Is the Euro going to collapse?

[Kathryn]

Wow, this post is almost opn topic

How do all the posts about capitalism, war, socialism, democracy,... relate to the collapse or survival of the euro?

Well, thank you - I thought it was on topic - I related the situation in Greece to the immediate drop in the value of the Euro.

But to placate others, I'll throw in my two cents' worth on capitalism, socialism, etc.

Regardless of man's socioeconomic system, and in spite of our many efforts, there's always been a gap between the haves and the have nots. Name me one economic system - that has actually been in place for more than fifty years in a real country in the world - which hasn't soon slipped right back into that mode.

I think it's naive to believe that we can truly implement a system in a diverse society which won't soon allow that gap.

I think the reason is simply this - human nature. Most people want material comforts. Most people want the freedom (and the power) that money and possessions allow. Most people want control over their own destiny, to as much an extent as possible.

At least enough people want all the above within just about any society, to create an almost immediate disparity. My gosh, if you built a Stalin-style apartment building with every apartment exactly the same, people would still prefer the apartment with the best view, or on a particular floor, etc, and would jostle and finagle to get what they wanted - and other people would feel jealous or dissappointed and try their best to get what they wanted as well - all at the "expense" of others.

 

[Kathryn]

Because booms and busts are intrinsic to capitalism

And to socialism and communism as well. "Booms and busts" can also be called "wars and revolutions" Wars and revolutions happen mainly because of disparity of possessions and/or power.

 

[sandandfoam]

Well, thank you - I thought it was on topic - I related the situation in Greece to the immediate drop in the value of the Euro.

But to placate others, I'll throw in my two cents' worth on capitalism, socialism, etc.

Regardless of man's socioeconomic system, and in spite of our many efforts, there's always been a gap between the haves and the have nots. Name me one economic system - that has actually been in place for more than fifty years in a real country in the world - which hasn't soon slipped right back into that mode.

I think it's naive to believe that we can truly implement a system in a diverse society which won't soon allow that gap.

I think the reason is simply this - human nature. Most people want material comforts. Most people want the freedom (and the power) that money and possessions allow. Most people want control over their own destiny, to as much an extent as possible.

At least enough people want all the above within just about any society, to create an almost immediate disparity. My gosh, if you built a Stalin-style apartment building with every apartment exactly the same, people would still prefer the apartment with the best view, or on a particular floor, etc, and would jostle and finagle to get what they wanted - and other people would feel jealous or dissappointed and try their best to get what they wanted as well - all at the "expense" of others.

Hi Kathryn - I reject the view of human nature you offer.
We are inherently social creatures. Not the rugged individualists of capitalist propoganda.

 

[sandandfoam]

And to socialism and communism as well. "Booms and busts" can also be called "wars and revolutions" Wars and revolutions happen mainly because of disparity of possessions and/or power.

No, not to socialism and communism whose goal is to overcome those very disparities.

 

[lunakilo]

Because booms and busts are intrinsic to capitalism

A bit of an oversimplification, but I get your point.

I don't see the booms and bursts as problems in it self, I see the sizes of the bubbles and bursts and the fact that it is often the wrong people who end up paying for the bursts as a problem. And It seems to me that those problems should be possible to solve.

 

[sandandfoam]

A bit of an oversimplification, but I get your point.

I don't see the booms and bursts as problems in it self, I see the sizes of the bubbles and bursts and the fact that it is often the wrong people who end up paying for the bursts as a problem. And It seems to me that those problems should be possible to solve.

For (slightly ) less oversimplification

Capitalism has always experienced a periodic pattern of boom and bust - what capitalist economists call the business cycle. Almost every decade since the late 1700s has witnessed such a pattern of rapid growth followed by widespread stagnation or recession.
During boom times, profits are running high and the owners of capital are confident to undertake large-scale investment. Existing factories are expanded, new ones built, more workers are taken on, new mines go down as office blocks and hotels go up.
Every enterprise is run at close to full capacity as the bosses seize the good times with both hands.
In these boom times there becomes a crisis of overproduction, with competition forcing down prises, and markets flooded with goods, the capitalists become less confident that they can make sufficient profits. They hesitate to invest in a new round of production, and scale back their existing operations. Workers are sacked and wages undermined by rising unemployment. Some capitalists go bankrupt. A slump sets in. Sometimes the "slowdown" becomes a full-blown recession, as unemployment and lack of investment spark a downward spiral - after all, who will buy the capitalists' output under these conditions?
“In these crises”, writes Marx, “there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity - the epidemic of over-production.”
Capitalism has produced too much! Not too much to satisfy the world's population - poverty and starvation persist - but too much to be sold for an acceptable profit.
At some point the downturn bottoms out. As output and production costs fall, profit margins begin to recover. The capitalists who have survived the slump now rush to buy up their stricken rivals' assets at bargain-basement prices. Productive investment rises and the cycle begins all over again.
The boom-bust cycle is an inevitable result of the internal contradictions of capitalist social relations. Each individual capitalist is compelled by competition to relentlessly accumulate in a way which, when all taken together, results in mutual economic collapse.

The problem can of course be solved. Communism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Communism is if anything more oppressive and unrealistic than even the most savage forms of Capitalism.

What we need is true social reform. Post-nationalistic, post-capitalistic social reform that has among its core values the mutual responsibility of the various communities and the need to avoid the ravages of major economic disparities.

 

[sandandfoam]

Communism is if anything more oppressive and unrealistic than even the most savage forms of Capitalism.

According to the capitalists.
Tell me how the people who work for a living having power rather than those who own the wealth having the power is oppressive and unrealistic?

What we need is true social reform. Post-nationalistic, post-capitalistic social reform that has among its core values the mutual responsibility of the various communities and the need to avoid the ravages of major economic disparities

Sounds like you're looking for communism to me Luis

 

[lunakilo]

For (slightly ) less oversimplification

Capitalism has always experienced a periodic pattern of boom and bust - what capitalist economists call the business cycle. Almost every decade since the late 1700s has witnessed such a pattern of rapid growth followed by widespread stagnation or recession.
During boom times, profits are running high and the owners of capital are confident to undertake large-scale investment. Existing factories are expanded, new ones built, more workers are taken on, new mines go down as office blocks and hotels go up.
Every enterprise is run at close to full capacity as the bosses seize the good times with both hands.
In these boom times there becomes a crisis of overproduction, with competition forcing down prises, and markets flooded with goods, the capitalists become less confident that they can make sufficient profits. They hesitate to invest in a new round of production, and scale back their existing operations. Workers are sacked and wages undermined by rising unemployment. Some capitalists go bankrupt. A slump sets in. Sometimes the "slowdown" becomes a full-blown recession, as unemployment and lack of investment spark a downward spiral - after all, who will buy the capitalists' output under these conditions?
“In these crises”, writes Marx, “there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity - the epidemic of over-production.”
Capitalism has produced too much! Not too much to satisfy the world's population - poverty and starvation persist - but too much to be sold for an acceptable profit.
At some point the downturn bottoms out. As output and production costs fall, profit margins begin to recover. The capitalists who have survived the slump now rush to buy up their stricken rivals' assets at bargain-basement prices. Productive investment rises and the cycle begins all over again.
The boom-bust cycle is an inevitable result of the internal contradictions of capitalist social relations. Each individual capitalist is compelled by competition to relentlessly accumulate in a way which, when all taken together, results in mutual economic collapse.

The problem can of course be solved. Communism.

Communism. A word even less well defined than capitalism

I would say that the basic market forces of supply and demand have some good aspects. Basically it is a simple way communicating what 'people' want to the 'producers'. I don't know of any better way to do this, as no one can see the whole picture of what 'people' want.

If you let the market forces run wild you get problems though which is why most (all as far as I know) economies are regulated in some way.

As far as I can see the problem is that the economy is not regulated in the right way.
When you start bailing out banks which are at least partly responsible for the mess at the expense of the general population you are in trouble. But as I wrote in an earlier post, this is not capitalism.

To add to the problem you have stupid and or selfish politicians in for example Greece who run their economy like retarded monkeys. Again this is not capitalism.

 

[lunakilo]

According to the capitalists.
Tell me how the people who work for a living having power rather than those who own the wealth having the power is oppressive and unrealistic?


Sounds like you're looking for communism to me Luis

See, it all depends on how you define communism

 

[LuisDantas]

According to the capitalists.
Tell me how the people who work for a living having power rather than those who own the wealth having the power is oppressive and unrealistic?

People who work for a living are naturally enough uninsterested in the headaches of actually attaining political power. Even if they obtain it, they will still have to deal with lots of duplicity, backstabbing and lies from those who would rather have power. In that sense, communism is unrealistic.

As for being oppressive, it seems to me that history did a pretty good job of showing how supposedly communist states end up resorting to excessive ammounts of authority in order to try and keep the control they believe to be necessary.

Sounds like you're looking for communism to me Luis

I believe you. Lunakilo is right, however. Communism, much like capitalism, is truly in the eyes of the beholder, and means quite irreconciable things for different people.

Myself, I am rather disappointed with politics anyway. Seems like people keep using it as an excuse to avoid facing their true responsibilities. I think it is far better to dare to ask the difficult questions and think long term while acting locally. I guess that is why I have become so grumpy in the last few years.

 

[Kathryn]

No, not to socialism and communism whose goal is to overcome those very disparities.

But human nature again prevails. You don't see the leaders of these "fine" movements living in Stalin-style apartment grids. You don't see them living like the people whose lives they control and orchestrate. Oh no...

And you don't see the common people happily accepting the life these systems mandate for them either - not over the long haul. They revolt. Inevitably, they revolt.

 

[sandandfoam]

See, it all depends on how you define communism

Indeed.
It is to me (and others)
1. Pro politicization
2. Radical
3. For communal ownership and against privitization
4. About freedom and equality.

 

[sandandfoam]

But human nature again prevails. You don't see the leaders of these "fine" movements living in Stalin-style apartment grids. You don't see them living like the people whose lives they control and orchestrate. Oh no...

And you don't see the common people happily accepting the life these systems mandate for them either - not over the long haul. They revolt. Inevitably, they revolt.

You're appealing to a human nature that I've rejected. I do not accept the selfish grasping creature you advance as human.

Injecting Stalin style apartment grids is a red herring and the revolution I see coming has the capitalists in its sights.

 

[Kathryn]

You're appealing to a human nature that I've rejected. I do not accept the selfish grasping creature you advance as human.

Injecting Stalin style apartment grids is a red herring and the revolution I see coming has the capitalists in its sights.

You reject it - I say history proves my point far more poignanty than my words can.

And the Stalin style apartment grids are no red herring - Eastern Europe is full of these nefarious monuments to "equality" - monuments that the communist leaders certainly didn't choose to live in themselves.

 

[sandandfoam]

You reject it - I say history proves my point far more poignanty than my words can.

I wager my social psychologists against your historians.

And the Stalin style apartment grids are no red herring - Eastern Europe is full of these nefarious monuments to "equality" - monuments that the communist leaders certainly didn't choose to live in themselves

We have acres of ghost estates and half built wastelands as monuments to capitalism. Do you suppose the capitalists are choosing to live there?

 

[Revoltingest]

Indeed.
It is to me (and others)
1. Pro politicization
2. Radical
3. For communal ownership and against privitization
4. About freedom and equality.

You can't have the second part of #3 unless you sacrifice the first part of #4.
Somebody gots to take private property by force for it to become communal.
Then that same somebody gots to force people not to organize their own enterprises.
Now, if you could re-engineer humans to willingly operate as a hive, then you might be on to something.

 

[Kathryn]

I wager my social psychologists against your historians.

Oh you must mean theorists vs reality.

Sorry - I don't see much of an argument there. And I'm not counting on other people's version of history.

I was in Eastern Europe at the collapse of communism. I've seen firsthand the horrible mess that communism on a large scale creates. I've seen individual prosperity boom at a nearly unbelievable rate within a year of that collapse throughout Eastern Europe. No, not for everyone - and it never will be, because people differ too much in their abilities and in their work ethic and their motivations.

Prague blossomed. Bratislava dug itself out from under a wasteland created by communism.

I'm not saying that capitalism is necessarily a great thing. For every positive example, there's a negative example. That's not even my argument.

My point is simply that human nature lends itself to disparity - it's the natural outcome of our nature. I know you disagree - but just look at history.

Like I said, even if you give two people an identical apartment and an identical car, they will try their darndest to put their individual and unique spin on those items - they will never revel in a clone-like existence. And individuality eventually manifests itself in power, ingenuity, creativity, and yes - disparity.

 

[lunakilo]

stephenw and Kathryn I don't think you are speaking the same language.

Equality doesn't necessarily mean standardized apartment grids.
Private property doesn't necessarily mean selfish grasping and filthy rich people.

 

[sandandfoam]

What? Sorry - I don't see much of an argument there.

I was in Eastern Europe at the collapse of communism. I've seen firsthand the horrible mess that communism on a large scale creates. I've seen individual prosperity boom at a nearly unbelievable rate within a year of that collapse throughout Eastern Europe. No, not for everyone - and it never will be, because people differ too much in their abilities and in their work ethic and their motivations.

Prague blossomed. Bratislava dug itself out from under a wasteland created by communism.

I'm not saying that capitalism is necessarily a great thing. For every positive example, there's a negative example. That's not even my argument.

My point is simply that human nature lends itself to disparity - it's the natural outcome of our nature. I know you disagree - but just look at history.

Like I said, even if you give two people an identical apartment and an identical car, they will try their darndest to put their individual and unique spin on those items - they will never revel in a clone-like existence. And individuality eventually manifests itself in power, ingenuity, creativity, and yes - disparity.

Individuality is a fiction and history is written by the victorious.
I think we can learn more from psychology than history.