“Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more
of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more
and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable.
The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be
nationalised, and State will have to take the road which will
eventually lead to communism.”
Karl Marx, 1867
Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable.
Mark wasn’t too big on personal responsibility.
I wonder how owners of capital stimulate the working class to buy more?
advertising.
The passage, like all of Das Kapital, reeks of a false economic determinism. OTOH, the last part about “the road which will eventually lead to communism” was right on track. (That’s not to say that people can’t do a U-turn in the road, but it isn’t easy to do.)
Das Kapital was written just before the discovery of the concept of marginal utility, and its author was consequently subject to many of the same fallacies that pervaded classical economics. In fact, his labor theory of value (from which a lot of these other conclusions flowed) was a logical extension of the same misconception of value that was present in those earlier writings. It’s too bad Marx couldn’t have waited another ten years. (See http://www.humanactioncourse.info/pp/cd/HH11034.html and the pages that follow.)
**Mark wasn’t too big on personal responsibility. **
Unfortunately, neither is our current administration, nor most of those that voted for it.
I was wondering who Mark was too. 
“Unfortunately, neither is our current administration, nor most of those that voted for it.”
Of course, we were assured in a recent thread that simply voting for Obama in itself constituted the fulfillment of one’s personal responsibilities.
**Mark wasn’t too big on personal responsibility. **
Unfortunately, neither is our current administration, nor most of those that voted for it.
Did you hear the inaugural address? Here is a glowing editorial from the Wall Street Journal (another pro-Obama media source ;):
yea, just like bush accepted responsibility for screwing the country up beyond belief…and all those that voted for this guy who only ascended up the ladder because of the Bush name. And all those folks on Wall St, smart folks, who let their greed overcome prudent business decisions…wonder which party most of those folks belong to or contributed the most to. I don’t know what the best formula is but shouldn’t there be personal responsiblity exercised in a common good scenario?
“yea, just like bush accepted responsibility for screwing the country up beyond belief…and all those that voted for this guy who only ascended up the ladder because of the Bush name.”
I think that your cynicism about the Bush administration is entirely appropriate, but it doesn’t refute David’s point.
Actions speak louder than words. Especially past actions.
As they say, a leopard can’t change his spots…yet you seem to think that this particular one will. I don’t think so, but I guess we’ll see who’s right soon enough. I sincerely hope that you are.
I have seen a serious, pragmatic approach to governance thus far from Obama. He takes his role very seriously, whether you agree with his policies or not. His view is that individuals, corporations, and governments have mutual responsibilities. Look at his first days (pay freeze, lobbyist restrictions, strong appointees, Gitmo closing, torture restrictions, transparency,…). You certainly may disagree with his policies, but he is not a frivolous or irresponsible person. Regarding leopards and change, can partisans on both sides stop mounting unfair attacks against the other side? Now that would be “change.”
i think his point was that current admin has not or will not exercise personal responsibility…as well as those that voted of Obama.
“Unfortunately, neither is our current administration, nor most of those that voted for it.”
I wonder what proof he has of that. Seems like Obama exercised a lot of PR to get where he is today. And the voters exercised theirs as well. See WSJ opinion cited by OldandSlow.
Yes Obama read a lot supposedly about Marx etc., and he did community work, but does that make him a flaming pinkocommy!
It seems the Golden Rule has in this day and time morphed into He who has the Gold rules.
I think Obama and most Americans believe in personal responsibility but how do we protect the common good without destroying incentives towards excellence. As I said, wish I knew formula, but widening wealth/income gaps in USA does not portend well for the future of our country.
I’m referring the the sum total of his past, not just very recent history. While he’s talked about “personal responsibility” of late, his extreme liberal record doesn’t support the rhetoric. Will he change? Again, I certainly hope so…and I’ll be the first to applaud if he does.
“i think his point was that current admin has not or will not exercise personal responsibility…as well as those that voted of Obama.”
That’s correct. His post said nothing about Bush one way or the other.
“I think Obama and most Americans believe in personal responsibility but how do we protect the common good without destroying incentives towards excellence.”
You make it sound as if that poses a dilemma. In my view, the exercise of personal responsibility, the common good (not to be confused with the nebulous notion of “public good”), and incentives toward excellence all go hand in hand. Anything we do to encourage people to take personal responsibility for their own lives can only be for the good of everyone, and furthermore will simultaneously encourage all of us toward excellence.
“As I said, wish I knew formula, but widening wealth/income gaps in USA does not portend well for the future of our country.”
I have a philosophical question for you. Would you rather live in (1) a society where incomes are what they are today, or (2) in a society where everyone’s income was 1% greater, except for a few people who were already relatively wealthy and whose income was doubled? Assume for purposes of discussion that the purchasing power of the dollar is the same in both alternatives, and that all other extraneous factors are equal.
An individual whose principal concern is economic equality–that is, minimizing “wealth/income gaps”–will answer (1).
An individual whose principal concern is for what is objectively good for people’s lives, OTOH, will answer (2). As you may have guessed, I would prefer (2).
***Would you rather live in (1) a society where incomes are what they are today, or (2) in a society where everyone’s income was 1% greater, except for a few people who were already relatively wealthy and whose income was doubled? Assume for purposes of discussion that the purchasing power of the dollar is the same in both alternatives, and that all other extraneous factors are equal. ***
I’d be curious to know how people would answer the question if the 2d alternative was "in a society where everyone’s incomes are what they are today, except for a few people who were already relatively wealthy and whose income was doubled".
**
Let’s further assume that no one here is in the category whose income doubled.
**
That would be a good variation on the same theme; in fact, I initially contemplated setting it up that way. Either way, I think one’s answer gives some real insight into the basis of a person’s ethical beliefs.
Comparing the Bush and Obama Administrations with respect to the issue of responsibility is, at best, a bit premature. We gave Bush 8 years to solidify his status. You can certainly give Obama more than 3 days.
I have a philosophical question for you. Would you rather…
The biased Forced Choice question where the answer is implied in the question. I love em…
"I have a philosophical question for you. Would you rather live in (1) a society where incomes are what they are today, or (2) in a society where everyone’s income was 1% greater, except for a few people who were already relatively wealthy and whose income was doubled? Assume for purposes of discussion that the purchasing power of the dollar is the same in both alternatives, and that all other extraneous factors are equal.
An individual whose principal concern is economic equality–that is, minimizing “wealth/income gaps”–will answer (1).
An individual whose principal concern is for what is objectively good for people’s lives, OTOH, will answer (2). As you may have guessed, I would prefer (2)"
We have to establish that the two phenomena, to wit the increase in the incomes of “everyone else” and those of the select few, are independent. IMO, it is a gross oversimplification to draw conclusion exclusively from a single snapshot of the economic growth process. In other words, if such rates are going to be periodically (annually for instance) repeated over a long term, then the principal dispute is about the sustainability of that economic equilibrium rather than the ethical concerns.
PS. Interesting website BTW.
I have a philosophical question for you. Would you rather live in (1) a society where incomes are what they are today, or (2) in a society where everyone’s income was 1% greater, except for a few people who were already relatively wealthy and whose income was doubled? Assume for purposes of discussion that the purchasing power of the dollar is the same in both alternatives, and that all other extraneous factors are equal.
How about a more realistic scenario… #2 being a society in which everyone’s income is half, except for a few wealthy who… also see a big pay cut…
For examples of the “free market” check out pretty much any impoverished 3rd world country you like.
The engine of prosperity is efficiency (mechanization and technology) in production, coupled with wages that are high enough so that people can afford to buy the things that are made. Unfortunately the “free market” does nothing to boost wages (rather it puts constant downward pressure on them), and without some artificial method of doing so, the society becomes stuck in poverty. Every prosperous society in the world figured this out a long time ago. That is why every single one is more socialist than the US.
I don’t particularly like any of the systems that exist because they seem to have forgotten how important efficiency is… hence they get stuck. The market does efficiency quite well, which is why it is a cornerstone of every prosperous society… but you also need to solve the issue of declining wages if you want to move forward. The trick is figuring out a way to do this that enhances rather than hurts efficiency.