like this:
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational(1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.) and efficient(2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.) allocation of capital goods(Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings(and raw materials, resources) which are used to produce other products for consumption.) to their most productive(2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile: a productive vineyard.) use.
The other looks more like this:
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational(8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.) and efficient(3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.) allocation of capital goods(or simply capital in economics, is saved-up wealth) to their most productive(4. Economics . producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.) use.
Now, since Mises was a market economist, and since he earned his money defending such a system, one can only assume he meant the latter of these options. This becomes quite obvious when one takes in to account the fact he calls it a "calculation" problem. This is further supported by the fact that Mises suggested that in order to have a true economy, it had to be measured in numbers, and lend itself well to mathematics.
Obviously he considered a system more productive if it gained a net profit for its investors, regardless of any other net result, such as waste, pollution, environmental degradation, or loss of lives. The assumption seems to be one of two things... Either resources are infinite, and thus we can afford infinite growth, as Mises' model is designed to accomplish, which, by the way, would be that efficient effect he was apparently looking for, or by the time all the resources are used up and the planet is depleted of anything useful we would be able to build rocket ships into outer space to find another planet to rape, the way we have with this one.
What this latter suggestion fails to realize, and make no mistakes... even if this wasn't Mises' idea, there have been plenty out there who have suggested this very thing, is that once the materials are depleted, there are no resources left from which to build that great rocket ship, and it certainly wouldn't fit the large population such a system inherently generates.
Had he asked the first question, I seriously doubt he would have supported the money-market system of trade. Remember folks, the answer is often determined by how you phrase and contextualize the question.
I would argue that the only way to answer the question, as contextualized in the first instance would be without money or market systems. Thus, we have an answer to the same question based on context.
So, let's examine the effects of these questions as framed within the two contexts.
In the first context, we have asked that some reason, logic and rational be invested into our decision making processes. In other words, we have advocated the use of the scientific method for social concern within a systems theory approach. With which we can study the effects of efficiency in production and distribution of resources to the benefit, or detriment of all. We can maximize the intelligent management of our resources economically, and ecologically, by minimizing waste production, and maximizing efficient use of those resources in their allocations, by use of intelligent recycling and design for reuse. And we can produce abundantly to provide for all humans within that society.
In Mises framework, materials and resources and their use are rationalized as a set of integers, for mathematical equations, which are then reduced to dollar signs, which have no logical referent to the physical world, and thus do not generate a truly sensible approach. His system is only efficient in that it efficiently generates a lot of pollution, and efficiently uses up resources to the point of depletion. It holds capital goods in the form of capital gains, and profits for a vast minority, while forcing the larger majority to suffer under an oppressive dictatorship of the tyranny of trade. All for the sake of being able to add a few numbers together which do not actually measure anything but the amount of suffering in the world, for every time the GDP goes up people are slaving away, and when it goes down, they are starving. Meanwhile, the people at the top of this ponzi/pyramid are getting fatter and lazier.
In short, the answer to the calculation problem is in how you frame the question.
Okay, admittedly, I essentially cheated... rather than reading what Mises actually had to say on the subject, I referred to what is basically the Cliff's notes of the internet age... I went to wikipedia on the matter. Here is what I found.
Mises projected that without a market economy there would be no functional price system, which he held essential for achieving rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive use.
This is a BS answer. Any sane, rational person can quickly and easily see that this is a BS answer without even having to sniff at it for a bit. In fact, this is such a BS answer that it hardly counts as an answer. The only reason it has been accepted as an answer is because it supports the existing system, and doesn't require the truly lazy people to do anything.
Remember, that the argument isn't simply that a fully automated moneyless system won't work, but that it will create lazy people. But I would say it is truly lazy to come up with a cop out answer like this one.
So, let's not be lazy, and let's take the time to examine this answer for a bit to see what fits and what doesn't, and to see if my assertions are the least bit correct.
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational and efficient allocation of capital goods to their most productive use?
I know, let's define our terms first.
ra·tion·al
/ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]
-adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7. Mathematics .
a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.
8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.
–noun
9. Mathematics . rational number.
ef·fi·cient
/ɪˈfɪʃənt/ Show Spelled[ih-fish-uhnt]
–adjective
1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4. utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.
capital goods
–plural noun Economics .
machines and tools used in the production of other goods ( contrasted with consumer goods).
wikipedia:
A capital good, or simply capital in economics, is saved-up wealth or a manufactured means of production.[1]
Individuals, organizations and governments use capital goods in the production of other goods or commodities. Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings which are used to produce other products for consumption.
pro·duc·tive
/prəˈdʌktɪv/ Show Spelled[pruh-duhk-tiv]
–adjective
1. having the power of producing; generative; creative: a productive effort.
2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile: a productive vineyard.
3. causing; bringing about (usually followed by of ): conditions productive of crime and sin.
4. Economics . producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.
5. Grammar . (of derivational affixes or patterns) readily used in forming new words, as the suffix -ness.
6. (in language learning) of or pertaining to the language skills of speaking and writing ( opposed to receptive).
All of my terms are as defined by this site: dictionary.reference.com except where otherwise noted.
There are really only two best fits for definitions I can find within these sources as to the suggestion at hand. The first looks a little like this:
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational(1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.) and efficient(2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.) allocation of capital goods(Capital goods include factories, machinery, tools, equipment, and various buildings(and raw materials, resources) which are used to produce other products for consumption.) to their most productive(2. producing readily or abundantly; fertile: a productive vineyard.) use.
The other looks more like this:
No market system = No Pricing system = No rational(8. Classical Prosody . capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.) and efficient(3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.) allocation of capital goods(or simply capital in economics, is saved-up wealth) to their most productive(4. Economics . producing or tending to produce goods and services having exchange value.) use.
Now, since Mises was a market economist, and since he earned his money defending such a system, one can only assume he meant the latter of these options. This becomes quite obvious when one takes in to account the fact he calls it a "calculation" problem. This is further supported by the fact that Mises suggested that in order to have a true economy, it had to be measured in numbers, and lend itself well to mathematics.
Obviously he considered a system more productive if it gained a net profit for its investors, regardless of any other net result, such as waste, pollution, environmental degradation, or loss of lives. The assumption seems to be one of two things... Either resources are infinite, and thus we can afford infinite growth, as Mises' model is designed to accomplish, which, by the way, would be that efficient effect he was apparently looking for, or by the time all the resources are used up and the planet is depleted of anything useful we would be able to build rocket ships into outer space to find another planet to rape, the way we have with this one.
What this latter suggestion fails to realize, and make no mistakes... even if this wasn't Mises' idea, there have been plenty out there who have suggested this very thing, is that once the materials are depleted, there are no resources left from which to build that great rocket ship, and it certainly wouldn't fit the large population such a system inherently generates.
Had he asked the first question, I seriously doubt he would have supported the money-market system of trade. Remember folks, the answer is often determined by how you phrase and contextualize the question.
I would argue that the only way to answer the question, as contextualized in the first instance would be without money or market systems. Thus, we have an answer to the same question based on context.
So, let's examine the effects of these questions as framed within the two contexts.
In the first context, we have asked that some reason, logic and rational be invested into our decision making processes. In other words, we have advocated the use of the scientific method for social concern within a systems theory approach. With which we can study the effects of efficiency in production and distribution of resources to the benefit, or detriment of all. We can maximize the intelligent management of our resources economically, and ecologically, by minimizing waste production, and maximizing efficient use of those resources in their allocations, by use of intelligent recycling and design for reuse. And we can produce abundantly to provide for all humans within that society.
In Mises framework, materials and resources and their use are rationalized as a set of integers, for mathematical equations, which are then reduced to dollar signs, which have no logical referent to the physical world, and thus do not generate a truly sensible approach. His system is only efficient in that it efficiently generates a lot of pollution, and efficiently uses up resources to the point of depletion. It holds capital goods in the form of capital gains, and profits for a vast minority, while forcing the larger majority to suffer under an oppressive dictatorship of the tyranny of trade. All for the sake of being able to add a few numbers together which do not actually measure anything but the amount of suffering in the world, for every time the GDP goes up people are slaving away, and when it goes down, they are starving. Meanwhile, the people at the top of this ponzi/pyramid are getting fatter and lazier.
In short, the answer to the calculation problem is in how you frame the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)