Good essay, very thorough! Looking at the incentives angle is one of those things that sounds very simple, but works out to be rather difficult to carefully apply. Yet it leads to a hell of a lot of insight in a hurry.
> if we want to foster a healthy discussion of economics, we have to include discussions of the incentives at play
Yes! Suppose, for a moment, that the largest holdings were in the hands of people who had gained and retained their wealth and power by engaging in subversion, usury, blackmail and poisoning, for generations. What might their incentives be? Might they work keep us from noticing them? Might they keep us fighting against one another?
> why does capitalism get such a bad rap? One reason you didn't mention is because "Capitalism is State-sponsored Usury". That's the definition promoted by E. Michael Jones in his book Barren Metal. Usury always leads to concentration of money and power, in his model. He claims we can prohibit usury and still have enterprise, by investing instead in enterprises (investors share the risk), rather than letting out money at interest.
Meanwhile, Marxist theology just happens to come from the same people who've specialized in predation via usury for hundreds of years. Coincidence?
In all systems, the Pareto distribution of implies that some will excel relative to others. The question is, do we want to reward predatory, antisocial behavior like usury, blackmail, bribery and subversion, or do we want to reward positive contributions?
Interesting take. I don't think capitalism and usury are inherently intertwined, but as Jordan Peterson might say, hierarchies tend toward corruption. It would certainly need to be something guarded against by minimum necessary regulation. Perhaps I could've expanded on this more in the piece, but my "minimum necessary regulation" concept would ideally be set up to make rent seeking not worthwhile for the vast majority of the population.
> Meanwhile, Marxist theology just happens to come from the same people who've specialized in predation via usury for hundreds of years. Coincidence?
I love the idea of thinking of incentives in economics as forces in physics. I also appreciate the observation that wealth inequality has been a persistent phenomenon throughout human history, so isn't it better that those producing the most wealth enjoy the fruits? Just like the no solutions only tradeoffs quip, I like the 'rising tide lifts all ships' quip to laud the relative benefits of capitalism.
Taking you up on your call for feedback, my only concern is stipulating that an institution with a monopoly on force is a requirement for that minimum level of regulation. It seems like the proverbial camel's nose given the current state of things.
I didn't realize you had a stack, this was a pleasant surprise. Looking forward to reading more!
You make some solid points! Capitalism is great, so long as you can control monopolistic practices, most of which is covered by cronyism, but maybe not all. I'm thinking of examples like what allegedly happened with Tesla, where his inventions would have threatened some established industries, so the industrialists formed shell companies tasked with buying Tesla's patents and then burying them. There was probably some cronyism going on too, but if you have a few pathocratic business owners willing to collude to destroy competition, they may be able to do so without involving the government. Another example would be Apple, Google, and Amazon colluding to destroy Parler with a knockout combo -- though I'm sure you'd find some intelligence-state actors guiding that process behind the scenes, at least in theory you could have a conspiracy in restraint of trade that did not involve the government (though the government's involvement would obviously make that conspiracy more effective). I don't know what the answer is, but as long as you can restrain such practices, capitalism can work really well.
Communism, on the other hand, was one of the leading causes of death during the 20th-Century, so no surprise the depopulation enthusiasts are fans of it. Pretty much whatever the communists are for, I'm for the opposite.
Ah, monopolies, capitalism's kryptonite! Definitely would have to include some anti-monopoly policy in my ideal "minimum necessary regulation." I figured, writing a long economics piece, I'd miss a thing or two.
The parler example, though, is particularly thorny. You're right, the issue would require a carefully calibrated approach. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but with real public servants instead of crony politicians, I'm sure we'd arrive at better policies than what we have now.
"Communism, on the other hand, was one of the leading causes of death during the 20th-Century"-- Lol, a great way to sum up all of its problems in a single sentence.
Good essay, very thorough! Looking at the incentives angle is one of those things that sounds very simple, but works out to be rather difficult to carefully apply. Yet it leads to a hell of a lot of insight in a hurry.
I’ll have to read this twice.
> if we want to foster a healthy discussion of economics, we have to include discussions of the incentives at play
Yes! Suppose, for a moment, that the largest holdings were in the hands of people who had gained and retained their wealth and power by engaging in subversion, usury, blackmail and poisoning, for generations. What might their incentives be? Might they work keep us from noticing them? Might they keep us fighting against one another?
> why does capitalism get such a bad rap? One reason you didn't mention is because "Capitalism is State-sponsored Usury". That's the definition promoted by E. Michael Jones in his book Barren Metal. Usury always leads to concentration of money and power, in his model. He claims we can prohibit usury and still have enterprise, by investing instead in enterprises (investors share the risk), rather than letting out money at interest.
Meanwhile, Marxist theology just happens to come from the same people who've specialized in predation via usury for hundreds of years. Coincidence?
In all systems, the Pareto distribution of implies that some will excel relative to others. The question is, do we want to reward predatory, antisocial behavior like usury, blackmail, bribery and subversion, or do we want to reward positive contributions?
Interesting take. I don't think capitalism and usury are inherently intertwined, but as Jordan Peterson might say, hierarchies tend toward corruption. It would certainly need to be something guarded against by minimum necessary regulation. Perhaps I could've expanded on this more in the piece, but my "minimum necessary regulation" concept would ideally be set up to make rent seeking not worthwhile for the vast majority of the population.
> Meanwhile, Marxist theology just happens to come from the same people who've specialized in predation via usury for hundreds of years. Coincidence?
I think not (:
I love the idea of thinking of incentives in economics as forces in physics. I also appreciate the observation that wealth inequality has been a persistent phenomenon throughout human history, so isn't it better that those producing the most wealth enjoy the fruits? Just like the no solutions only tradeoffs quip, I like the 'rising tide lifts all ships' quip to laud the relative benefits of capitalism.
Taking you up on your call for feedback, my only concern is stipulating that an institution with a monopoly on force is a requirement for that minimum level of regulation. It seems like the proverbial camel's nose given the current state of things.
I didn't realize you had a stack, this was a pleasant surprise. Looking forward to reading more!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading!
> my only concern is stipulating that an institution with a monopoly on force is a requirement for that minimum level of regulation.
Yup. That's where a government for the people, by the people would come in handy. Now, if we could just find one of those...
You make some solid points! Capitalism is great, so long as you can control monopolistic practices, most of which is covered by cronyism, but maybe not all. I'm thinking of examples like what allegedly happened with Tesla, where his inventions would have threatened some established industries, so the industrialists formed shell companies tasked with buying Tesla's patents and then burying them. There was probably some cronyism going on too, but if you have a few pathocratic business owners willing to collude to destroy competition, they may be able to do so without involving the government. Another example would be Apple, Google, and Amazon colluding to destroy Parler with a knockout combo -- though I'm sure you'd find some intelligence-state actors guiding that process behind the scenes, at least in theory you could have a conspiracy in restraint of trade that did not involve the government (though the government's involvement would obviously make that conspiracy more effective). I don't know what the answer is, but as long as you can restrain such practices, capitalism can work really well.
Communism, on the other hand, was one of the leading causes of death during the 20th-Century, so no surprise the depopulation enthusiasts are fans of it. Pretty much whatever the communists are for, I'm for the opposite.
Anyway, great essay!
Ah, monopolies, capitalism's kryptonite! Definitely would have to include some anti-monopoly policy in my ideal "minimum necessary regulation." I figured, writing a long economics piece, I'd miss a thing or two.
The parler example, though, is particularly thorny. You're right, the issue would require a carefully calibrated approach. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but with real public servants instead of crony politicians, I'm sure we'd arrive at better policies than what we have now.
"Communism, on the other hand, was one of the leading causes of death during the 20th-Century"-- Lol, a great way to sum up all of its problems in a single sentence.
Thanks for reading!
Natural Law, Natural Righs, and Natural Order
twitter.com
@DavidRFerguson7