Context for the Bailout - Confessions of a Monopolist

[John Edward Mercier]

'We have afflicted the globe with the fatal contagions of the American Way and corporatism. And all of us, to varying degrees, are culpable. From bicycle-peddling vegans to limo riding corporados, we are each complicit in perpetuating American capitalism, a system so rotten that were it a piece of decaying meat, starving maggots would reject it.'

PS: he also references "capitalism" in the same para. I reference the article to show that the in-movement usage of capitalism to mean free market is out-of-step with others' usage, which makes one's statements unclear, or makes one appear to be an apologist for a criminal elite (when one says "I love capitalism", for example, or "enjoy Capitalism", a la the Bureaucrash T-shirt slogan).

But the misusage of a term does not alter the definition of the term.
For example, Bush suggested his Admin was about the Rule of Law.
Explain the Bailout under the US Constitution or any treaty lawfully enacted?

He purposely tried to annex the term for his own purposes... to propagandize that his Admin was operating at all times legally. Something we know not to be true.

I've even heard the Lynch Admin illict that it would bring 'Ethics' back to NH... wanna bet?

[John Edward Mercier]

Free market competition naturally pushes price to cost squeezing out profits. That is why owners of capital needs the state to protect their profits.

Without the state we would have "laborism" not "capitalism". Where everyone receives the "full produce" of his own labor

Labor without capital is like a ditch-digger without a shovel.
My capitalization of your shovel is in exchange for a portion of your labor.

[John Edward Mercier]

Capitalism is a tricky thing to define.  What do anarcho-capitalists have to do with Capitalists? Almost nothing.

The main thing seems to be the belief that right to landed property must be given preference over right to ownership of labor, isn't that correct? As best as I can tell, that is the only thing that anarcho-capitalism has in agreement with capital C Capitalism.

No. Your right to landed ownership comes from your ownership of labor.
Capitalism is a contractual partnership whereas 'stored labor' is mixed with current labor to produce goods/services.

[John Edward Mercier]

Jack's claiming that the words "capitalist" and "capitalism" originally meant the same as "corporatist" and "corporatism" remember? I'd still like to see evidence to this effect. Even if it did originally mean that I don't think it is as confusing to everyone as he is making it out to be.
Folk who are against "capitalism" most of the times are against a real free market (I know because I've asked them) so it works out the same.

What do you mean by this? "Folks who are against capitalism are against a real free market"

See, the problem that I have with the idea of the "free market" is that it is a meaningless term. Everybody believes in a free market - of things that they believe can be owned.

Do you believe in a free market of human slaves? How about of food composed of human beings? How about a free market of states (where your opponents can choose a state to subdue you)?  Do you believe in a free market of Mr. Burns blocking out the sun and then charging you for energy?

The question isn't whether someone believes in a free market or not, it's what do they believe can be legitimately owned.

That falls back to the governing principles...

[Porcupine_in_MA]

What do you mean by this? "Folks who are against capitalism are against a real free market"

Folk I've met who have been against what they call capitalism are normally against a non-governmentally regulated market.

See, the problem that I have with the idea of the "free market" is that it is a meaningless term. Everybody believes in a free market - of things that they believe can be owned.

Do you believe in a free market of human slaves? How about of food composed of human beings? How about a free market of states (where your opponents can choose a state to subdue you)?  Do you believe in a free market of Mr. Burns blocking out the sun and then charging you for energy?

The question isn't whether someone believes in a free market or not, it's what do they believe can be legitimately owned.

Free market is not a meaningless term. It is a market that is free from state regulation, it is only regulated by free choices. Hence the word "free". And no, not everyone believes in one.

[BillKauffman]

Free market competition naturally pushes price to cost squeezing out profits. That is why owners of capital needs the state to protect their profits.

Without the state we would have "laborism" not "capitalism". Where everyone receives the "full produce" of his own labor

Labor without capital is like a ditch-digger without a shovel.
My capitalization of your shovel is in exchange for a portion of your labor.

The pertinent question is "who owns the shovel?". In capitalism, the ownership of shovels are generally removed from the laborers required to put it to use as labor is "commoditized". All with the help of the state.

No state - no capitalism. Instead we would have "laborism" where labor commands capital in broad, distributive ownership rather than capital commanding and "commoditizing" labor.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Just when I thought BillKauffman was gone, he drew me back in!! Nooooooooooo

[John Edward Mercier]

Free market competition naturally pushes price to cost squeezing out profits. That is why owners of capital needs the state to protect their profits.

Without the state we would have "laborism" not "capitalism". Where everyone receives the "full produce" of his own labor

Labor without capital is like a ditch-digger without a shovel.
My capitalization of your shovel is in exchange for a portion of your labor.

The pertinent question is "who owns the shovel?". In capitalism, the ownership of shovels are generally removed from the laborers required to put it to use as labor is "commoditized". All with the help of the state.

No state - no capitalism. Instead we would have "laborism" where labor commands capital in broad, distributive ownership rather than capital commanding and "commoditizing" labor.

The person whose labor created the shovel... or acquired the shovel from its creator with goods/services created by their labor.
Neither commoditizes the other... my labor is my labor, regardless of whether it is current or 'stored'.
The free market commoditizes it based on relativity.
In essence an hour of my labor is not equal to an hour of your labor due to productivity differences. And the value of my labor preforming one task is not equal to the value of an hour of my labor preforming another task because of marginal utility.

I find that most have preconceived conceptions about these things.
They have no problem negotiating the value of their labor under independent contractor status, or salary... but believe they can not do so under wages. They negotiate the value of their labor when buying a house/auto... or even at a yard sale... but never at a Wal-Mart.
Obviously negotiating is not the most efficient market from a labor standpoint as long as many options exist. But the ability to negotiate the value of labor always exists.

[BillKauffman]

the ability to negotiate the value of labor always exists

We are talking past each other.

[jaqeboy]

Free market competition naturally pushes price to cost squeezing out profits. That is why owners of capital needs the state to protect their profits.

Without the state we would have "laborism" not "capitalism". Where everyone receives the "full produce" of his own labor

We couldn't have that, now could we? 

[jaqeboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

Contemporary mutualist author Kevin Carson holds that capitalism has been founded on "an act of robbery as massive as feudalism," and argues that capitalism could not exist in the absence of a state. He says "it is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market". He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense, but says that when he talks about "capitalism" he is referring to what he calls "actually existing capitalism." He believes the term "laissez-faire capitalism" is an oxymoron because it has never existed. However, he says he has no quarrel with anarcho-capitalists who use the term "laissez-faire capitalism" and distinguish it from "actually existing capitalism." He says he has deliberately chosen to resurrect an old definition of the term.

Carson argues the centralization of wealth into a class hierarchy is due to state intervention to protect the ruling class, by using a money monopoly, granting patents and subsidies to corporations, imposing discriminatory taxation, and intervening militarily to gain access to international markets. Carson's thesis is that an authentic free market economy would not be capitalism as the separation of labor from ownership and the subordination of labor to capital would be impossible, bringing a class-less society where people could easily choose between working as a freelancer, working for a fair wage, taking part of a cooperative, or being an entrepreneur. He notes, as did Tucker before him, that a mutualist free market system would involve significantly different property rights than capitalism is based on, particularly in terms of land and intellectual property.

Thanks for bringing up Kevin Carson. I was building up to suggesting his fabulous article: "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand; Corporate Capitalism as a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege" - I know it's linked to from the ALL site, but here's a link to it. This article is the most clarifying piece I've read in a long time.

[Caleb]

Obviously negotiating is not the most efficient market from a labor standpoint as long as many options exist. But the ability to negotiate the value of labor always exists.

It's like negotiating the price of water to a man dying of thirst. Or the price of fire services to a man whose house is burning. If my very survival depends on access to my own labor, how can the negotiation ever be on equal footing?

[John Edward Mercier]

Your referencing consumption.
Which would mean the confusion of capital with debt.

Also might be making the assumption that the capital is external... meaning not derived from your stored labor.
For instance, you borrow my shovel and offer to pay 10% of the revenue derived to me. You dig a ditch one day and 'store' enough of your labor to purchase a shovel. You return my capital (shovel). Contract completed.

[BillKauffman]

Your referencing consumption.
Which would mean the confusion of capital with debt.

Also might be making the assumption that the capital is external... meaning not derived from your stored labor.
For instance, you borrow my shovel and offer to pay 10% of the revenue derived to me. You dig a ditch one day and 'store' enough of your labor to purchase a shovel. You return my capital (shovel). Contract completed.

Who are you addressing this to?

Many left-libertarians operate under some type of "cost principle" or "cost the limit of price" analysis that leads to laborism not capitalism vs. "value the limit of price" maxim of neo-classical economics (Austrian).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)#The_.22cost_principle.22_or_.22cost_the_limit_of_price.22

Jack and I are probably broadly self-described as "left-libertarians". Caleb is a just a confused (lol) Tolstoyian communalist. Talk about dancing on the head of a pin!

[Caleb]

So is this THE Bill Kaufman, or is this a reincarnation of FrankinRalph Chodorov-Borsodi? 

I tend to roughly agree with Jack. I don't know where you stand on things. I don't like labels, but I guess confused Tolstoyian communalist works as well as any other.