- Aristocratic Reading List : Doolittle’s List
- Richard Duchesne’s Cited Works (TUOWC)
- Ralph Raico’s References on The European Miracle
- The Conservative Reading List
- Human Biodiversity Reading List
- The Library Of The Dark Enlightenment
- The Dark Enlightenment Reading List
- Anarcho Capitalism : Hoppe’s List
- Liberty: David Gordon’s List
- Lew Rockwell’s Liberty Reading List
- On Debate
Over on the Economist’s View there are a whole series of comments that negatively reflect on capitalism. This is my response.
I am amazed reading these comments. What is it about this blog that attracts the sort of participants who don’t show up on other economic blogs? Is there some left-leaning network that promotes it or something? Is it a populist forum? It’s just odd.
Capitalism is a set of institutions that allow humans to calculate the use of resources, a calculation that they cannot accomplish by other means. This includes property, numbers, counting, money, trade, contract, courts, accounting, banks, financial markets, and insurance.
That is capitalism. That’s it. Capitalism doesn’t have a policy, any more than a calculator has a policy. It has nothing to do with government at all, and it doesn’t need government at all, at least in theory.
If you want to understand the problem we face, really, it has little to do with capitalism, and everything to do with politics. That is, unless you are really one of those people who doesn’t understand why we have to have money and prices and trade. And if that’s the case we’re back to angels on heads of a pin and that conversation is very hard to have.
Assuming we’ve made it this far, there are several problematic layers on top of capitalism:
First we add private associations, such as trade associations and unions. The purpose of these organizations is to capture wealth for group members by creating artificial scarcity. That is not a judgment of right or wrong. That is the function.
Then we add the political economy. The purpose of the political economy is to alter the activity of the institutions to capture wealth for the benefit of groups within a geographic monopoly. That’s what governments do.
- Governmental means of regulating trade: law, borders, transportation regulation, arms, and violence.
- Governmental means of regulating economic calculation: taxation, fiat money, banking regulation, finance regulation, insurance regulation.
Finally, we have the social services economy, which was once the province of the church or charity, but has been taken over by the state.
- Secular means of delivering social services: redistribution, unemployment insurance, public transportation, hospitals and healthcare, retirement insurance, education, and whatever else can be thrown in the soup.
That is the set of things governments (or groups) use to capture wealth generated by capitalism. Politics is the use of groups to capture wealth generated by trade, for the purpose of the groups that constitute the government.
So there are only three questions.
1) The first question is the extent to which interference in the productive economy can be tolerated without reducing the group’s (or set of groups’) competitiveness against other organizations (states). Especially in real time.
2) The second question is, assuming one solution or the other, whether or not the political economy can calculate better than the institutions of capitalism. This appears to be impossible on a number of levels. I won’t get into it here but people simply cannot comprehend economies bigger than that of their families. Accounting is still very primitive and oriented in the 19th century. Probability and statistics seem to fail us in economic analysis. Economics as a method is far too young and understands too little, and until we solve “induction” or the problem of prediction – if it is solvable – our quantitative methods decline in value outside of very simple equilibria and fail just at the point where we need them. If you don’t understand that this is the fundamental problem underlying quantitative economic theory, then that’s the problem, and now you know.
3) The third question is the means of distributing those captured resources into multiple uses within the political and social service economies. Currently this is a political calculation rather than an economic calculation. I suspect that future advancements in government will come largely from the application of market principles to the allocation of such resources, because as currently structured they are incalculable and rely on ever-expanding productivity.
These three questions are not questions of capitalism. They are questions of the political economy that exists because of capitalism. Capitalism isn’t part of the problem. It doesn’t have opinions or policy. The means whereby humans make complex political decisions about the allocation of captured resources is the problem.
ISSUES FACING US
A) The fact is that some nations will actively use their economies to prosecute trade strategies against other nations, and now that “capitalism” or “economic calculation” is the dominant method of social organization, what will we do in a world no longer dominated by northern European ethics? Whether you think that is good or bad, it is a constant that is changing. All of our known economic history and models are effectively Anglo in origin. The future will not be determined by the past. The west has had a technical and organizational monopoly for a long time. In a different world, our standard of living appears to be threatened, or at least the rate of our relative productivity and prices may be.
B) Now that consumer culture is fully adopted, and citizenship is attained by debt participation rather than ideology or service to the state, the question is whether we will change from a legislative political structure to a banking political structure, effectively reducing government’s use of legislation and instead emphasizing liquidity and interest rates while eliminating the concept of general liquidity. This is a superior means of redistribution, especially since loans and notes expire and laws do not, and such models preserve calculability.
C) Will we move toward more (human) political decision-making or more calculative decision-making? In most of history, when a civilization enters its skeptical phase, it becomes increasingly political and necessarily develops tyranny as a means of resolving conflict. But the calculative institutions of capitalism didn’t exist for previous civilizations. We actually have a choice.
D) Outside of Euro-empire capitalism, can large states (like the US) with diverse economies and peoples be governed at all, or was Federalist Papers 10 right in arguing that governments should be constituted only of people with similar economic and cultural interests and that we should exist in smaller states? I think the latter is unlikely but it is a natural question to consider.
E) The last issue has to do with breeding, immigration, and emigration, since that’s the primary cost beneath it all. This is how groups gain or lose members.
What failed over the past century is our ability to calculate. We wrote checks on faith – checks that we couldn’t cash, primarily because we live in a democracy. All that wealth that was supposedly being concentrated is vanishing because it wasn’t wealth, it was promises. These promises couldn’t be kept, but we thought they were real because they had numbers attached to them.
So to answer the complaints people here are making about capitalism, the issue is actually how to preserve the ability of people to calculate the use of resources competitively against other groups who have their own self-interest at heart. The issue is how to allocate captured resources and how much of those resources to capture for public use, when currently we are using incalculable methods – political methods – of doing so. Human history is replete with examples of how political methods fail and institutions recover them, but the public’s desire within a democracy for political solutions to calculative problems is something that is hard to measure.
Tagged with: calculate • calculation • calculative • capitalism • civilization • concept • consumer • cultural • culture • decision • decisions • democracy • economic • economics • economies • economy • education • empire • ethic • ethics • future • government • governments • group • groups • history • humans • incalculable • institutions • insurance • interest • law • left • legislation • liquidity • making • markets • method • methods • mises • models • money • monopoly • nations • natural • numbers • organizations • policy • political • politics • populist • prediction • prices • principles • private • productivity • promises • property • public • quantitative • redistribution • regulating • regulation • resources • right • services • social • special • state • states • strategies • theory • thought • time • trade • value • wealth
Seattle, WA, United States
I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Conservative Libertarian tradition. And as a methodological Propertarian I attempt to complete the work of Rothbard and Hoppe by suggesting post-democratic political solutions for heterogeneous polities.
"De Philosophia Aristocratia"
Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of the European Aristocratic Manorial system and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment, combined with our ancient tribal instincts for group persistence and land-holding. It currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an articulated rational philosophy. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.
This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.
Libertarianism by contrast, is a rational philosophy of an articulate but permanent minority. It is based upon a solid, rational and critical methodology, even if it is flawed in its initial assumption: the principle of non-violence.
Unfortunately the Rothbardian Anarchist movement has appropriated the term "Libertarian", and left Classical Liberals and Conservatives alienated from the only system of thought with which they need to articulate their political sentiments in rational and empirical rather than moralistic and sentimental form.
By repairing the flaws in Libertarian philosophy we can use its methodology to provide a rhetorical solution for conservatives - a language which in turn may become an articulated philosophical body of argument and advocacy for the frustrated conservative majority.
The Source Of Private Property Is Violence
13 days ago
Putting Violence Back Into Polite Political Discourse – Once Sentence At A Time
14 days ago
Internecine Warfare as Evidence of Intellectual Failure
14 days ago
The Incentives of Scientists And Philosophers: A Virtuous Competition For Status
16 days ago
Notes On The Libertarian Reformation (Revised and Edited)
16 days ago
‘Rights’ and Fuzzy Language: You Demand Rights. You Can’t ‘Have’ Them Without an Exchange.
16 days ago
The Causal Problem Of Government Is The Same Causal Problem Of Ethics: The Incorrect Assumption Of The Value Of Monopoly
16 days ago
Genies Can’t Be Put Back Into Bottles
16 days ago
Reason And Fact Are Insufficient For Persuasion: Because Myth, Mysticism, And Falsehood Are More Comfortable Truths.
16 days ago
Read Engels Again: But There Are Better Primary Sources and The Natural State Is Plastic
16 days ago
- The Source Of Private Property Is Violence