Let´s plant the seeds of the tree of wealth everywhere we go, and dismiss those who say that some soils can´t give it growth or some farmers do not wan´t it in their fields!
Tuesday 28 July 2009
Tree of wealth
Let´s plant the seeds of the tree of wealth everywhere we go, and dismiss those who say that some soils can´t give it growth or some farmers do not wan´t it in their fields!
Monday 27 July 2009
Not going as I´ve planned...
Right, this blogging business isn´t going as I´ve planned, so from now on I will make no more promises of what will come in the future! I´ll just take it day by day!
Today I had the following statement posted on my Facebook profile:
"As we evolve we rid ourselves of foolish ideas: Science supersedes superstition, evolution supersedes religion, and capitalism supersedes socialism. Get on board, fellow primates! Let´s evolve!!!!!!"
Shortly, my new friend Mark van Dyk, a very eloquent fellow, replied to it and the following conversation took place:
Mark van Dyk
Of course, without socialist ideas, we would have no roads, bridges, military, public education, police, or firemen! ;) Damn that socialism and all its services to humanity!
Aarya Amir Shayan (me)
Well, actually ALL of the above mentioned came long before the idea of socialism! For some reason you seem to think socialism is just a vague concept of people working together for no profit, just for the best of society. Well, I would challenge you to read your Engels and Marx before making such comments. Socialism is a very clearly defined concept. And even if you were right, that just goes to show that something better has come to replace socialism now.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=michael+shermer&emb=0&aq=f#q=michael+shermer+beyond+belief&emb=0
Mark van Dyk
What I am getting at is anytime the government takes money from the people and redistributes it in the form of goods or services, this is a socialistic idea, regardless of when the idea came about. Surely you can see that our economy and society operates with capitalistic and socialist ideas. It would be utterly impossible to live in a purely capitalistic society.
Let's get something else straight, just so you know where I stand! :) I am not anti-capitalist. I do believe that capitalism without balance or checks creates vast inequality between the people holding capital and the people without capital. Capitalism unchecked will grow and grow until the resources of the earth are devoured. I believe, ultimately, in balance. Capitalism unchecked created poverty and horrible working conditions in America. Unions came about and changed that for the workers. Now, this does not mean that the unions may operate unchecked too! Unions create their own problems. What I am trying to say is that you cannot advocate one economic system above all others, because without balance, the system will fail. There must be balance and equality, equal opportunity to succeed and get services and goods for all people. This is humane. It is not important what we call the system of how we get there. Let's just get there! ;)
Ultimately, if I may digress slightly, we would all be doing much better if we reduced our desire for wealth. Wealth is meaningless and useless. If we all just worked enough to provide essentials, we would all be a lot happier! But, to the detriment of the world, it seems to be human nature to want more than they need. Herein lies the real problem of human economic systems.
Aarya Amir Shayan
*sigh* Mark, with all due respect, there weren´t many right points there... Would take me hours to answer all of the points I BELIEVE (but I might be wrong) you are mistaken on. I will try to so later on my blog, and then send u the link. All the best!
-----------------------------------
So, here is my reply to my friend Mark:
I sort of feel like a mosquito on a nudist camp; Don´t know where to start! You say:
"Ultimately, if I may digress slightly, we would all be doing much better if we reduced our desire for wealth. Wealth is meaningless and useless."
Well, with all due respect, who are you to say to anyone what makes them happy and what´s meaningless and useless for them? If YOU find wealth meaningless, that´s fine, but don´t tell me that I should feel that way too, because that is on the borderline of arrogance. And certainly don´t tell people in the developing world that they shouldn´t strive for wealth, because Zeus forbid they might actually acquire the same living standard as us! I hope you at least agree with me on THAT point, that our living standard in the affluent world comes from us striving for wealth, and the reason it has been so successful has been because of a free market.
You say:
"What I am getting at is anytime the government takes money from the people and redistributes it in the form of goods or services, this is a socialistic idea..."
Well, socialism certainly takes credit for the idea, but it isn´t socialism. It´s like saying that Nazism brought Volkswagen to Germany, and therefore building companies in countries is Nazism. The problem with your argument lies within the following: The same government you defend to redistribute wealth, puts billions into fighting a pathetic Drug War (over $100 BILLION per year now), puts $2, 000 toilets in Air Force One (money coming from the taxpayers pockets), fights wars that has absolutely no positive outcome for the actual taxpayers and so forth. When you talk about firemen, roads and such, you seem to be forgetting that ALL these could´ve been performed more efficiently by private contractors, without all the rest of the money going in to where the current government decides to put it, for example the Iraq-war. Now, don´t get me wrong, I am not for a complete eradication of the government, I do believe we need a government that works as a regulatory body, keeping companies from mistreating their workers or breaking laws and such. But not much else! Assuming that politicians can do the jobs better than companies specializing in these areas is somewhat confusing. Why not cut out the middle hand?
You say:
"I do believe that capitalism without balance or checks creates vast inequality between the people holding capital and the people without capital. Capitalism unchecked will grow and grow until the resources of the earth are devoured."
Probably the most incorrect statement of all the things you wrote. What is "Capitalism unchecked"??? What does it even mean??? That people aren´t restricted by geographical boundaries to trade and communicate with each other? That companies aren´t held back through tariffs and taxes to grow? That entrepreneurs don´t have to be limited to the resources and opportunities provided to them by the state they happened to be born in? That the right to and the protection of private property is 100% respected? Because these are the tenets of Capitalism, and wherever they have been allowed to flow, the result has been overwhelming positive. Inequality? Interesting that the countries with a predominantly Capitalistic system are also the countries with least inequality, whereas countries that don´t allow a free market have the largest inequality ratings. Taiwan and South Korea went from having a GPD as low as Ethiopia 30 years ago to today having the same level as Spain and Portugal. Capitalism brings wealth to everyone, not just the selected few that already have it, as you seem to be insinuating. Mauritius, the first African country that opened up its borders for free trade, was also the first African country to have a peaceful shift in power, following a democratic election. India has gone from being a developing country, with hundreds of millions of people living in absolute poverty, to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
But here´s the kicker: Inequality in wealth isn´t that important, really. It´s not important that the other guy has billions of dollars, when I don´t have anything. It´s like saying someone looks much better than me, and therefore it´s not fair that he gets more girls than me! What matters is that the people who are living under bad conditions improve their situations, and no system has ever proved to be as effective to fight poverty as Capitalism. Since 1981 Poverty has decreased monumentally, and looking at where this has happened, we find a direct, clear correlation between Capitalism and Growth.
You are right when you point out that there isn´t a pure Capitalist system out there, but this is not the point. The point is that when Capitalism is pure, it is effective, and the purer it is, the more effective it is.
You say:
"What I am trying to say is that you cannot advocate one economic system above all others, because without balance, the system will fail. There must be balance and equality, equal opportunity to succeed and get services and goods for all people. This is humane."
But that balance you so wish for is already built in within Capitalism! The Invisible Hand of the market clearly demonstrates this. The point about equal opportunity for everyone has been so misconceived over the years, especially in media, because it advocates an impossible, and most certainly an immoral value; Namely that all people, no matter their own ability should be given the same opportunity as someone else. If I am great at fishing, and you are a fantastic cobbler, but a terrible fisher, as bad as I am at cobbling, what´s the point that I should have the same opportunity as you to be a cobbler? And where would that leave our society? Each person should be given a platform to pursue their own individual happiness, and there should be no discrimination, but that´s where I believe the line should be drawn.
Michael Shermer shows in his book, "The Mind of the Market", that the market is clearly moral, because it is run by us, the consumers. You´re more than welcome to challenge me on this point, but for now, I will not delve in to it deeper. I just wish to say that your doomsday view on Capitalism is not backed up by neither the empirical data or the scientific research.
That´s all I can muster right now, after couple of beers. I hope that it is sufficient, and I apologize if at any point you feel I have been condescending, it has never been my intention!
All the best!
Today I had the following statement posted on my Facebook profile:
"As we evolve we rid ourselves of foolish ideas: Science supersedes superstition, evolution supersedes religion, and capitalism supersedes socialism. Get on board, fellow primates! Let´s evolve!!!!!!"
Shortly, my new friend Mark van Dyk, a very eloquent fellow, replied to it and the following conversation took place:
Mark van Dyk
Of course, without socialist ideas, we would have no roads, bridges, military, public education, police, or firemen! ;) Damn that socialism and all its services to humanity!
Aarya Amir Shayan (me)
Well, actually ALL of the above mentioned came long before the idea of socialism! For some reason you seem to think socialism is just a vague concept of people working together for no profit, just for the best of society. Well, I would challenge you to read your Engels and Marx before making such comments. Socialism is a very clearly defined concept. And even if you were right, that just goes to show that something better has come to replace socialism now.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=michael+shermer&emb=0&aq=f#q=michael+shermer+beyond+belief&emb=0
Mark van Dyk
What I am getting at is anytime the government takes money from the people and redistributes it in the form of goods or services, this is a socialistic idea, regardless of when the idea came about. Surely you can see that our economy and society operates with capitalistic and socialist ideas. It would be utterly impossible to live in a purely capitalistic society.
Let's get something else straight, just so you know where I stand! :) I am not anti-capitalist. I do believe that capitalism without balance or checks creates vast inequality between the people holding capital and the people without capital. Capitalism unchecked will grow and grow until the resources of the earth are devoured. I believe, ultimately, in balance. Capitalism unchecked created poverty and horrible working conditions in America. Unions came about and changed that for the workers. Now, this does not mean that the unions may operate unchecked too! Unions create their own problems. What I am trying to say is that you cannot advocate one economic system above all others, because without balance, the system will fail. There must be balance and equality, equal opportunity to succeed and get services and goods for all people. This is humane. It is not important what we call the system of how we get there. Let's just get there! ;)
Ultimately, if I may digress slightly, we would all be doing much better if we reduced our desire for wealth. Wealth is meaningless and useless. If we all just worked enough to provide essentials, we would all be a lot happier! But, to the detriment of the world, it seems to be human nature to want more than they need. Herein lies the real problem of human economic systems.
Aarya Amir Shayan
*sigh* Mark, with all due respect, there weren´t many right points there... Would take me hours to answer all of the points I BELIEVE (but I might be wrong) you are mistaken on. I will try to so later on my blog, and then send u the link. All the best!
-----------------------------------
So, here is my reply to my friend Mark:
I sort of feel like a mosquito on a nudist camp; Don´t know where to start! You say:
"Ultimately, if I may digress slightly, we would all be doing much better if we reduced our desire for wealth. Wealth is meaningless and useless."
Well, with all due respect, who are you to say to anyone what makes them happy and what´s meaningless and useless for them? If YOU find wealth meaningless, that´s fine, but don´t tell me that I should feel that way too, because that is on the borderline of arrogance. And certainly don´t tell people in the developing world that they shouldn´t strive for wealth, because Zeus forbid they might actually acquire the same living standard as us! I hope you at least agree with me on THAT point, that our living standard in the affluent world comes from us striving for wealth, and the reason it has been so successful has been because of a free market.
You say:
"What I am getting at is anytime the government takes money from the people and redistributes it in the form of goods or services, this is a socialistic idea..."
Well, socialism certainly takes credit for the idea, but it isn´t socialism. It´s like saying that Nazism brought Volkswagen to Germany, and therefore building companies in countries is Nazism. The problem with your argument lies within the following: The same government you defend to redistribute wealth, puts billions into fighting a pathetic Drug War (over $100 BILLION per year now), puts $2, 000 toilets in Air Force One (money coming from the taxpayers pockets), fights wars that has absolutely no positive outcome for the actual taxpayers and so forth. When you talk about firemen, roads and such, you seem to be forgetting that ALL these could´ve been performed more efficiently by private contractors, without all the rest of the money going in to where the current government decides to put it, for example the Iraq-war. Now, don´t get me wrong, I am not for a complete eradication of the government, I do believe we need a government that works as a regulatory body, keeping companies from mistreating their workers or breaking laws and such. But not much else! Assuming that politicians can do the jobs better than companies specializing in these areas is somewhat confusing. Why not cut out the middle hand?
You say:
"I do believe that capitalism without balance or checks creates vast inequality between the people holding capital and the people without capital. Capitalism unchecked will grow and grow until the resources of the earth are devoured."
Probably the most incorrect statement of all the things you wrote. What is "Capitalism unchecked"??? What does it even mean??? That people aren´t restricted by geographical boundaries to trade and communicate with each other? That companies aren´t held back through tariffs and taxes to grow? That entrepreneurs don´t have to be limited to the resources and opportunities provided to them by the state they happened to be born in? That the right to and the protection of private property is 100% respected? Because these are the tenets of Capitalism, and wherever they have been allowed to flow, the result has been overwhelming positive. Inequality? Interesting that the countries with a predominantly Capitalistic system are also the countries with least inequality, whereas countries that don´t allow a free market have the largest inequality ratings. Taiwan and South Korea went from having a GPD as low as Ethiopia 30 years ago to today having the same level as Spain and Portugal. Capitalism brings wealth to everyone, not just the selected few that already have it, as you seem to be insinuating. Mauritius, the first African country that opened up its borders for free trade, was also the first African country to have a peaceful shift in power, following a democratic election. India has gone from being a developing country, with hundreds of millions of people living in absolute poverty, to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
But here´s the kicker: Inequality in wealth isn´t that important, really. It´s not important that the other guy has billions of dollars, when I don´t have anything. It´s like saying someone looks much better than me, and therefore it´s not fair that he gets more girls than me! What matters is that the people who are living under bad conditions improve their situations, and no system has ever proved to be as effective to fight poverty as Capitalism. Since 1981 Poverty has decreased monumentally, and looking at where this has happened, we find a direct, clear correlation between Capitalism and Growth.
You are right when you point out that there isn´t a pure Capitalist system out there, but this is not the point. The point is that when Capitalism is pure, it is effective, and the purer it is, the more effective it is.
You say:
"What I am trying to say is that you cannot advocate one economic system above all others, because without balance, the system will fail. There must be balance and equality, equal opportunity to succeed and get services and goods for all people. This is humane."
But that balance you so wish for is already built in within Capitalism! The Invisible Hand of the market clearly demonstrates this. The point about equal opportunity for everyone has been so misconceived over the years, especially in media, because it advocates an impossible, and most certainly an immoral value; Namely that all people, no matter their own ability should be given the same opportunity as someone else. If I am great at fishing, and you are a fantastic cobbler, but a terrible fisher, as bad as I am at cobbling, what´s the point that I should have the same opportunity as you to be a cobbler? And where would that leave our society? Each person should be given a platform to pursue their own individual happiness, and there should be no discrimination, but that´s where I believe the line should be drawn.
Michael Shermer shows in his book, "The Mind of the Market", that the market is clearly moral, because it is run by us, the consumers. You´re more than welcome to challenge me on this point, but for now, I will not delve in to it deeper. I just wish to say that your doomsday view on Capitalism is not backed up by neither the empirical data or the scientific research.
That´s all I can muster right now, after couple of beers. I hope that it is sufficient, and I apologize if at any point you feel I have been condescending, it has never been my intention!
All the best!
Saturday 25 July 2009
A converastion on >Facebook 2:30 in the morning. Everyday life for me!
Tim Roop
What some snidely call socialism, I prefer to call humanitarianism...
Mark van Dyk
Indeed, Tim. Einstein was of the same opinion. He said, basically, that the only true humanitarian form of government was socialism.
Unfortunately, I fear that the way things have gone in this country is the way things have gone throughout history. I fear that no meaningful change will occur until the oligarchs are essentially thrown from power... Read More. And this will require revolution. Power of this sort tends to protect itself.
As for advertising in general, you know things have gone too far when people have begun tattooing corporate slogans and logos on their own skin. Somehow, I fear that America has already sold its soul, and we won't be getting it back any time soon...
Yesterday at 12:41pm
Aarya Amir Shayan
When socialism is called humanitarianism, something is wrong. Was it humanitarianism for the people of Stalins Russia? For North Koreans? For Cubans? For Romanians? And so forth... Ironic that someone should quote Einstein, here... Read More´s another quote: "Stupidity is defined by trying something over and over again, and hoping that it will deliver different results next time!"
Is Capitalism so evil? Has it been for people of Taiwan and South Korea, where they have, in 30 years, gone from atrocious circumstances, massive percentage of absolute poverty to today, where their GPD is as high as Spain and Portugal? But hey, since when did ideologues care about facts and data?
Yesterday at 12:55pm
Tim Roop
Socialism, in theory, is a far cry from socialism, in practice, throughout history. What is the primary reason for that? In the Soviet Union, as in N. Korea, as in Nazi Germany, socialism was the term applied to the practices used to keep the populace impoverished rather than empowered. A mis-nomer doled-out by their authoritarian, elitist, and ... Read Moregreedy leadership. In the United States, we call the same sort of practices "capitalism". And rather than having to bow to political leaders, we bow to corporations and lobbyists. And, again, to quote Einstein, "The problems we now face cannot be solved with the same sort of thinking used when we created them." Indeed, capitalism, in theory, is not a bad thing, but in the end, humanity tends to corrupt even the noblest of ideals.
Andrew Marotta
Aarya, your intelligent responses are always welcome. I take your point about US being wary of making the kinds of desperate mistakes that too often result in something that seems the opposite of humanitarianism, as seen in N. Korea. But consider the fact that Orwell predicted the very kind of government that would emerge from authoritarian ... Read Moresocialism. Despite that foreknowledge based on his own experiences with Stalinist thugs who had murdered a few of his friends in Spain, he still felt that socialism was not only viable but superior. Conservatives and libertarians love to quote Orwell just as they do John Stuart Mill, but both of these men had seen the depravity of unregulated capitalism during their own times and knew that socialism could erase much of the misery that was ignored by the Tory MPs.
Aarya Amir Shayan
Andrew, thank you for your kind words, always a pleasure reading your responses. I tried to reply to both you and Mr. Roop here, but since the response has to be limited, I will reply to both of you shortly through my blog, http://dariusaarya.blogspot.com
As for now, I ask you, Mr. Roop, to not just shun the practices of North Korea, Soviet Union... Read More, and other places that have tried Socialism so viciously. All these states practiced many of the fundamental tenants of Socialism, the most important being governmental ownership of land and corporations. China has done the same, precisely as advocated for by Marx and Engels. The results have been atrocious. I will explain further in my blog. Thank you both for your responses, appreciate it very much.
9 hours ago ·
Mark van Dyk
Well, in an effort to throw in my two cents, there is no ideal form of government or economy. We can only hope that our leaders will act humanely. Socialism is not an evil in and of itself anymore than a gun is. It is a system and a tool. No organized society truly exists in a sphere of absolutes. There is no such thing as pure capitalism ... Read Morebeing practiced anywhere. Socialism and Capitalism really can, and do, go hand in hand. They are balancing influences. Our roads, military, mail, and emergency services are socialistic in nature, and we do just fine with them in our capitalistic society.
I think when we speak of socialism in this country, what we really mean is equality of services and care for all. The health care issue is a good one to argue in this sense. I deem the issue to be a civil rights matter. Why this has not really been argued is confusing to me. Perhaps because it has class division at its heart instead of race or gender or sex.
8 hours ago
Andrew Marotta
I hear you saying that capitalism is not an ideology, but there is the element of a belief system that supports it. I won't call capitalism a religion, but it shares in common with most religions the element of faith guiding reason. We see this for example with Adam Smith described the "invisible hand" that corrects imbalances in the economic ... Read Moresystem, thus ensuring that neither consumer, worker, nor entrepreneur suffers for too long. This suggests that there is some benevolent deity watching over things and intervening whenever necessary. It is clear that no data ever have supported this belief. It is true that there is no permanent condition under any economic system, and that ensures that no one individual or group suffers (beyond death, bankruptcy, or insolvency, at least ) nor BENEFITS indefinitely. This is not the same thing as a hand correcting any imbalance.
Mark van Dyk
Am I right to assume you are not responding to me? :) LOL
On another note, I do fully agree with you that capitalism does share religious and ideological overtones. I would also be willing to bet that this is the same reason that questioning the merits of capitalism, especially by attempting to introduce alternative "beliefs" is seen as ... Read Moredangerous and, one might even argue, earth-shattering to those whose beliefs are being challenged. When we accept dogma and ideology as factual explanation for the way the world should work, we set ourselves up for a great fall. As a result, our barriers against alternative viewpoints become numerous and strong. No one particularly likes taking the fall!
about an hour ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
From Michael Shermers book "The mind of the market":
"If Adam Smith... Read More´s theory is so profound and proven, why do some people reject it, as others reject theory of evolution? Natural selection and the invisible hand - evolution and economics - are not religious tenets one swears allegiance to or believes in as a matter of faith; they are factual realities of the empirical world, and just as one would not say ´I believe in gravity´ one should not proclaim ´I believe in economics´." (p18)
Where I believe you are making a mistake is that you seem to take the term "Invisible hand" literally. Of course no one believes there´s an actual hand guiding the market, "The Invisible hand" is just a metaphor, a linguistic term for that process which is WELL PROVEN, beyond any reasonable doubt.
about an hour ago ·
Mark van Dyk
To expand this notion, one might begin to question the American Dream itself. Indeed, it seems to me that this dream is at the very heart of it all. It is a myth of course, but one we have believed in for a very long time.
about an hour ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Mr. van Dyk, the exact same thing could be applied to Evolution, a circular world, or any other scientific theory. What you said, I suggest with all due respect, is incorrect. People question things all the time. It... Read More´s through empirical data and hard research that something becomes more and more immune to criticism. I don´t support Capitalism on the same basis as those on FOX network, for example. They do it due to a ideological belief, which is pointless. I do it because of all the facts supporting it as the best available system for modern economics. Churchill once said that democracy isn´t perfect, but it´s the best we´ve got. The exact same principle can be applied to Capitalism. If you disagree, SHOW me another system that has worked better. No need to speculate about a utopian fantasy-land, let´s look at the evidence.
52 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
But, Aarya, belief does fuel the machine. We do guide the outcomes of events and systemic processes with our beliefs regarding expected outcomes. And sometimes we do this without thinking a great deal about it. It is part of our belief system, a system which demands, in so many ways, that we do not think about it.
Capitalism, just like any ... Read Moreother economic system, is something we all have to agree on and believe in in order for it to actually work. Capitalism is simply an abstract construct. Without our mutual agreement on outcomes and meaning, it retreats back into the obscurity of the "idea". And, as an abstract construct, it is subject to the the same fatal flaws as any abstract sytem. It cannot hope to encompass reality. :)
Mark van Dyk
Well, as I said, capitalism cannot work without other economic theories and principles alongside it. Pure capitalism cannot work just as pure socialism cannot work. The point I am really trying to make is not which system is better. The point I am trying to make is that an harmonious arrangement between capitalism and socialism can, and does, ... Read Moreexist. To believe that one is better is somewhat like saying musical notation is better than tablature for the guitar. They are both abstract languages that we must understand, believe in, and agree upon their inherent meanings in order for them to work. Without these elements, they are mere scribbles on a page.
43 minutes ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Again, I wish to respectfully disagree, Mark. Capitalism is not an ideology that was founded and then pursued, it is a bottom-up system that evolved over the course of couple of hundred years, maybe more. Compare it to our immune system. Sure, if we mistreat our bodies, our immune system will collapse, just the same way that if we prohibit ... Read MoreCapitalism from evolving, or developing, it will collapse (just as it has done in this recession). But that doesn´t make it an ideology, just as our immune system is not a product of Intelligent Design. It just makes it an evolved system, the best we´ve got.
43 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
I am not saying that capitalism is an ideology. I am saying that capitalism requires belief to work. This may seem almost unworthy of mention, but frankly every single abstract system ever invented demands a certain amount of belief. If we did not infuse them with belief, they would never come to be.
We give shape and meaning to abstractions. When we begin to allow abstractions to shape us and give us meaning, herein lies a rather larger problem.
38 minutes ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Do we need to believe in the immune system for it to work? No, we just shouldn... Read More´t mistreat it. The same thing applies to Capitalism. I´m from Sweden, and trust me (but don´t, look it up for yourself!), socialized Health Care isn´t all that dandy, as Michael Moore wants you to believe. That´s why he made such a fool of himself when Sanjay Gupta confronted him with facts about countries that have Socialized Health Care. In Sweden, people suffer, and sometimes even die, whilst waiting in line for 6 months to get an X-Ray. Nurses strike, Doctors find better wages abroad, the waiting is massive for the simplest procedures, and the country is drowning in taxes. I guess you´re somewhat right when you say that it needs belief to work, if by belief you mean conviction of its effects. But socialists today prosper and benefit from Capitalism and Free Market, by recruiting people through websites and distributing information via the Internet. And they certainly don´t "believe" in it!
29 minutes ago
Mark van Dyk
The immune system is not an abstract construct, Aarya. It has physical reality. Economics is not a real thing. It is a construct of the mind.
Aarya Amir Shayan
I beg to disagree, it is an evolved system with mechanisms far beyond our comprehension, "living on its own". I recommend Michael Shermers "The Mind of the market", he´s much more eloquent than me in the subject.
Mark van Dyk
I would be willing to bet that the "Mind of the Market" as he describes it is our collective will and desire. Mathematics seems to have its own life too, but it is only an abstract construct with no meaning outside what we give it. Still, I could be wrong! Thanks for the thoughtful and engaging dialogue. :)
Aarya Amir Shayan
It is me who should thank you, it... Read More´s been a delightful pleasure! These terms are linguistic place-fillers, of course the market doesn´t have an actual mind or life, but there are mechanisms in motion far beyond our conscious mind. Naturally, if all human beings died, there would be no market. But it is how the market operates, as a result of our evolution, that is the interesting notion if the book! It is brilliantly written, I truly recommend it! Also, if you have a chance, read Johan Norbergs remarkable book "In defense of Global Capitalism". Or watch his documentary "Globalization is good" on Google Video. All the best, you are a fantastic intellectual, and I´m very honored to have made your acquaintance!
12 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
Thank you too. You know, just as we were sitting here reading and writing I began to have the idea that perhaps economics and economic behavior is akin to other elaborate social constructs governing actions and behavior within a given society. I have read a bit on totemism, and while sometimes the ideas seem very random and are hard to follow, ... Read Morepeople infuse the idea with power and then act accordingly. A powerful symbiosis arises when we place belief and power in our own ideas. We become the idea, in a sense, and the idea becomes us, and sometimes it is very difficult to establish the borders! Anyway, just a thought.
What some snidely call socialism, I prefer to call humanitarianism...
Mark van Dyk
Indeed, Tim. Einstein was of the same opinion. He said, basically, that the only true humanitarian form of government was socialism.
Unfortunately, I fear that the way things have gone in this country is the way things have gone throughout history. I fear that no meaningful change will occur until the oligarchs are essentially thrown from power... Read More. And this will require revolution. Power of this sort tends to protect itself.
As for advertising in general, you know things have gone too far when people have begun tattooing corporate slogans and logos on their own skin. Somehow, I fear that America has already sold its soul, and we won't be getting it back any time soon...
Yesterday at 12:41pm
Aarya Amir Shayan
When socialism is called humanitarianism, something is wrong. Was it humanitarianism for the people of Stalins Russia? For North Koreans? For Cubans? For Romanians? And so forth... Ironic that someone should quote Einstein, here... Read More´s another quote: "Stupidity is defined by trying something over and over again, and hoping that it will deliver different results next time!"
Is Capitalism so evil? Has it been for people of Taiwan and South Korea, where they have, in 30 years, gone from atrocious circumstances, massive percentage of absolute poverty to today, where their GPD is as high as Spain and Portugal? But hey, since when did ideologues care about facts and data?
Yesterday at 12:55pm
Tim Roop
Socialism, in theory, is a far cry from socialism, in practice, throughout history. What is the primary reason for that? In the Soviet Union, as in N. Korea, as in Nazi Germany, socialism was the term applied to the practices used to keep the populace impoverished rather than empowered. A mis-nomer doled-out by their authoritarian, elitist, and ... Read Moregreedy leadership. In the United States, we call the same sort of practices "capitalism". And rather than having to bow to political leaders, we bow to corporations and lobbyists. And, again, to quote Einstein, "The problems we now face cannot be solved with the same sort of thinking used when we created them." Indeed, capitalism, in theory, is not a bad thing, but in the end, humanity tends to corrupt even the noblest of ideals.
Andrew Marotta
Aarya, your intelligent responses are always welcome. I take your point about US being wary of making the kinds of desperate mistakes that too often result in something that seems the opposite of humanitarianism, as seen in N. Korea. But consider the fact that Orwell predicted the very kind of government that would emerge from authoritarian ... Read Moresocialism. Despite that foreknowledge based on his own experiences with Stalinist thugs who had murdered a few of his friends in Spain, he still felt that socialism was not only viable but superior. Conservatives and libertarians love to quote Orwell just as they do John Stuart Mill, but both of these men had seen the depravity of unregulated capitalism during their own times and knew that socialism could erase much of the misery that was ignored by the Tory MPs.
Aarya Amir Shayan
Andrew, thank you for your kind words, always a pleasure reading your responses. I tried to reply to both you and Mr. Roop here, but since the response has to be limited, I will reply to both of you shortly through my blog, http://dariusaarya.blogspot.com
As for now, I ask you, Mr. Roop, to not just shun the practices of North Korea, Soviet Union... Read More, and other places that have tried Socialism so viciously. All these states practiced many of the fundamental tenants of Socialism, the most important being governmental ownership of land and corporations. China has done the same, precisely as advocated for by Marx and Engels. The results have been atrocious. I will explain further in my blog. Thank you both for your responses, appreciate it very much.
9 hours ago ·
Mark van Dyk
Well, in an effort to throw in my two cents, there is no ideal form of government or economy. We can only hope that our leaders will act humanely. Socialism is not an evil in and of itself anymore than a gun is. It is a system and a tool. No organized society truly exists in a sphere of absolutes. There is no such thing as pure capitalism ... Read Morebeing practiced anywhere. Socialism and Capitalism really can, and do, go hand in hand. They are balancing influences. Our roads, military, mail, and emergency services are socialistic in nature, and we do just fine with them in our capitalistic society.
I think when we speak of socialism in this country, what we really mean is equality of services and care for all. The health care issue is a good one to argue in this sense. I deem the issue to be a civil rights matter. Why this has not really been argued is confusing to me. Perhaps because it has class division at its heart instead of race or gender or sex.
8 hours ago
Andrew Marotta
I hear you saying that capitalism is not an ideology, but there is the element of a belief system that supports it. I won't call capitalism a religion, but it shares in common with most religions the element of faith guiding reason. We see this for example with Adam Smith described the "invisible hand" that corrects imbalances in the economic ... Read Moresystem, thus ensuring that neither consumer, worker, nor entrepreneur suffers for too long. This suggests that there is some benevolent deity watching over things and intervening whenever necessary. It is clear that no data ever have supported this belief. It is true that there is no permanent condition under any economic system, and that ensures that no one individual or group suffers (beyond death, bankruptcy, or insolvency, at least ) nor BENEFITS indefinitely. This is not the same thing as a hand correcting any imbalance.
Mark van Dyk
Am I right to assume you are not responding to me? :) LOL
On another note, I do fully agree with you that capitalism does share religious and ideological overtones. I would also be willing to bet that this is the same reason that questioning the merits of capitalism, especially by attempting to introduce alternative "beliefs" is seen as ... Read Moredangerous and, one might even argue, earth-shattering to those whose beliefs are being challenged. When we accept dogma and ideology as factual explanation for the way the world should work, we set ourselves up for a great fall. As a result, our barriers against alternative viewpoints become numerous and strong. No one particularly likes taking the fall!
about an hour ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
From Michael Shermers book "The mind of the market":
"If Adam Smith... Read More´s theory is so profound and proven, why do some people reject it, as others reject theory of evolution? Natural selection and the invisible hand - evolution and economics - are not religious tenets one swears allegiance to or believes in as a matter of faith; they are factual realities of the empirical world, and just as one would not say ´I believe in gravity´ one should not proclaim ´I believe in economics´." (p18)
Where I believe you are making a mistake is that you seem to take the term "Invisible hand" literally. Of course no one believes there´s an actual hand guiding the market, "The Invisible hand" is just a metaphor, a linguistic term for that process which is WELL PROVEN, beyond any reasonable doubt.
about an hour ago ·
Mark van Dyk
To expand this notion, one might begin to question the American Dream itself. Indeed, it seems to me that this dream is at the very heart of it all. It is a myth of course, but one we have believed in for a very long time.
about an hour ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Mr. van Dyk, the exact same thing could be applied to Evolution, a circular world, or any other scientific theory. What you said, I suggest with all due respect, is incorrect. People question things all the time. It... Read More´s through empirical data and hard research that something becomes more and more immune to criticism. I don´t support Capitalism on the same basis as those on FOX network, for example. They do it due to a ideological belief, which is pointless. I do it because of all the facts supporting it as the best available system for modern economics. Churchill once said that democracy isn´t perfect, but it´s the best we´ve got. The exact same principle can be applied to Capitalism. If you disagree, SHOW me another system that has worked better. No need to speculate about a utopian fantasy-land, let´s look at the evidence.
52 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
But, Aarya, belief does fuel the machine. We do guide the outcomes of events and systemic processes with our beliefs regarding expected outcomes. And sometimes we do this without thinking a great deal about it. It is part of our belief system, a system which demands, in so many ways, that we do not think about it.
Capitalism, just like any ... Read Moreother economic system, is something we all have to agree on and believe in in order for it to actually work. Capitalism is simply an abstract construct. Without our mutual agreement on outcomes and meaning, it retreats back into the obscurity of the "idea". And, as an abstract construct, it is subject to the the same fatal flaws as any abstract sytem. It cannot hope to encompass reality. :)
Mark van Dyk
Well, as I said, capitalism cannot work without other economic theories and principles alongside it. Pure capitalism cannot work just as pure socialism cannot work. The point I am really trying to make is not which system is better. The point I am trying to make is that an harmonious arrangement between capitalism and socialism can, and does, ... Read Moreexist. To believe that one is better is somewhat like saying musical notation is better than tablature for the guitar. They are both abstract languages that we must understand, believe in, and agree upon their inherent meanings in order for them to work. Without these elements, they are mere scribbles on a page.
43 minutes ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Again, I wish to respectfully disagree, Mark. Capitalism is not an ideology that was founded and then pursued, it is a bottom-up system that evolved over the course of couple of hundred years, maybe more. Compare it to our immune system. Sure, if we mistreat our bodies, our immune system will collapse, just the same way that if we prohibit ... Read MoreCapitalism from evolving, or developing, it will collapse (just as it has done in this recession). But that doesn´t make it an ideology, just as our immune system is not a product of Intelligent Design. It just makes it an evolved system, the best we´ve got.
43 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
I am not saying that capitalism is an ideology. I am saying that capitalism requires belief to work. This may seem almost unworthy of mention, but frankly every single abstract system ever invented demands a certain amount of belief. If we did not infuse them with belief, they would never come to be.
We give shape and meaning to abstractions. When we begin to allow abstractions to shape us and give us meaning, herein lies a rather larger problem.
38 minutes ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Do we need to believe in the immune system for it to work? No, we just shouldn... Read More´t mistreat it. The same thing applies to Capitalism. I´m from Sweden, and trust me (but don´t, look it up for yourself!), socialized Health Care isn´t all that dandy, as Michael Moore wants you to believe. That´s why he made such a fool of himself when Sanjay Gupta confronted him with facts about countries that have Socialized Health Care. In Sweden, people suffer, and sometimes even die, whilst waiting in line for 6 months to get an X-Ray. Nurses strike, Doctors find better wages abroad, the waiting is massive for the simplest procedures, and the country is drowning in taxes. I guess you´re somewhat right when you say that it needs belief to work, if by belief you mean conviction of its effects. But socialists today prosper and benefit from Capitalism and Free Market, by recruiting people through websites and distributing information via the Internet. And they certainly don´t "believe" in it!
29 minutes ago
Mark van Dyk
The immune system is not an abstract construct, Aarya. It has physical reality. Economics is not a real thing. It is a construct of the mind.
Aarya Amir Shayan
I beg to disagree, it is an evolved system with mechanisms far beyond our comprehension, "living on its own". I recommend Michael Shermers "The Mind of the market", he´s much more eloquent than me in the subject.
Mark van Dyk
I would be willing to bet that the "Mind of the Market" as he describes it is our collective will and desire. Mathematics seems to have its own life too, but it is only an abstract construct with no meaning outside what we give it. Still, I could be wrong! Thanks for the thoughtful and engaging dialogue. :)
Aarya Amir Shayan
It is me who should thank you, it... Read More´s been a delightful pleasure! These terms are linguistic place-fillers, of course the market doesn´t have an actual mind or life, but there are mechanisms in motion far beyond our conscious mind. Naturally, if all human beings died, there would be no market. But it is how the market operates, as a result of our evolution, that is the interesting notion if the book! It is brilliantly written, I truly recommend it! Also, if you have a chance, read Johan Norbergs remarkable book "In defense of Global Capitalism". Or watch his documentary "Globalization is good" on Google Video. All the best, you are a fantastic intellectual, and I´m very honored to have made your acquaintance!
12 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
Thank you too. You know, just as we were sitting here reading and writing I began to have the idea that perhaps economics and economic behavior is akin to other elaborate social constructs governing actions and behavior within a given society. I have read a bit on totemism, and while sometimes the ideas seem very random and are hard to follow, ... Read Morepeople infuse the idea with power and then act accordingly. A powerful symbiosis arises when we place belief and power in our own ideas. We become the idea, in a sense, and the idea becomes us, and sometimes it is very difficult to establish the borders! Anyway, just a thought.
Friday 24 July 2009
First entry: Friday 24th of July 2009
Good morning, afternoon or night!
This is my first time blogging, so please pardon my amateur style of writing. I will not use these blogs to write down my daily activities, or trivial thoughts. Instead I will attempt to use this as a platform to defend Capitalism and Free Market. To start with, if you have read Johan Norbergs fantastic book "In defense of Global Capitalism", you don´t need to read this blog at all, as most of it comes from there. Eventually, I will also use Michael Shermers book "Mind of the market", but in a latter stage, as I believe the case for Capitalism should first be made by showing what it has done around the world, and then why it is not only the moral approach to economics, but also the logical.
So, what IS Capitalism? Well, that´s a key issue if this is to be debated. Capitalism is often misconstrued to mean many things it actually doesn´t, especially by Karl Marx and his followers today. Capitalism is not a political ideology, really, but an economical system that is based on individuals being able to pursue their own happiness through private ownership of land, or company and such. It is, in this way, a complete contrast to socialism where the government owns everything.
For Capitalism to truly work, there needs to be a free liberalized market, i.e Free Economy. This means that any person or business has the right to sell, import or export from whoever they want, no matter the geographical boundaries. This is where governments usually feel they can make a profit from entrepeneurs, by taxation and tariffs. What this actually does is that it haltens the flow of exchange between the company and the consumer, the seller and the buyer. In doing so, the inflow of money is thus prevented to run smoothly, and the pursuing of happiness for a company or an individual is restricted or sometimes even prevented by bureucratic agencies.
But why defend this system? I will quote from a review of Norbergs book;
"The particular charm of this passionate essay is that Capitalism would not interest Norberg if it were not such a mighty engine of human liberty." - Rosemary Righter, The Times of London
Because it IS such a driving force for human liberty, for democratization, for growth, for wellfare, for happiness. It is proven that Capitalism and Free Market is the system that best benefit the poor, that leads to most growth for people, that most effectively combats starvation, diseaces, illiteracy and hunger. Yet, thanks to popular media and youth being inspired by leftist entertainers (Michael Moore, for example) instead of being educated by impartial experts, Capitalism is constantly under critisicm.
I care not much for arguments. The problem with arguments are that the person best equipped lingually tends to win, even if the other side is correct. I care about facts and statistics. About objective analysis. About scientific investigation. Using only such data, Socialists don´t stand a chance. Not only because Socialism has never worked and will never work, but also becuase Capitalism has so often worked. One can, as Naomi Klein constanstly does, cherry pick examples, but when looking at the broader picture, Capitalism is by far the best system for people.
I will leave this blog for now, as I am feeling that I am getting carried away in all different directions, but hopefully I will write a new one soon, and start to go in depth by focusing on different categories one at the time.
All the best!
This is my first time blogging, so please pardon my amateur style of writing. I will not use these blogs to write down my daily activities, or trivial thoughts. Instead I will attempt to use this as a platform to defend Capitalism and Free Market. To start with, if you have read Johan Norbergs fantastic book "In defense of Global Capitalism", you don´t need to read this blog at all, as most of it comes from there. Eventually, I will also use Michael Shermers book "Mind of the market", but in a latter stage, as I believe the case for Capitalism should first be made by showing what it has done around the world, and then why it is not only the moral approach to economics, but also the logical.
So, what IS Capitalism? Well, that´s a key issue if this is to be debated. Capitalism is often misconstrued to mean many things it actually doesn´t, especially by Karl Marx and his followers today. Capitalism is not a political ideology, really, but an economical system that is based on individuals being able to pursue their own happiness through private ownership of land, or company and such. It is, in this way, a complete contrast to socialism where the government owns everything.
For Capitalism to truly work, there needs to be a free liberalized market, i.e Free Economy. This means that any person or business has the right to sell, import or export from whoever they want, no matter the geographical boundaries. This is where governments usually feel they can make a profit from entrepeneurs, by taxation and tariffs. What this actually does is that it haltens the flow of exchange between the company and the consumer, the seller and the buyer. In doing so, the inflow of money is thus prevented to run smoothly, and the pursuing of happiness for a company or an individual is restricted or sometimes even prevented by bureucratic agencies.
But why defend this system? I will quote from a review of Norbergs book;
"The particular charm of this passionate essay is that Capitalism would not interest Norberg if it were not such a mighty engine of human liberty." - Rosemary Righter, The Times of London
Because it IS such a driving force for human liberty, for democratization, for growth, for wellfare, for happiness. It is proven that Capitalism and Free Market is the system that best benefit the poor, that leads to most growth for people, that most effectively combats starvation, diseaces, illiteracy and hunger. Yet, thanks to popular media and youth being inspired by leftist entertainers (Michael Moore, for example) instead of being educated by impartial experts, Capitalism is constantly under critisicm.
I care not much for arguments. The problem with arguments are that the person best equipped lingually tends to win, even if the other side is correct. I care about facts and statistics. About objective analysis. About scientific investigation. Using only such data, Socialists don´t stand a chance. Not only because Socialism has never worked and will never work, but also becuase Capitalism has so often worked. One can, as Naomi Klein constanstly does, cherry pick examples, but when looking at the broader picture, Capitalism is by far the best system for people.
I will leave this blog for now, as I am feeling that I am getting carried away in all different directions, but hopefully I will write a new one soon, and start to go in depth by focusing on different categories one at the time.
All the best!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
