Thoughts Blog

This is my spot for Musings, Thoughts, and Commentary.

[cjburns-blog]

The world is getting better all the time, in 11 maps and charts

Think everything is terrible? These facts will make you think again.

Keeping with my previous posts... Vox, of all places, comes out with this article today. 

Life is getting better for many people around the globe, this is incontrovertible. We still have a ways to go though.

[cjburns-blog]

On Poverty

A bunch of socialists took an interest in my last post. I think its worth my time discussing poverty again.

The reason I am no longer a leftist is because I stopped trying to ignore economics. If you care about ending poverty, suffering, or exploitation then you have to look soberly at the historical record and see what alleviates those things the best. Make a list of things that best alleviate poverty, that make the lives of the poor and disadvantaged better off. Capitalism, Free Trade, and Free Markets belong at the top of that list, highlighted and circled in glitter.

Your world-view, theory on class struggle, belief in empowerment is flawed if it doesn’t take into account what the market process has done to lift the masses out of poverty. So spare me the demagoguery if you can’t even identify THE BEST Anti-Poverty Measures that this planet has at its disposal. 

[assdownloader]

sorry you’re so confident about being wrong

[vivianvivisection-deactivated20]

If you remove China from the figures, 6 million people have actually gone into poverty after the fall of the USSR. Are capitalists suggesting we follow Socialism with Chinese Characteristics now? Is this where we’re at now?

[cjburns-blog]

If you remove China there has still been a tremendous decrease in poverty everywhere in the world with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa. I’ll grant you your 6 million people figure... My point is that 500 million (not including an additional 173 million Chinese) has escaped extreme poverty since 1990.

For thousands of years humanity remained hopelessly poor, that was the case until the invent of Capitalism, 200 years ago, which turned things around for the entire planet.

So no, I’m not suggesting we follow Chinese economics. I’m suggesting we follow free enterprise given what its managed to do to poverty.

[cjburns-blog]

On Poverty

A bunch of socialists took an interest in my last post. I think its worth my time discussing poverty again.

The reason I am no longer a leftist is because I stopped trying to ignore economics. If you care about ending poverty, suffering, or exploitation then you have to look soberly at the historical record and see what alleviates those things the best. Make a list of things that best alleviate poverty, that make the lives of the poor and disadvantaged better off. Capitalism, Free Trade, and Free Markets belong at the top of that list, highlighted and circled in glitter.

Your world-view, theory on class struggle, belief in empowerment is flawed if it doesn’t take into account what the market process has done to lift the masses out of poverty. So spare me the demagoguery if you can’t even identify THE BEST Anti-Poverty Measures that this planet has at its disposal. 

[cjburns-blog]

Marxism is Wrong

[no-corners-deactivated20160918]

cjburns:

I’ve noticed that Marxists often pretend like Marx’s theory is SO complicated and if you start critiquing socialism/communism they’ll ask whether or not you’ve read Marx. I have read Marx. Not everything but certainly enough to get the tenets of his theory. The above video gives an adequate overview. So here’s why Marx was wrong: 

This video is a shit overview but whatever.

The March of History

History does not progress like a caterpillar. It does not move in one direction via stages. Rather it fluctuates and even regresses. Marx does not present a empirical or scientific case for history’s “march”, he simply asserts it. 

History in Marxism does not progress like a caterpillar (whatever the fuck that means), it progresses like a stair-step. Hunter gatherer society has been extensively documented by anthropoligists, and the relationship between agriculture and slave society/late feudalism as well as industrialization and capitalism is 

The notion that history is some sort of “great man” fluctuating, regressing, weird liquid thing is pure hegalian idealistic bullshit. Marx is a materialist, as is every serious historian, sociologist, or scientist alive today.

Alienation & Misery

In short, there’s no such thing. Don’t get me wrong, Yes, shitty jobs exist. But the notion that working class folks are being psychologically damaged because they are “separated” from the widgets they produce is a problem made up intellectuals/elites and projected onto the poorer classes to which those elitist do not relate. And the the idea that the masses will get worked up enough over this particular “problem” to start a revolution is laughable.

Again, horseshit. The fundamental contradiction of capitalism, being the dialectical relationship between capital and labor, is simply unsustainable. Just as the dialectical relationship between the king and the serf was unsustainable. The working class is alienated from the fruits of their labor, yes, this is one way of putting the problem. A better phrasing is that the surplus value of the working class is being forcibly stolen by the bourgeoisie, an act of implicit violence that kills working class people. 

A couple of things to consider:

The poor are not getting poorer. In fact poverty has been eradicated like never before seen over the past few decades alone.

Horseshit. From an inflationary standpoint, the working class is poorer than ever.

Since people are getting richer, they have more leisure and THAT’S where there happiness come from… Maybe not everyone loves their job, but they do love their car, guitar, ps4, their family vacation trip, etc… The idea that people must be perfectly at ease with their 9 to 5 is an old-fashioned idea. People work so that they can go enjoy their hobbies more fully. Stated more succinctly: Your Leisure brings enjoyment not just your Labor

There is no leisure under late capitalism. Everything is fucking garbage. I have no interest in these bourgeois diversions. I am constantly fucking stressed. This society is fucking trash.

Simply check the facts, where’s the most misery? In socialist countries or capitalist ones.

Misery for whom? Proletarians tend to prefer socialism. For obvious reasons, the “misery” of the bourgeoisie is absolutely irrelevant.

Wealth & Exploitation

People are not getting poorer. Marxian economics is flawed because it begins its story in the middle. You see it in the video with capital, firms, and management just existing and their only input is not being labor. that’s wrong. Here’s an example I used in a class (of about 20 ppl) once:

Imagine us making an apple pie factory, in one of two ways:

The Capitalist Way: I, the Capitalist, spend years under-consuming to start a business (or to make sure I’m credit worthy to get a loan). I then hire you guys to renovate some land, build an building, fill that building with ovens and refrigeration units over the next few months. Finally, I pay y’all to produce my first batch of 1000 apple pies for sale.

The Socialist Way: We, the people, all pool up our savings or take out an collective loan. We buy land, we build a building , we fill it with ovens and refrigeration units over the next few months. Finally, we make the first batch of 1000 apple pies to sale.

Lets say in both cases, we find out that the surrounding community is allergic to apples, or they just really hate our pies. In the Capitalist scenario, do I get to go around and ask all the people I hired over the past few months for my money back because the fruits of their labor didn’t sale? No. Regardless of MY profit they got paid well in advance of the completion of the production process. In economics this concept is known as Time-Preference. In the Socialist Scenario, we are all shit out of luck. 20 peoples families have now gone months without any income and now that will continue even longer. 

This analogy is fucking absurd. My god. Under capitalism, the means of production are directed by individuals (the bourgeoisie) and, as we know, their choices are prone to flaws- from benign (new coke) to hideous (the triangle shirtwaist fire). Capitalism certainly isn’t immune to making shitty pies. 

Under socialism, the means of production are directed by means of democracy. Yes, as we know, democracy is certainly not perfect, but the notion that instead we should surrender this authority to capitalist plutocratic fuckheads is neo-feudalist at best. 

NOTE: I’m not saying the socialist way is impossible, simply that it presents a risk that many don’t find beneficial and therefore its rare.  

 Marxism overlooks the beneficial role of the capitalist to the laborer.

uh you have failed completely in establishing such a beneficial role.

motherfuckin’

[cjburns-blog]

On Marxian History:

I said Marxians act as if history progresses forward through stages. You then said: “No...it progresses like a stair-step.” ...So I think that's the same thing and we agree here. The reason why I think this approach to history is flawed is because Marxism (and I think you would agree with me on this) is always geared toward the idea of a coming revolution. Now, if you work under the faulty notion that once the revolution happens society will enter the next stage, or climb the next “stair-step” then you fall into the trap of believing ANY change from the current system to the next will be better. This is why Marx and Engels never drew up any details of getting to their dream society and contented themselves with the (unscientific) theory that it was just fated to happen. As you surely know, this left their successors with a sorts of blank check. This flaw is the reason why socialist revolutions have had a tendency to turn totalitarian dictatorships which left the revolutionaries worse off, ultimately, despite their zealotry. Understanding that revolting against the current system could lead to a worse system might have saved lives in Russia and China.

Also why did you put “great man” in quotes? I never used those words...

On Poverty:

This is the most fundamental and substantive part of our disagreement. You are clearly talking from out of your ass if you can’t admit poverty has fallen. And then trying to use the word ‘inflation’ instead of actually presenting an argument is intellectual dishonesty. Plenty of work has been done on this. Extreme Poverty is falling unprecedentedly fast. The poor and working class today live better than millionaires could just 100 years ago. This is all incontrovertible.  Simply Google “the decline of poverty”. Marx was wrong on this very important point. To persist in believing as he did on this issue despite having the crystal clear historical record at your fingertips is intellectual laziness.

On Leisure:

You just threw a temper tantrum on this point. YOU personally being stressed doesn’t mean there is “no leisure” under capitalism. ...Again, facts exists and you are wrong.

On the Capitalist’s Benefit:

You didn’t even post a rebuttal here. You just agreed that socialists and capitalists can make shitty pies. The point of my example is this: Most businesses fail. The capitalist assumes the risk that most individuals can’t, in order to start those businesses.

[cjburns-blog]

Marxism is Wrong

I’ve noticed that Marxists often pretend like Marx’s theory is SO complicated and if you start critiquing socialism/communism they’ll ask whether or not you’ve read Marx. I have read Marx. Not everything but certainly enough to get the tenets of his theory. The above video gives an adequate overview. So here’s why Marx was wrong: 

The March of History

History does not progress like a caterpillar. It does not move in one direction via stages. Rather it fluctuates and even regresses. Marx does not present a empirical or scientific case for history’s “march”, he simply asserts it. 

Alienation & Misery

In short, there’s no such thing. Don’t get me wrong, Yes, shitty jobs exist. But the notion that working class folks are being psychologically damaged because they are “separated” from the widgets they produce is a problem made up intellectuals/elites and projected onto the poorer classes to which those elitist do not relate. And the the idea that the masses will get worked up enough over this particular “problem” to start a revolution is laughable.

A couple of things to consider:

The poor are not getting poorer. In fact poverty has been eradicated like never before seen over the past few decades alone.

Since people are getting richer, they have more leisure and THAT’S where there happiness come from... Maybe not everyone loves their job, but they do love their car, guitar, ps4, their family vacation trip, etc... The idea that people must be perfectly at ease with their 9 to 5 is an old-fashioned idea. People work so that they can go enjoy their hobbies more fully. Stated more succinctly: Your Leisure brings enjoyment not just your Labor

Simply check the facts, where’s the most misery? In socialist countries or capitalist ones.

Wealth & Exploitation

People are not getting poorer. Marxian economics is flawed because it begins its story in the middle. You see it in the video with capital, firms, and management just existing and their only input is not being labor. that’s wrong. Here’s an example I used in a class (of about 20 ppl) once:

Imagine us making an apple pie factory, in one of two ways:

The Capitalist Way: I, the Capitalist, spend years under-consuming to start a business (or to make sure I’m credit worthy to get a loan). I then hire you guys to renovate some land, build an building, fill that building with ovens and refrigeration units over the next few months. Finally, I pay y’all to produce my first batch of 1000 apple pies for sale.

The Socialist Way: We, the people, all pool up our savings or take out an collective loan. We buy land, we build a building , we fill it with ovens and refrigeration units over the next few months. Finally, we make the first batch of 1000 apple pies to sale.

Lets say in both cases, we find out that the surrounding community is allergic to apples, or they just really hate our pies. In the Capitalist scenario, do I get to go around and ask all the people I hired over the past few months for my money back because the fruits of their labor didn’t sale? No. Regardless of MY profit they got paid well in advance of the completion of the production process. In economics this concept is known as Time-Preference. In the Socialist Scenario, we are all shit out of luck. 20 peoples families have now gone months without any income and now that will continue even longer. 

NOTE: I’m not saying the socialist way is impossible, simply that it presents a risk that many don’t find beneficial and therefore its rare.  

 Marxism overlooks the beneficial role of the capitalist to the laborer.

[cjburns-blog]

An Idea for an Article

Here’s an idea for an article someone (...I...) should write.

Regarding the Confederate Flag controversy:

To anyone who is skeptical toward institutional racism, or toward the idea that racist practices do have a habit of lingering, morphing, and not just fading away. Take that flag as proof otherwise. Here we have a symbol whose rise to prominence, after the civil war, came because of the 1948 efforts of the KKK and Southern Dixiecrat. These were people who’s motivating political and social goal was to do blacks harm. 

THEIR symbol sat atop government buildings and southern whites, in large part, bought into the narrative that the symbol didn’t mean anything malicious. It may not have meant anything malicious to them but to most blacks the message has always been clear. 

(Its been my experience that whenever you get into a conversation with someone who wants to defend the flag they ultimately end up losing the argument once they finish delivering their flag history lesson and quoting Lincoln.) So if you come to the rightful conclusion that the C-flag’s use and prominence is due to some seriously immoral historical actors, then maybe that can be a gateway for conceptualizing other practices that persist in hurting your neighbor w/o your knowledge. 

What are some of those practices that are perceived as good or harmless but actually have racist roots, you ask?

The Left should look at Minimum Wage Laws’ history.  The Right should look at The Drug War and Mandatory Sentencing Laws.

[theunitofcaring]

I really agree with John Roberts’ dissent in the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage today: 

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

[cjburns-blog]

...and I hope he’s right. Polyamorous relationships should be the next step. Its a very traditional and Biblicaly established form of marriage, that should not be banned by the force of government as long as it involves consenting adults.

Additionally, I doubt anyone will want to marry their brother, or a tree, or a rock or their cat. First, most of those examples cannot involve adult consent. Second, it is currently legal to fall in love with a rock or a tree or your brother - but people don't.

[wetheliving-deactivated20170116]

This soon will be my Avatar. I am prepared for the unfollows.

But I am tired of the double standard, contradictory nature of the bastards who believe in censorship, misinformation, and flat out ignorance.

[never-surrender-to-the-world]

That flag isn’t my flag but there’s a lot of lies and bigotry and ignorance coming from the north and west about the people who call that their flag.

So more power to you brother. I won’t follow suit but more power to you.

[wetheliving-deactivated20170116]

I’ve always seen as a flag of rebellion. Much as the US Flag was seen as a flag of rebellion. If racism were its symbol, more blood was spilt for racism in the name of the US Flag than either. But such is disregarding the fact that the Southern Cross is not the Flag of the Confederacy and it isn’t the Stars and Bars which was.

This flag was a Battle Flag for the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. But you don’t see anyone clamoring for the US Flag to be brought down, and you certainly won’t see any of them dare think about what symbolism really is and their real motivations.

[never-surrender-to-the-world]

It’s because people from the north love to look down on people from the south.

[cjburns-blog]

Comparing this flag to the US flag is a red herring and a distraction. (I have no use for either flag, btw.) The Army of No. Virginia and Tennessee fought to protect the institution of black chattel slavery. What’s more, this Confederate flag for the past several decades has been used as a symbol of white supremacy and black oppression.  Don’t pretend that the backlash against this symbol is being conjured from out of nowhere. There are legitimate ties between this symbol and slavery and oppression. Those who use / display / defend this flag, despite those connections, should rightfully be judged. Judged b/c they are either indifferent to, or ignorant of its perception.

Bad things has been done under the US flag too, but that doesn’t rationalize using a symbol that, from its inception, has been about human captivity. 

[wetheliving-deactivated20170116]

How is it a red herring? If the ties of slavery and oppression is so close knit to the Battle Flag, then the ties slavery and oppression are much stronger with the American flag. The point is to point out the hypocrisy. Whatever the ties are, the question is the symbology of the flag, which is not necessarily tied to anything except war.

Since the Civil War was not primarily fought over slavery, and nor the Union so noble in their cause, the contradictions and the hypocrisy of those who view it as the symbol of white supremacy and black oppression is extraordinarily strong.

No one is denying some piece of history except for those who want it taken down, which is the blood of the American flag. If they want one down, they should want both down. They are tied together. Both with similar births in rebellion, and both part of the US History, and both having similar reputations (one must not forget the slaves owned in the North, or the allowance of slavery to exist under the American flag).

If this really was about racism and oppression, they should call for both flags to be torn down. They are not, and they should, for lack of better words, go fuck themselves. Let’s not forget that a symbol is different to everyone. That is the point here, and that is what is being attacked. Not racism. Not oppression.

[cjburns-blog]

Its a distraction because you get to dodge the reason that the C-Flag is under fire. For many whites in recent decades (Dylann Roof chief among them), it has absolutely been a symbol of white supremacy and black oppression (not of a battle). Therefore, if you use the C-Flag as a symbol for states rights or independence you are either missing a big hiccup in that symbol’s history ...or just being disingenuous. It doesn’t belong on government property for this reason.  Thomas Jefferson:  “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” Why should the black populations of southern states be taxed to keep up a symbol that has been used by hate groups for at least a century to oppress them?

If you want to make it your avatar fine, it’s your property and you’re not hurting anyone. But to do this knowing full well the entirety of the message that flag sends out (whether you subscribe to that message or not) means that people are right to judge your support of it, given its history. To support that flag means you are either indifferent to, ignorant, or supportive of all that has done under that flag. That reflects poorly on you. (And replying to this post with “Oh, but the US Flag... ... ...” IS a distraction because I’m not the one defending a flag’s use here, you are.)

[wetheliving-deactivated20170116]

This soon will be my Avatar. I am prepared for the unfollows.

But I am tired of the double standard, contradictory nature of the bastards who believe in censorship, misinformation, and flat out ignorance.

[never-surrender-to-the-world]

That flag isn’t my flag but there’s a lot of lies and bigotry and ignorance coming from the north and west about the people who call that their flag.

So more power to you brother. I won’t follow suit but more power to you.

[wetheliving-deactivated20170116]

I’ve always seen as a flag of rebellion. Much as the US Flag was seen as a flag of rebellion. If racism were its symbol, more blood was spilt for racism in the name of the US Flag than either. But such is disregarding the fact that the Southern Cross is not the Flag of the Confederacy and it isn’t the Stars and Bars which was.

This flag was a Battle Flag for the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. But you don’t see anyone clamoring for the US Flag to be brought down, and you certainly won’t see any of them dare think about what symbolism really is and their real motivations.

[never-surrender-to-the-world]

It’s because people from the north love to look down on people from the south.

[cjburns-blog]

Comparing this flag to the US flag is a red herring and a distraction. (I have no use for either flag, btw.) The Army of No. Virginia and Tennessee fought to protect the institution of black chattel slavery. What’s more, this Confederate flag for the past several decades has been used as a symbol of white supremacy and black oppression.  Don’t pretend that the backlash against this symbol is being conjured from out of nowhere. There are legitimate ties between this symbol and slavery and oppression. Those who use / display / defend this flag, despite those connections, should rightfully be judged. Judged b/c they are either indifferent to, or ignorant of its perception.

Bad things has been done under the US flag too, but that doesn’t rationalize using a symbol that, from its inception, has been about human captivity. 

[never-surrender-to-the-world]

People who think the civil war was fought over slavery… Lol

[cjburns-blog]

Yes... The South fought to defend slavery. The North fought to consolidate power.

[wetheliving-deactivated20170116]

This soon will be my Avatar. I am prepared for the unfollows.

But I am tired of the double standard, contradictory nature of the bastards who believe in censorship, misinformation, and flat out ignorance.

[never-surrender-to-the-world]

That flag isn’t my flag but there’s a lot of lies and bigotry and ignorance coming from the north and west about the people who call that their flag.

So more power to you brother. I won’t follow suit but more power to you.

[wetheliving-deactivated20170116]

I’ve always seen as a flag of rebellion. Much as the US Flag was seen as a flag of rebellion. If racism were its symbol, more blood was spilt for racism in the name of the US Flag than either. But such is disregarding the fact that the Southern Cross is not the Flag of the Confederacy and it isn’t the Stars and Bars which was.

This flag was a Battle Flag for the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. But you don’t see anyone clamoring for the US Flag to be brought down, and you certainly won’t see any of them dare think about what symbolism really is and their real motivations.

[never-surrender-to-the-world]

It’s because people from the north love to look down on people from the south.

[cjburns-blog]

Comparing this flag to the US flag is a red herring and a distraction. (I have no use for either flag, btw.) The Army of No. Virginia and Tennessee fought to protect the institution of black chattel slavery. What’s more, this Confederate flag for the past several decades has been used as a symbol of white supremacy and black oppression.  Don’t pretend that the backlash against this symbol is being conjured from out of nowhere. There are legitimate ties between this symbol and slavery and oppression. Those who use / display / defend this flag, despite those connections, should rightfully be judged. Judged b/c they are either indifferent to, or ignorant of its perception.

Bad things has been done under the US flag too, but that doesn’t rationalize using a symbol that, from its inception, has been about human captivity. 

[cjburns-blog]

Why is Racism bad?

In a conversation with a friend of mine a while ago he said something that stuck with me. It went something like this:

“Its not enough to say “Hey, that’s racist!” ...because what if something is racist AND true?”

Perhaps more context is needed for the above quote, but I agree with the gist of it. Does identifying a thought, a person, or action as racist mean that thing should be discarded, dismissed, or shunned immediately? W/o a second thought?  What does identifying something as racist truly mean?

I would like to put forth the notion that “Hey, that’s racist!” should signify something else entirely. While those who routinely call things racists are probably guilty of using the term reflexively without much thought, I think that there is some merit to being weary of racism. That merit comes from a lesson that humanity has had to learn the hard way. 

Economist Deirdre McCloskey famously calls the tremendous increase of wealth that has occurred over the past two centuries “The Great Fact”. No one can dispute that it happened... they only argue over how it happened. I would posit another “Great Fact”, one spanning the time of the past 400 years. Namely, it is the genocide of non-white and indigenous peoples by white European populations. These were several millions of deaths that were justified by the feeling of superiority. That the white man was separate from the indigenous savage or more evolved than non-white man and was therefore justified in mistreating them. 

We know now that this is wrong. Arguments about intelligence or technological sophistication are distractions. Those argument are the last ditch chance to throw darker skinned people under the bus in order to keep up the aura of white superiority. Human beings have rights. Rights that white Europeans (just as human as the rest of us) violated. Rights that racists tend to be eager to forget about when they spew their drivel. Cops violate the rights, person-hood, and dignity of the poor populations that they prey upon. The Drug War violates the natural rights of its victims. Jim Crow laws and segregation violated the right of equality before the law, and so on.

The term “racist” didn’t fall out of the sky so that non-whites could use it to lord over others. Rather it is an historical observation that signifies: “Hey! Slow down and remember you are talking about a person who has rights and dignity and sovereignty; ...that person is not your inferior.”

Like I said above, I believe identifying something as racist should not end the discussion. But its also important to remember the term “racism” is an important advancement. I would rather live in a world in which people were constantly pressured to clean up their acts and examine whether their beliefs or actions stem from the (conscious or unconscious) belief in another’s inferiority, than a world that resembled the era mass genocide/mistreatment/exploitation. 

[cjburns-blog]

From a Progressive friend today:

“You can’t separate fiscal issues from social issues. They’re deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That’s true even for the mildest, most generous version of “fiscal conservatism” — low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives.”

Say you were to make a list of things that alleviate poverty and make the lives of the poor and disadvantaged better. (1-20)

If Capitalism, Free trade, or Economic Freedom is not at the top of that list (circled, highlighted in yellow, with glitter and a sparkler sticking out) then please spare me ANY demagoguery on the subject of poverty. If you can’t admit that these things have been the most effective anti-poverty measures EVER, then you don’t know what you are talking about. So go try to lord over someone else.

You are correct when you say that fiscal issues and social issues affect each other. Economics is a social science. Maybe YOU should stop ignoring what economics teaches.

[hearmywordsworld]

Minimum wage should be $15. We also need to reduce work days to 6 hours per day maximum; people need to be able to devote a sizable amount of their time to personal pursuits and work droneifies and exhausts the individual. We can allow overtime beyond those 6 hours but it needs to be a minimum of $25 per hour for that.

[cjburns-blog]

Well this doesn’t really have anything to do with my post but I’ll bite... Are you aware of the racist and eugenicist origins of minimum wage laws? 

(For some academic work on this topic, check out the 2005 article in the   Journal of Economic Perspectives by Thomas C. Leonard. Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era) 

In the late 19th and early 20th century the white ruling class in most European countries and in the US became upset by the increase of living standards and therefore increased infant mortality/reproduction of “inferior races” (non-whites). One of the tools that they used to combat this problem, in conjunction with things like segregation and forced sterilization, was minimum wage laws. It was even a tool of apartheid in South Africa.

The minimum wage is not, and has never been, a silver bullet for poverty. It was passed in large part to keep non-whites and even women from competing with white men in the labor force. White elites of every political background, (be they Heads of State, American Economics Association, or Fabian Socialists like Sidney and Beatrice Webb) were for minimum wage laws precisely impoverished the lower classes. I could post a series of quotes here by these people from the Progressive Era saying just that, but hopefully you’ll just Google it.

Lastly, I don’t dispute the merits of having leisure time. All I would point out to my Progressive friends is that they should be honest about what type of economic system allows for such leisure for the masses. IMO any theory of poverty, class struggle, or of worker empowerment (that’s worth a damn) needs to take into account what markets and freedom have done to advance each of those things. If people worked 6 hours a day in the year 1213 they would have starved to death in poverty. The fact that increasing amounts of people may have the option of a 30 hour work week without starving to death the remaining 128 hours is do to increased production from Capitalism.

[cjburns-blog]

From a Progressive friend today:

“You can’t separate fiscal issues from social issues. They’re deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That’s true even for the mildest, most generous version of “fiscal conservatism” — low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives.”

Say you were to make a list of things that alleviate poverty and make the lives of the poor and disadvantaged better. (1-20)

If Capitalism, Free trade, or Economic Freedom is not at the top of that list (circled, highlighted in yellow, with glitter and a sparkler sticking out) then please spare me ANY demagoguery on the subject of poverty. If you can’t admit that these things have been the most effective anti-poverty measures EVER, then you don’t know what you are talking about. So go try to lord over someone else.

You are correct when you say that fiscal issues and social issues affect each other. Economics is a social science. Maybe YOU should stop ignoring what economics teaches.

[cjburns-blog]

People will more and more freely find ways to exchange their specialized production for diversified consumption. This world can already be glimpsed on the web, in what John Barlow calls 'dot-communism': a workforce of free agents bartering their ideas and efforts barely interested in whether the barter yields 'real' money... People are willing to share their photographs on Flickr, their thoughts on Twitter, their friends on Facebook, their knowledge on Wikipedia, their software patches on Linux, their donations on GlobalGiving, their community news on Craigslist, their pedigrees on Ancestry.com, their genomes on 23andMe, even their medical records on PatientsLikeMe. Thanks to the internet, each is giving according to his ability to each according to his needs, to a degree that never happened in Marxism.

Matt Ridley, The Rational Optmist

[cjburns-blog]

I haven’t forgot about my Tumblr... I’m just having a crisis w/ my car. More posts still to come. :)

[cjburns-blog]

A thought on Democracy

Last time I wrote about economist Bryan Caplan’s idea of the Ideological Turing Test. I want to discuss Democratic Fundamentalism, another idea of his, that comes from his 2007 book The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. 

Market Fundamentalism

“Market Fundamentalism” is a charge, according to Caplan, that gets levied against the economics profession often. I would extend that claim and say that libertarians also get accused of this often. (and probably justifiably so) The charge of “Fundamentalism” hearkens to the term Christian fundamentalism, which usually describes people who adhere strictly to the bible and who remain unchanging in their views no matter the facts.  He then shows why such a criticism fails against economists, noting that self-criticism and searching for ‘exceptions to the rule’ is a big part of the profession. The best example of this is Milton Friedman, the prominent libertarian economist, who made “numerous exceptions on everything from money to welfare to antitrust.” Friedman identifies plenty of market failures and poor market performance in his book Capitalism and Freedom. Usually it is economists who identify market failures and exceptions to markets in the first place and so the charge does not stick to them.

Democratic Fundamentalism

My senior seminar class topic was “Democratic Theory”, in this class we read various authors and their arguments for and against the many types of democracy ie. deliberative, representative, property-owning, adversarial, constitutional, etc. One by one we examined the various types of democracy, identified the merits and problems with it, then moved on to the next type. At the end of the semester we had to write a paper on a topic of our choosing that had something to do with what we researched all semester. I wrote about Panarchy. I guess by the end of the class I came to the conclusion that people should just choose their own fucking government and then stop trying to figure out what system to force the rest of society into. If I had to do the class over again I would write a much better paper, one the challenged the underlying presumption of the course: Why Democracy? Why are all of these smart people racking their brains over these various types of democracy? Why MUST we make democracy work? I think the Professor, the authors we read, and my fellow students were all guilty of being democratic fundamentalists.

hmm, I just realized that what I have to say here will take a lot of space, time, and some thought so as to not come off as polemical (b/c I always see the shades of gray). I’ll make a post in the coming days critiquing democracy. It seems to be used by a lot of my progressive friends as a sort of first principle, but really I suspect a couple of things: 

"Democratize” really just used as a replacement for the word socialize/socialism.

Many people think of democracy as this aspirational virtue... I think this is weird in some cases.

Does democracy actually empower the masses in the way many progressives think? And if so, is this always the case? Can other competing virtues override the democratic virtue?  What if respecting those competing virtues empower the masses, the poor, or women more than “democratizing” would? 

Do progressives devote any time to such questions?

[cjburns-blog]

Open Immigration and Libertarianism

I saw the following post on FB by a “libertarian” professor of history and author. (I put libertarian in quotes b/c its become clear to me that he’s just a conservative.) The quote:

"If illegal immigrants are supposed to help our economy, then why weren’t they helping the economies of the poor nations they fled?" -- John Hawkins

One could argue that it's selfish of us to deprive the poor nations they fled of the benefit of their presence.

This is obviously not a good argument. This is something I would expect from a neophyte, not someone with a PhD that claims to be aligned politically anywhere near libertarianism. Gee... Is there a difference b/n the American economy and the economy of a poor nation? Lets ask Bryan Caplan:

Imagine a billion farmers stuck in Antarctica.  What would happen if we let them move to places where their labor's more productive?  They'd obviously be better off, but so would every consumer of food on earth.  Economically speaking, Haiti and Bangladesh are like Antarctica; they're countries where workers only realize a sliver of their full potential.  What's the best job you could get in Bangladesh?

The reason those who support open borders talk about the benefits of immigration is not because we think immigrants are economic demi-gods that shit gold in every new country they move to. Its because A.) they are trapped in poverty, B.) as human beings they have a right to exit said poverty and try to make a better life elsewhere, and C.) Economist Michael Clemens (the world's top expert on the topic) finds that a free global labor market would roughly DOUBLE global production (ending poverty and a host of other bad things that accompany it).

The subsequent comments section under the original FB post has grown to about 70+ comments as of now. What prompted me to make a status here about this, is the arguments I’m seeing made by the professor and those who agree with the quote.They are making what I’ll call the “defective people” argument. Another name for this is just plain xenophobia. The professor is concerned the Latin American culture will come to the states, that parts of America will become “culturally a part of China”. With the strong inference that these foreign cultures are inferior given the economic state of the countries being fled. I can’t help but notice that all the people agreeing with him are old white people. They are out of touch.

Actual libertarians can learn from this exchange. Stop getting entangled with social conservative side issues. Imagine if we did have an open borders policy enacted. A good libertarian IMO should spend his time explaining WHY the US’s economy is such a better place for economic opportunity than the countries being fled. A good libertarian would realize that the poor nations who are being ran by cronies, socialists, dictators, and exploiters would be faced with a fatal ultimatum: change course or lose your tax base. A good libertarian would see that people voting with their feet and moving toward market economies is a sign a victory, one that socialist economies and welfare states could never allow. A BAD “libertarian” would spend his time claiming that the sky is falling because of all the inferior cultures that are out to get him. 

Social conservatarians, should keep there thinly veiled racism to themselves. Libertarians, should watch who all tries to march behind our banner at SOME point we have to say “no, THAT set of ideas are not a part of the libertarian, cosmopolitan tradition” one of individualism, freedom, and prosperity.

*Update* The guy deleted the thread.