(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

must vent must vent must vent



oh my god, we just had a shit-hurling fight with one of my flatmates and her boyfriend and... arg. They kept saying stuff like "but you can't just give lazy people money" and then I'd say "but you can't call them lazy people and ARGH, you guys may know heaps about economics but you obviously don't know shit about the social sciences" and then they'd say "stop changing the subject." And, I'm sorry, but if you're making an argument and one of your key premises is flawed, then defeating your argument involves pointing out that flawed premise as opposed to responding to your flawed argument. Nnnngh. Some sample dialogue:

"Four weeks' holiday makes it too hard for small businesses."
(Erm, so people shouldn't have fair working conditions because it's too hard for small businesses to sustain? Not the workers' problem, sorry, since plenty of small businesses obviously *do* manage it.)

"But it's better to let rich people get richer because it gets spread around!"
(Hello, it's called the trickle down effect and it does not work, take a look at america, redistribution is necessary.)

and and and I can't keep talking about this because I'll have an aneurysm and get too pissed off (I already shouted a LOT.) So I'm stopping but nnnnnnnnngh, Mr Darwin, the stupid people are breeding and taking over the planet! And the worst bit is, they have a bit of economic theory under their belt so they think they know everything about it, these engineering students! You know what commerce and economics are taught by rich people. Take some sociology and then talk to me.

Comments

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

you're arguing that the New Zealand state should increase the cost of labour within its borders, and, that this will improve standards of living within New Zealand.

That is correct. It is my opinion that the minimum wage should reflect living costs. And with reference to your second "point" I will note that the minimum wage has increased, and unemployment has decreased, over the past several years.

Furthermore, the example countries, such as USA or post-Industrial Revolution Britain, which have chosen to minimise labour costs (and tax, and restrictions on business, and so forth) saw and are seeing a dramatic increase in poverty and in a very large underclass. I am more concerned with their living conditions than with the living conditions of the middle class and business owners.

[derrick-reeves.livejournal.com]

I will note that the minimum wage has increased, and unemployment has decreased, over the past several years.

Is this meant to show that firms will not move overseas in the face of increased labour costs (of which the minimum wage is only one component)? Or are you simply noting that capital has yet to flee in sufficient quantities to seriously affect employment? The former is inconsistent with the evidence, while the latter is no defence of your position.

(I don't mean to suggest that these are the only lines that you might take. It's quite possible that I am suffering from a failure of imagination in attempting to reconstruct the whole melody from just one note. If so, please accept my apologies.)

For the rest, I don't have any commitment to defending the policies of the national bourgeoisie in the United States or United Kingdom, or for that matter, in New Zealand. My criticism of your position comes from the internationalist left: what you are putting forward is an unrealistic solution (if it's any solution) to the problems faced by working class people, because it's insensitive to the global situation.
If the one country solution is to work, it has to be able to deal with the hard fact of the global labour market, the pitiless logic of the profit system, and the outlook of international finance. As far as I can tell, your response to these factors is non-existent. Forget the ability of production capital to move away - they haven't yet. Don't worry about the profit system - morality is what really matters. And the IMF? Well, I guess the retort will be something along the lines of, "How many divisions do they have?"

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Or are you simply noting that capital has yet to flee in sufficient quantities to seriously affect employment? [this] is no defence of your position.

Actually I think it's quite a reasonable defence. Since they have not yet fled, what reason is there to suggest that they will? - I will also note my opposition to entirely free trade and what is IMO a dramatically unfair globalisation. Which is what I think you're referring to when you talk about the global situation?

I'm not going to respond to your comments on the profit system because I don't take economics and I probably do not have a good understanding of it. But I will say that if you're asking me whether I think sustaining the abilities of businesses to make very large profits is less important than sustaining the abilities of the working class (and, on a global scale, the extremely poor) to be educated and to live well, then, er, yup.

[derrick-reeves.livejournal.com]

Since they have not yet fled, what reason is there to suggest that they will?

Actually, production capital is fleeing New Zealand (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0704/S00396.htm). For the reason to think that this trend will continue, this (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0704/S00410.htm) is indicative.

I will also note my opposition to entirely free trade and what is IMO a dramatically unfair globalisation. Which is what I think you're referring to when you talk about the global situation?

I don't understand what you think is unfair about globalisation. This process is a great leveller, bringing the conditions of the proletariat into a more uniform scheme internationally; it's actually progressive in so far as it proletarianises the middle classes of the developed world, and erodes the economic basis of reactionary nationalism. To put that more clearly, I believe that globalisation, even though it allows for the extraction of super-profits from the labour of the working class, also acts to swell their numbers and increase their consciousness, while weakening the bourgeois state that defends capitalism.

Still, let me grant "unfairness" for a moment. If this is reason for action, what sort of action does it inspire? From the sort of things you're saying, it seems that you just want to undo globalisation - but what would that involve? After all, the process is simply the sum of the actions of economic agents under conditions in which production capital is disaggregated and highly mobile.

Short of some kind of "great leap backwards", it's not possible to remove the technological underpinnings of globalisation; even if such a programme was desireable, I hardly think it's plausible. Alternatively, one might try to make production capital immobile through political means. That's not totally implausible, except that any state undertaking this action would be utterly unattractive for international investors. (In the worst case, the IMF would block access to credit, which is a deathblow for any bourgeois regime.)

Now, if you think that the way to go is to change the economic system, then I tend to agree - except that, without global capitalism, it's hard to what's wrong with globalisation! (If the means of production are owned collectively by the human race, then the disaggregation and mobility of capital simply grease the wheels of planned production.)


I'm not going to respond to your comments on the profit system because I don't take economics and I probably do not have a good understanding of it. But I will say that if you're asking me whether I think sustaining the abilities of businesses to make very large profits is less important than sustaining the abilities of the working class (and, on a global scale, the extremely poor) to be educated and to live well, then, er, yup.

That's not really what I'm saying.

I bring up the profit system because it is the central pillar of capitalism. It doesn't require a substantive understanding of bourgeois economics to see that firms will tend to seek to maximise their profits, and that this will tend to drive the cost of labour to the lowest possible level (i.e. the cost of replacement). Now, as should be quite clear from the above, I'm not defending this on any grounds: I'm simply saying that morality does not, and cannot, sway this sort of behaviour. Firms that pay wages above the cost of replacment are at a substantial disadvantage relative to their competitors, no matter how much praise they attract.