Free Market Capitalism Bears No Fault in a Fallen Creation? Gag Me With a Spoon, Or The Other Guy, Rather....

From comments on the youtube video: David Bentley Hart: Myths of Christian History Sean Kennedy Sean Kennedy 1 year ago (edited) 06:50 "The petty, burgeoise consumerism, which gives us...Youtube." Youtube, the very communication platform upon which Mr. Hart currently relies to discuss his own popular ideas and book offerings (i.e. books which, via mass purchase and consumption, contribute to his livelihood.) Meaning: The situation is not as neatly divisible as Marx (or Hart) would have one believe. In short: The CONTENT (petty and otherwise) of our economic system is provided by the characters of the individuals who participate in said system. Ultimately, the content is little fault of the system itself. Contrary to what Mr. Hart appears to believe, in nowise is it inherent to free market capitalism, specifically, that individual ends must be vacant of the Good, or of God. Indeed, to the contrary, such freedom in a fallen creation, a creation thus pervaded by resource scarcity, allows the fullest possible range for the individual to pursue what he/she identifies (correctly or not) as that which is Good / God. The althernative, as far as I can see it, is to impose a system of behavior designed by a central human authority, aimed at directing the masses toward the Good/God. But (1) Good luck designing such a widely applicable, yet simultaneously materially successful system; (2a) Good luck designing such a system that avoids ultimate reliance upon coercion; or stated another way: (2b) Good luck defining the Good/God in a way acceptable to all participants, so that each would gladly and voluntaritly participate, or agree that the means to be employed are those best suited to achieve the end(s) chosen. I dare say that the outer bounds of Mr. Hart's knowledge of economic science, and its necessary implications for possible and actual social arrangements, are on full display here, and are regrettably narrow indeed. Too bad he's convinced otherwise, and too bad he's enamored of the demonstrably errant ideas of Marx et al. Economic cause and effect may appear simple and straightforward, but in fact lends itself to no easily won understanding, even by intellects as gifted as Hart's (and Marx). Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 1 year ago Interesting topic. However, you overestimate the difficulty of economic cause and effect. The problem is presumption, intimidation, and distortion. David Ellerman summed it up in refining his work on co-op firms, referring to key issues like social power relations and transaction costs. Herman Daly et al formulated Ecological Economics quite well. However, asserting the problems of inequality and unsustainability is key, along with Jesus´ legacy, and then talking up existing solutions, like labels e.g. organics and Fair Trade, food co-ops and credit unions to educate consumers, break indoctrination, and spur social enterprise. Grameen Bank is illuminating, as is Gr. Shakti and Solar.United.Neighbors. in the US. European Social Market Economics is a good rule of thumb. Sean Kennedy Sean Kennedy 1 year ago (edited) ​ @Green Peacemst What's telling, however, is that neither you, nor they, possess an intimate knowledge of economic theory and its historical development. Thus, you have no idea what economics entails in its essentials. Thus, you conflate two fundamentally different scientific endeavors, psychology and economics. Unless and until one studies in relative detail the historical development of economic theory, one is bound in ignorance and the phrase "one doesn't know what he doesn't know" is apt. For instance, Aristotle posited that goods of equal value exchange against one another---that an economic exchange is fundamentally one dealing with equalities. This idea, it so happens, is incorrect. Yet it stood as truth for a millenium. Only with the Spanish scholastics of the 16th century was the fact demonstrated that exchange occurs when each actor values that which is acquired more highly than that which is renounced, else no trade happens. Nevertheless, unfortunately, the profound economic insights of the scholastic thinkers failed to prevent all manner of subsequent fallacies from once again taking root in economic theorizing. To wit, Adam Smith and David Ricardo's fatally flawed cost-of-production theory of value swept British economics and was adopted by Marx, all three of whose influence clearly still manifests far and wide today. These examples are merely a SLIVER of the intellectual particularities which one NECESSARILY need be familiar with to truly comprehend economics qua economics. Again, the thinkers you take your ideas from HAVE NO CLUE of this history, and thus also NO CLUE what correct economics entails. Indeed, if Aristotle, Smith, Ricardo, and Marx could be so wildly incorrect---and incorrect regarding such an utterly fundamental phenomenon as value---surely the presumption a non-expert ought to adopt with respect to economics is that of profound ignorance and intellectual humility. I'm persuaded by NONE of this talk of "intimidation," "fair trade," and "social power relations." Whatever it is, it's NOT economics. And to whatever extent these conceptions may happen to countenance accurate economic theory (a possibility which I SERIOUSLY doubt), this is mere accident---none of these "thinkers" would be able to explicate the necessary connections and their significance. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 1 year ago @Sean Kennedy Oh, you misread your orthodox tea leaves, and project your own presumptions. Allow me to prepare my reply..... Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 1 year ago (edited) @Sean Kennedy Well, that was pompous and obnoxious. Which is par for the course in the orthodox economics quagmire of posturing sycophants. You sound nice and gummed up. Did you actually offer any substance, at least of one kind or another? Ah, we´ll get to that. As for “non-experts,” you happen to be talking to a guy with a masters and ample and diverse experience, which overeducated, overspecialized, and narrowly experienced pundits don´t. So. Oops for you. My qualifications are actually adequately expert. And yeah, I referred to Ellerman and Daly, who both worked with J Stiglitz and Stern at the WB. Oops for you. Me, oh, I started in Bio Anthro, and value multidisciplines and empiricism, and thanks to Intl Rel see through fallacious economic scholastic ideologizing. “Empiricism” relates to the scientific method, and economics has tried to avoid that in all its ideal theorizing, making all your creampuff “don´t know” psychology your own Jungian shadow projection. With my Bio Anthro basis, social psych observing of human interaction is fundamental. As for Aristotle, like his science, he made assumptions, not bad as you cite it. He can “posit” equal values all he wanted, the question is who and how “values” are determined. Artisans and small operators don´t wield unfair advantages normally, and can be generally thought of as giving honest accountings, which Dave Korten ascribed to Smith´s assumptions. Jolly good for him. And Smith filled his work with editorial comments warning about unequal participants. Oh my. Could that reflect “social power relations” expressed coyly in unempirical scholarship? And that´s 18th C. You cited “16th C. Spanish scholastics. Gee. Never heard of ´em. Am I lost? Sorry, already found. You ascribe an insight to them of “agent hyper valuation.” Good thing you reject psychology. Not. And there it is. And you acknowledge “fatal flaws” in “cost of production” value theories, where your attempt at reasoning and presentation resorts to “unknowability” based on defense of the inexpressible orthodoxy and ad hom against the unorthodox. Yeah, here in the real world, say, of Social Movement Sociology and Ecosocial Solidarity Economics, we note that Denmark´s socioeconomic history offers a reliable standard. They never suffered the destabilizing “encirclements” that enriched British aristocrats and was followed coincidentally by industrialization through exploitation. Labor´s salaries and hours weren´t actually by any equal valuation terms. Funny how that´s hardly on orthodox radar. And how much that corresponds to social power relations and intimidation. To wit, it´s not that you´re not persuaded. You´re deeply indoctrinated, peddlar wearing “non-expert”-colored glasses. As for Fair Trade, it cuts to the bone of your fantasy world serving an oligarchical US-led corporate profiteering model and WTO system. Ah, but Keynes just talked about interest rates, and the GDP promises unlimited growth, and Gandhi´s type of example shows how Fair Trade ecosocial business values cuts through distracting exploitative justifications. Reality check for ya, Pompous the Double-talking, Double-Book Clown. One book for the public, and the real one. Occupy Wall St. may have fizzled, but they were like martyrs. Now, why don´t you shake yourself up and read Daly´s fave JS Mill, and Mark Lutz´s background for Ellerman in John Ruskin. Jaroslav Vanek on Labor-managed econ might be jargon-friendly for ya. Daly and J Farley have a whole textbook to slice your mush-brain fat off. Any questions, junior league? Sean Kennedy Sean Kennedy 1 year ago @Green Peacemst Nothing you've just said contradicts my point. Again, without a fairly intimate knowledge of the intellectual development of economic theory, one is incapable of identifying that which, properly, belongs in the category of the economic. This includes yourself and the likes of Stiglitz. Degrees, honors, experience, and headships have nothing to do with this. To wit, your being enamored of empiricism as THE scientific method, when in fact economics is, properly, a deductive science. And, predictably, you leveling the charge of sycophantism, as every Marxian does in reply to criticism of his errors. Marx was wrong. And so are you. Voluntary exchange of property (including one's labor) is a positive sum endeavor, simple as that. To the extent exploitation DOES exist in the economy, this is due to exogenous factors which have nothing directly to do with the logic and practice of laissez-faire. To cry "unequal social power" or some such when describing the labor contract in a PURELY capitalist economy, can only be accomplished with a straight face by one tangled in Marxian fallacies, which is possible only when one is ignorant of economic theory and its historical development. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 1 year ago (edited) ​ @Sean Kennedy By psychologically denying that reality matters, of course you can ignore contradictions and their significance. Nothing would contradict your point if you were learning from me, and not sycophantically rationalizing all in your obtuse apparently shared economic orthodoxy. Stiglitz has shown signs of empirical sanity in his advocacy of public stakeholder shares in Russia´s post-communist conversion, and a Green Natl Product. Meanwhile, you just swirl like a theory-feathered vulture. Ah, degrees are irrelevant. Well, “irrelevancy” is a quality that can be established empirically and described with verbal efficacy. Your orthodoxy is virtually irrrelevant except as a characteristic of intransigent orthodoxy and the prevailing behaviors. Your deranged disdain of empiricism has a long presence in your “miserable science,” even as it is at odds with the fields aspirations as a “science,” again, not atypically. As for labels, did I mention any Marxian dogma? No, and you project your own malnourished epistemology. Ah, but your dogma? “Voluntary exchange of property (including one's labor) is a positive sum endeavor,” except that as a social science, and upon mandatory empirical examination, “voluntary” is a psychosocial and cultural contextualized variable, not immune to context except in unreal orthodoxy embedded in an unjust reality and committed to defending that injustice. "Turning a blind eye" is another term we "Real Lifers and Reality Checkers" use for your sorry kind. And on you go with “exogenous factors” and “laissez-faire.” Indeed, corporate executives like your kind of smokescreening. How sad for you then that 1972 UN Stockholm already drew on Pigou´s “externalities,” that pesky reality. In brainlessly barking orthodox theoretical purity, you would redeem yourself if you learned from my talk of strategies as “externality adjustment market mechanisms,” but you don´t. And that is why one project in the field is called (Post-) Autistic Economics. As if I am not part of an advancing collection of movements. As for your “Marxian” blinders, I used the term “social” economics, among others, and referred to JS Mills, and Lutz´s work. He doesn´t cover Social Europe, if I´m not mistaken, but German Frankfurt School ideas and ordoliberalism also confound you, as do the rest of Social Europe, and social business models. As you keep airbrushing that mustache and pie in your face, the real world is closing in. Nicholas Stern´s Climate Change report may have made little dent, but Germany´s citizens have led a charge in renewable energy co-ops. In fact, that´s where your corporate-friendly market fantasy could give you an escape hatch back to reality. Robert Owens and the Quaker-interdenominational abolitionists inspired the Rochdale Co-op´ists by the 1840s. That´s how all that works, dear dogmatist. Your denialist rationalizing allows you to pretend you´re not running, but you better study some of that “trivial” empirical stuff about sustainability. The NIH´s Fauci deduced and predicted an epidemic in 2017, from his years of inductive data. He´s like me, not you. And the UNDP? You can´t quite sustain through your hazy psychological defense mechanisms that they include eco-sustainability measures now with their UN HDI. And accounting for the World Bank´s involvement with UN SDGs just doesn´t compute. Nice mustache and pie in your wishful historical escapist face. Sean Kennedy Sean Kennedy 1 year ago @Green Peacemst "intransigent orthodoxy" Yes, truth is intransigent. Were you familiar with it, you would see the fantastic nature of your cooperative communism. But aren't cooperatives voluntary associations? Oops. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 1 year ago @Sean Kennedy The truth isn´t demonstrated in conceit and vanity, but is enlightening and revealed in empirical integrity, not escapist verbal posturing. It is revealed in justifications, for which empirical references intransigently push interpretations towards clarifying evaluations. You fastidiously demonstrate avoidance of any such responsible scholarship. The late Elinor Ostrom, who shared the Rijksbank Nobel, wasn´t a formal economist, and had joined Daly´s Institute for Ecological Economics, was an exceptional recipient, having done field work. The intransigent orthodoxy that you identify rides on corporate profiteering coattails, meanwhile. As for co-operative social business and market models, not your ideologically boxed "communism," tsk tsk, indeed, voluntary. A term which you can value in your cage, unable to see its historical origins in response to exploitation, and continuing significance, having been recognized amply by the World Bank, among other international institutions. Ah, but that is all fuzzy in your bubble of a purview. Highlighted reply Colin Purssey Colin Purssey 11 hours ago @Green Peacemst Wow ! You two antagonistic economics polemicists have left my head in a spin .Fascinating argument but the esoteric jargon and recondite subject matter that you both express , leaves the uninitiated , like myself , utterly confused . Thus from that vantage, I dunno who won the points ..... . Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 1 second ago @Colin Purssey "utterly confused"? You go so far as to equate me with the other guy, and more like, "utterly" ignored any and all references I made to quite empirical issues. It´s a basic insight that "neutral" folks like yourself are basically free riding on an unjust system. Time to face some facts. I had fun re-reading my stuff to note what you totally ignored. The question does ultimately fall back on who you are as a vocal audience member in this case. You apparently are not clear about the significance of 1972 UN Stockholm UNCHE environmental conference, and its meaning beyond all that it has lead to around Climate Change alone. If you´re literate enough, check out the 2005 World Bank-UNEP-NGO Ecosystem Assessment, or any more recent version of the NGO WWF et al´s "Living" Planet Report. They´re too soft in that title. It´s the Dying Planet Report. A little edgy for ya? You and your nephews and future geneaology are facing the rather unsettling implications, well, catastrophic really, of current industrial trends that are viciously and profiteeringly unsustainable. I also refer to things like Denmark´s social economy, and Germany´s, both of which innovated modern green power co-ops. I also mentioned Fair Trade and Solidarity Economics. Not quite familiar with those terms? Go take a look at the FLO´s site and their success stories, all of which is contextualized by how the commodities markets controlled by US-led profiteering mega-corporation businesspeople loved driving prices for coffee and bananas to the ground, with no regard for the small farmers. Fair Trade organizes small farmers into co-op enterprise, and obligates buyers to pay living prices and community premiums. Examples in the US´ s neck of the woods include organic and Fair Trade certified foods and things, Food co-op stores, credit unions (mostly conservative in nature), and now green power co-ops. The first successful project was Interfaith Power and Light, followed by the 2007 enterprise of two 12 year olds and a mom who founded SUN solar co-op, that has spread to 15 states so far with a low income project. Otherwise, I recommend looking up the winners of the Right Livelihood Award, like Brazil´s MST, and South Korea´s XYZ, and Japan´s Seikatsu Club, or visiting the US NCBA for co-op biz and the international org ICA for co-op biz. That should get your foot in the door, and start the detoxification process, or really, de-indoctrination.