In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 17 2013 07:54 sam!zdat wrote: What is a "normal profit" and says who
edit: and, thanks very much jonny, but I'm the one pointing out the complicatedness of reality, not the classical economists with their faux-mathematical air castles
edit: so we can agree that employees are not paid their contribution to the firm's value, but are in fact paid their contribution divided by the rate of exploitation. Straight out of das kapital
I'm not sure the exact definition of 'normal profit' but I'll guess that it would be the equivalent to an appropriate risk adjusted discount rate. That is, it represents the bare minimum profit necessary to get the owners to do something.
In reality you get complications - wages are relatively fixed while marginal costs and marginal revenues are not. If you want to pay workers their full contribution than you cannot tell them how much they will be paid ex ante. Wages would need to fluctuate up with profits and fluctuate down with profits as well.
Edit:
only because you've handwaved away the fact that all surplus value is derived from the exploitation of labor-power by recourse to some flimsy "normal profit" construct
I'm not sure, I think there's an argument for labeling normal profits as socially necessary.
On February 17 2013 07:54 sam!zdat wrote: What is a "normal profit" and says who
edit: and, thanks very much jonny, but I'm the one pointing out the complicatedness of reality, not the classical economists with their faux-mathematical air castles
edit: so we can agree that employees are not paid their contribution to the firm's value, but are in fact paid their contribution divided by the rate of exploitation. Straight out of das kapital
I'm not sure the exact definition of 'normal profit' but I'll guess that it would be the equivalent to an appropriate risk adjusted discount rate. That is, it represents the bare minimum profit necessary to get the owners to do something.
In reality you get complications - wages are relatively fixed while marginal costs and marginal revenues are not. If you want to pay workers their full contribution than you cannot tell them how much they will be paid ex ante. Wages would need to fluctuate up with profits and fluctuate down with profits as well.
Don't forget about prices and their stickiness, which add another variable to the equation.
only because you've handwaved away the fact that all surplus value is derived from the exploitation of labor-power by recourse to some flimsy "normal profit" construct
I'm not sure, I think there's an argument for labeling normal profits as socially necessary.
On February 17 2013 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Wages would need to fluctuate up with profits and fluctuate down with profits as well.
Or we could think about the problem of how to create a society in which we produce use-values, not commodities, and do away with this whole problem of "wages" and "profits" in the first place.
edit: it's not as crazy as it sounds. A 3d printer produces use-values, not commodities. An open-source software designer produces use-values, not commodities. My mother's garden produces use-values, not commodities.
only because you've handwaved away the fact that all surplus value is derived from the exploitation of labor-power by recourse to some flimsy "normal profit" construct
I'm not sure, I think there's an argument for labeling normal profits as socially necessary.
OK, I'll have to take a look when I get the chance. In the meantime what I meant was that profits do provide socially necessary functions. So if you do give the profits to workers society will just need to take it back.
Ex. Retirees partially fund their retirement via profits and interest collections. Remove profits and replace it with what? Higher payroll taxes? If so then how much will the workers after-tax income increase by? Same goes for capital investment - if workers receive the profits then they will need to pay for the capital outlays themselves.
My point is Jonny, whenever you use the term "socially necessary" you are making an appeal to a particular society. You make the mistake of thinking that our particular historically embedded society is just "society" tout court.
Communities have been taking care of old people for thousands of years, I don't see why all of a sudden old people have to be capitalists in order to survive. That's what children are for. (edit: this is why atomized bourgeois society, with its dissolution of older forms of familial support networks, is a major part of the problem. Now you see why I'm so interested in Confucianism! Perhaps you can think of me as a "family values marxist")
If capital can pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value exploited from the workers, I don't see why workers couldn't pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value that isn't being exploited from workers. (edit: now HERE is one of your "just accounting problems" )
On February 17 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote: My point is Jonny, whenever you use the term "socially necessary" you are making an appeal to a particular society. You make the mistake of thinking that our particular historically embedded society is just "society" tout court.
Communities have been taking care of old people for thousands of years, I don't see why all of a sudden old people have to be capitalists in order to survive. That's what children are for.
If capital can pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value exploited from the workers, I don't see why workers couldn't pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value that isn't being exploited from workers. (edit: now HERE is one of your "just accounting problems" )
Sure, it only matters to the society we have today. But then you need to ask "do I want that different society and if so am I taking every consequence into consideration? After all, the grass is always greener..."
The inherent problem with workers paying for the equipment is that without a financial system there's no way to finance it. That is, if 5 workers want to open up a small shop for $200K they would each have to shell out $40K before the shop even opens. And that's awfully inconvenient! And all just for a somewhat higher salary which will then need to be shared with mom and dad
Now, on average*, those workers should be better off. But only over the long term and only assuming that they couldn't have simply been employed temporarily at the shop and then moved onto higher paying jobs in the future. And that brings up another complication - how does one change jobs in such a system? Do you then need to sell your stake in your existing job and then buy into the next job? And without financial markets how does saving money work anyways? So many questions...
Edit: Keep in mind the workers only receive more pay if the shop succeeds (hence "on average") some shops will inevitably fail and in those situations the workers will be worse off.
On February 17 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote: My point is Jonny, whenever you use the term "socially necessary" you are making an appeal to a particular society. You make the mistake of thinking that our particular historically embedded society is just "society" tout court.
Communities have been taking care of old people for thousands of years, I don't see why all of a sudden old people have to be capitalists in order to survive. That's what children are for.
If capital can pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value exploited from the workers, I don't see why workers couldn't pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value that isn't being exploited from workers. (edit: now HERE is one of your "just accounting problems" )
Sure, it only matters to the society we have today. But then you need to ask "do I want that different society and if so am I taking every consequence into consideration? After all, the grass is always greener..."
I have no choice. Our society is headed for disaster. Thinking you can avoid the problem of trying to imagine a new society is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. apres moi le deluge! I understand that it's a difficult problem, that's why my goal is to convince others that they should learn as much as they can about everything and anything so that we can work together to make a better society. But you have to start by acknowledging the problem, and I really don't think there's any compromise on this point. Liberal democracy is dying. What will we build in its ashes? Will it be a corporate police state in which we all become colonized by the Great Finance Capital in the Sky? That seems to be the direction we're headed.
The inherent problem with workers paying for the equipment is that without a financial system there's no way to finance it. That is, if 5 workers want to open up a small shop for $200K they would each have to shell out $40K before the shop even opens. And that's awfully inconvenient! And all just for a somewhat higher salary which will then need to be shared with mom and dad
I understand what a financial system does. In Asian societies, for example, people will always seek loans from family members before turning to commercial credit. I think there is a great deal of merit to this way of doing things. I think that the finance system should be much more closely tied to communities and affective networks, not contracted out to usurers. I also think people should consume less and save more, and that we should seek to drastically reduce the expansion of the debt-economy. Next up on my pile is David Graeber's book about debt (http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867) so I'll probably have more to say about this then But overall we need less debt, of that I'm certain (and Nassim Taleb agrees with me).
Now, on average, those workers should be better off. But only over the long term and only assuming that they couldn't have simply been employed temporarily at the shop and then moved onto higher paying jobs in the future. And that brings up another complication - how does one change jobs in such a system? Do you then need to sell your stake in your existing job and then buy into the next job? And without financial markets how does saving money work anyways? So many questions...
On February 17 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote: My point is Jonny, whenever you use the term "socially necessary" you are making an appeal to a particular society. You make the mistake of thinking that our particular historically embedded society is just "society" tout court.
Communities have been taking care of old people for thousands of years, I don't see why all of a sudden old people have to be capitalists in order to survive. That's what children are for.
If capital can pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value exploited from the workers, I don't see why workers couldn't pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value that isn't being exploited from workers. (edit: now HERE is one of your "just accounting problems" )
Sure, it only matters to the society we have today. But then you need to ask "do I want that different society and if so am I taking every consequence into consideration? After all, the grass is always greener..."
I have no choice. Our society is headed for disaster. Thinking you can avoid the problem of trying to imagine a new society is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. apres moi le deluge! I understand that it's a difficult problem, that's why my goal is to convince others that they should learn as much as they can about everything and anything so that we can work together to make a better society. But you have to start by acknowledging the problem, and I really don't think there's any compromise on this point. Liberal democracy is dying. What will we build in its ashes? Will it be a corporate police state in which we all become colonized by the Great Finance Capital in the Sky? That seems to be the direction we're headed.
The inherent problem with workers paying for the equipment is that without a financial system there's no way to finance it. That is, if 5 workers want to open up a small shop for $200K they would each have to shell out $40K before the shop even opens. And that's awfully inconvenient! And all just for a somewhat higher salary which will then need to be shared with mom and dad
I understand what a financial system does. In Asian societies, for example, people will always seek loans from family members before turning to commercial credit. I think there is a great deal of merit to this way of doing things. I think that the finance system should be much more closely tied to communities and affective networks, not contracted out to usurers. I also think people should consume less and save more, and that we should seek to drastically reduce the expansion of the debt-economy. Next up on my pile is David Graeber's book about debt (http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867) so I'll probably have more to say about this then But overall we need less debt, of that I'm certain (and Nassim Taleb agrees with me).
Sure, that's why we should advocate for people to save more and join credit unions instead of banks. Maybe P2P lenders like lending club (not fully convinced on those yet).
We also need to lose some of the stigma over debt defaults. They aren't a good thing but if they're needed they're needed. Surgery isn't fun either but if you need it you need it.
Ex. not allowing student loans to default was the stupidest decision in the history of what I can think of right now.
Now, on average, those workers should be better off. But only over the long term and only assuming that they couldn't have simply been employed temporarily at the shop and then moved onto higher paying jobs in the future. And that brings up another complication - how does one change jobs in such a system? Do you then need to sell your stake in your existing job and then buy into the next job? And without financial markets how does saving money work anyways? So many questions...
good questions
Thanks, there are some worker coops in my area (http://valleyworker.org/). I'm sure I could answer a few of my own questions by looking at them.
On February 17 2013 08:27 sam!zdat wrote: My point is Jonny, whenever you use the term "socially necessary" you are making an appeal to a particular society. You make the mistake of thinking that our particular historically embedded society is just "society" tout court.
Communities have been taking care of old people for thousands of years, I don't see why all of a sudden old people have to be capitalists in order to survive. That's what children are for.
If capital can pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value exploited from the workers, I don't see why workers couldn't pay for investments into fixed capital out of the surplus value that isn't being exploited from workers. (edit: now HERE is one of your "just accounting problems" )
Sure, it only matters to the society we have today. But then you need to ask "do I want that different society and if so am I taking every consequence into consideration? After all, the grass is always greener..."
I have no choice. Our society is headed for disaster. Thinking you can avoid the problem of trying to imagine a new society is just sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. apres moi le deluge! I understand that it's a difficult problem, that's why my goal is to convince others that they should learn as much as they can about everything and anything so that we can work together to make a better society. But you have to start by acknowledging the problem, and I really don't think there's any compromise on this point. Liberal democracy is dying. What will we build in its ashes? Will it be a corporate police state in which we all become colonized by the Great Finance Capital in the Sky? That seems to be the direction we're headed.
Yeah but I'm an optimist :p
So am I. I believe we aren't totally doomed, because it's not the case that "There Is No Alternative". If I thought it would be impossible to ever construct any society that wasn't liberal democracy, THEN i'd be a pessimist.
(edit: did you ever play magic: the gathering and encounter the idea of "playing to your outs"? That is, in an end-game scenario, you assume that something will be true, because if it's not, you lose anyway. That how I feel about communism.)
The inherent problem with workers paying for the equipment is that without a financial system there's no way to finance it. That is, if 5 workers want to open up a small shop for $200K they would each have to shell out $40K before the shop even opens. And that's awfully inconvenient! And all just for a somewhat higher salary which will then need to be shared with mom and dad
I understand what a financial system does. In Asian societies, for example, people will always seek loans from family members before turning to commercial credit. I think there is a great deal of merit to this way of doing things. I think that the finance system should be much more closely tied to communities and affective networks, not contracted out to usurers. I also think people should consume less and save more, and that we should seek to drastically reduce the expansion of the debt-economy. Next up on my pile is David Graeber's book about debt (http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867) so I'll probably have more to say about this then But overall we need less debt, of that I'm certain (and Nassim Taleb agrees with me).
Sure, that's why we should advocate for people to save more and join credit unions instead of banks. Maybe P2P lenders like lending club (not fully convinced on those yet).
word.
We also need to lose some of the stigma over debt defaults. They aren't a good thing but if they're needed they're needed. Surgery isn't fun either but if you need it you need it.
Lender beware! that's what I say. Only in our society we privatize the upside and nationalize the downside. Maybe we should reinstate debtor's prison, that sounds like a nice idea. Teach those stupid fuckers a lesson for accepting the home loans we were begging them to take!
Ex. not allowing student loans to default was the stupidest decision in the history of what I can think of right now.
The stupidest decision in the history was the one where we started instituting user's fees for higher education.
Now, on average, those workers should be better off. But only over the long term and only assuming that they couldn't have simply been employed temporarily at the shop and then moved onto higher paying jobs in the future. And that brings up another complication - how does one change jobs in such a system? Do you then need to sell your stake in your existing job and then buy into the next job? And without financial markets how does saving money work anyways? So many questions...
good questions
Thanks, there are some worker coops in my area (http://valleyworker.org/). I'm sure I could answer a few of my own questions by looking at them.
Yeah, this is just a little more micro than the stuff I've been worrying about. Other people have skill sets more suited to thinking about this stuff than me (like... well... you! )
Debt is actually an incredibly useful tool. It acts as a dampener on macro and micro shocks to the economy. Both positive and negative. Even in a "worker owned" economy, those shocks exist. Without it, velocity of money is restricted and the economy as a whole becomes more rigid (and thus not as socially beneficial).
I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed.
those with the resources, knowledge and information included, have the initiative to do stuff with those resources,(their equations are maximized over yours) as well as the force of momentum by way of their social role. (too big to fail)
James Glattfelder studies complexity: how an interconnected system -- say, a swarm of birds -- is more than the sum of its parts. And complexity theory, it turns out, can reveal a lot about how the economy works. Glattfelder shares a groundbreaking study of how control flows through the global economy, and how concentration of power in the hands of a shockingly small number leaves us all vulnerable. (Filmed at TEDxZurich.)
Saw this yesterday - I think some of you may enjoy it. I didn't like the speaker but the content was good. In any case it's a nice way to look at the economy beyond derpy math equations.
WASHINGTON — A draft of a White House immigration proposal obtained by USA TODAY would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents within eight years.
The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires within four years. In addition, the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants could apply for a newly created "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa, under the draft bill being written by the White House.
If approved, they could then apply for the same provisional legal status for their spouse or children living outside the country, according to the draft.
The draft was obtained from an Obama administration official who said it was being distributed to various agencies. The official requested anonymity because he was not authorized to release the proposal publicly.
The bill, which is still a working draft that could be significantly altered and may never be sent to Congress, is being developed as members in both chambers of Congress are drafting their own immigration bills. Last month, four Republican senators joined with four Democratic senators to announce their agreement on the general outlines of an immigration plan. In the House, a bipartisan group of representatives has been negotiating an immigration proposal for years and are writing their own bill.
In his first term, Obama often deferred to Congress on drafting and advancing major legislation, including the Affordable Care Act. He has openly supported the efforts in Congress to take the lead on immigration legislation, and just this week met with Democratic senators to discuss their proposals.
But two weeks ago in Las Vegas, while outlining his immigration plans, Obama made clear that he would not wait too long for Congress to get moving.
"If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away," he said.
White House spokesman Clark Stevens said Saturday that the administration continues to support the bipartisan efforts ongoing in Congress.
On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote: I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed.
You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. There are good and bad actions which can occur from an abundance of any of those, but they aren't inherently evil or bad in any sense.
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote: I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed.
You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. There are good and bad actions which can occur from an abundance of any of those, but they aren't inherently evil or bad in any sense.
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
Well at a micro level there's certainly such a thing as too much debt. That means that, realistically, there must be such a thing as too much debt in the aggregate.
Ex. If my income is $50 and my debt service is $51K I clearly have too much debt. Yes my debt service will be someone else's income, but I don't give two shits about that asshole.
On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote: I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed.
You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. There are good and bad actions which can occur from an abundance of any of those, but they aren't inherently evil or bad in any sense.
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
he's probably talking about david graeber's debt book. along the same perspective anyway, the debtor and creditor as class struggle~
On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote: I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed.
You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. There are good and bad actions which can occur from an abundance of any of those, but they aren't inherently evil or bad in any sense.
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
Well at a micro level there's certainly such a thing as too much debt. That means that, realistically, there must be such a thing as too much debt in the aggregate.
Ex. If my income is $50 and my debt service is $51K I clearly have too much debt. Yes my debt service will be someone else's income, but I don't give two shits about that asshole.
Extremes fade in the aggregate. For the most part, anything that is unstable for some possible input, extreme or not, is not a well designed system. Since debt is just a tool and not a system, it makes little sense to target debt as the culprit.
On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote: I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed.
You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns.
On the contrary, I would argue quite precisely that we DO have too much food (industrial agriculture and the so-called "green revolution" - americans spend less percentage income on our terribly unhealthy and unnutritious food than any other civilization in history) and we DO have too many guns (the domestic arms-race and the consumer military-industrial complex), and we DO have too much debt (which then has to find things to invest in, even when there's nothing truly useful to invest in, and really we should just invest in all of us working less and reading more books).
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
Sure, I agree with you about the company store dynamic, but I also think that people don't actually need the vast majority of the things they buy. Otherwise, why would there be advertising? Also, the things that capitalism produces are not designed to last (planned obsolescence), and the system is always producing new "wants and needs" that never existed before.
My politics are not populist in the sense that I just want to give people more stuff. I think americans already have plenty of stuff. More than enough stuff. What they need is better education and freedom from the ravages of an unstable economic system, self-sustaining and socially healthy communities, a sustainably managed biosphere, a government that doesn't involve itself in adventuristic imperialist wars...
On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote: I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed.
You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. There are good and bad actions which can occur from an abundance of any of those, but they aren't inherently evil or bad in any sense.
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
Well at a micro level there's certainly such a thing as too much debt. That means that, realistically, there must be such a thing as too much debt in the aggregate.
Ex. If my income is $50 and my debt service is $51K I clearly have too much debt. Yes my debt service will be someone else's income, but I don't give two shits about that asshole.
Extremes fade in the aggregate. For the most part, anything that is unstable for some possible input, extreme or not, is not a well designed system. Since debt is just a tool and not a system, it makes little sense to target debt as the culprit.
NO! This is very naive systems theory. Economics is extremistan, not mediocristan!
EPT
)
