Allocation, anyone?

--new ECONO essay

--

I have explained that capitalism has social roots; it could not have existed without human connection. If we do not understand this, there is a very good chance it is because we have been told what capi’ism is always “individualistic.”

I have examined the distinction between healthy or valid capitalism and degenerating (late stage?) The socially healthy aspect goes away, but gradually. I don’t theorize any class revolutions.

So what we are looking for is a sort of capitalism that is socially healthy and I wonder how we can re-instate that into the system. We must do so while there is time. Because if we do not reinstate the social aspect of capitalism we are left with a dystopia.

The rescue of capitalism would need to be political. It doesn’t come about all by itself because of economics and in this regard we should remember how the word “political” was removed from the words describing the “study of” aspect of economic phenomena. So, a different set of words denoted the study aspect. Political + Economy. Thus shortening of this designation, which is the designation for the study of economics to merely one word, “economics” is like the idea of the study subject of geology being called “minerals.” The study or astronomy of the other hand could just well-served with the name of “space.” An astronomer would say: “I do space study.” Sounds good. So, I do not see anything necessarily wrong there.

Let us now ask what the word (”economics”) means. Does it mean the STUDY, or the activities? What is the study? To give one answer: “allocation (of “resources”). You are studying allocation. Ok, but who allocates? If it is the economic phenomena you speak of, and they are getting allocated who allocates? It seems to me a rather basic question. The fear of some persons might be sort of ... If we use the term “allocate” (scarce resources) we should ask “who,”? and if we ask “who”? then we cannot assert that it is the individual. That’s impossible. For them, it has to be the individual. The outcome is not that they face realit. The outcome is that “who allocates” therefore now becomes a verboten question. They say “allocate” and then run away. They will not even think of asking this question. They just say “allocate” and skitter away like criminal running from the scene of a crime. This isn’t what I expect of America and it isn’t what I expect of the capitalistic economy. So who runs the economy? Isn’t it the government? If it isn’t government, then whom? It is the market, so all we know is that it ain’t an “individual.” This spealls death to these bastards, so they will not want to be a part of that society. To them, it means “socialism”

Who allocates? A proper inquiry might just find that the society itself does that. Duh ---it is called “The market,” isn’t it? And so forth. You would get to the truth. They never did this. To these persons, that is what they mean by “communism.” The trugh. We should feel sorry for them. We should re-educate ‘em. But, no they don’t stick around for the debate. They are elsewhere---headed for the exists. There was never anything that worked to stop this tragedy that is the failure of humanity to genuinely study Economics, or social economics and instead replace it with individual economics. Here we have the actual failure of Economics, as a study, which is a disease phenomenon of intellectual history that needs to be studied. It is a whole separate topic. The diseased (or ugly, or mishapen) study of economic phenomena.

So at this time let us return to the theme of how to save capitalism, which is my basic purpose here, and this means we have the matter of how to keep it healthy or valid before us. That is the only goal here -- but, it’s kind of important.

Laws regulating economics should be seen, in our time, as none other than the laws for saving the capitalist system (”capitalistic social system”). By that I mean not destroying it. Regulation n my view does not soften or mitigate capitalism. Everyone always used to say the free market system needs to be “dynamic,” which means basically “sharp.” Or, it means energetic and alive, and it should obviously mean human, not explotative or cruel. This is easy, a no-brainer. The purpose is not exoteric, it is just to keep people healthy. Of course, we can reject capitalism in favor of some other putative system but you would need to see some kind of real alternative, and no one has seen this “socialism” ting work very well. It is only the old bullshit about “socialism” and at this point probably most people do not believe it. Some persons may still think it could come into being, but we are discussing only the bullshit about “socialism.” There is no need to waste our time. In time, I predict we will see that socialism was a very nice myth. It was the great illusion ---the Left believed socialism was waiting for us. It is very religions, really. There is some outcome that they were waiting for. The promised outcome/land is “Socialism” (TM). Or perhaps there is some concept, maybe some positive aspiration still lurking about in our mind. That is fine. But that removes it from reality so you can feel or believe what you like.

Better to stay within capitalism, a sort of economics that we can actually see. Kenneth Boulding had a view I can agree with. He stipulated a “grants” economy along with the normal for-profit system. There were two types of economy and a world with two economies. He did not say that the grants economy was capitalist or not. But I think a system of normal capitalism plus the “grants economy” as a second economic sector, is fine. It is a good approach. This is part of my own approach as well, this two-fold economics (or two-fold capitalism) so I am aware that there are a few ideas that I have sympathy with. Now, I state my own view.

Capitalism is seen as a potentially divided systsem. It might be that the creation of such a system goes back into the past or it might come in the future. In either case there are two: it is divided into the “grants” economy and the “traditional” economy. What is divided is not the population but an energy flow. Energy can flow. It can get stronger or weaker or go in any direction to fill any vessel. Water, for example, may flow wherever it wants; but, it is our job not to block it. (Or maybe that is not it; probably more to be said here.)

A flow region could be the old, traditional capitalism, where the capital once flowed, which is to say the market of the old. This is the capitalism where some item (salesmen often say the “product”) is sold to some individual (the “customer”). Sometimes, logically, the item is sold to an organization, a government, etc. Actually things in this period of capitalism are sold to any paying customer, so the emphasis that is placed by the system of hierarchy or the class or status system, is mitigated and placed on the market. Preference will always be given to the company, not the workers or single persons. Some of the total number of transactions are those of the government. (This is held to be irregular by the absurd “Free market” or “no intervention” people). For instance, there could be a business transaction between the US and country of Belgium as “customer.” The US kind of likes that, because on the US side it would only be a private company.

It is nt easy to anlyze. All this is really something rather complicated. So, it might be difficult but it is relevant to “economics,” in a way that calculus equations (e.g. in microeconomics) are not. The latter are simply irrelevant.

We are looking for a socially healthy version of capitalism. Energy should be diverted and a “grants” economy created. We are therefore obliged to accept the last hundred years as being the “healthy” version. This may be odd, since it was not always all that great. It contained injustices, but this is the only way to really understand what capitalism has to offer. We need to have a model. Having a model is the only way to get a grip on what is possible, and what is not. That experiment is called “capitalism.” It is ongoing. At best, perfect conditions will obtain only in 1 - 5% of all those who could potentially participate. The rate is presently less than 1% and I suggest that an improvement to capitalist health of some 5% of the population would be make the policies creating a “grants” economy justified. Five per cent would be adequate. That is a lot persons in a big country or hundreds of millions. Well, not to go out on a libm or anything here but if I say it could become 5% healthy, I think I have a reasonable chance of achieving it; so, no I do not say 100% or I will save the world. People will still have problems. I am a scholar, not a psychiatrist. I am trying to help the largest number of people I can. We should be fair and just. We should accept that the system has to be capitaism and improve it. We should consider innovative programs outside of the traditional for-profit type of economics. Not all of capitalism need to be strictly for profit. You could have what Boulding called the “grants economy,” which I view simply as another way to practice capitalism (but different relations between the “customers”). It would be a system that is still overall the system of capitalism. Product may be distributed socially as well as individually. But we need to understand “capitalism” differently and see how it can be (and always has been) partly social.

Speaking in practical terms, we understand that this is what the Right has always feared. The movement for a “grants” economy cannot at first expect any help from them. That would not even be fair.

It is a movement to create an upright, honest, and fair version of capitalism, while riding the system of social economics of it unfortunate havit of always emphasing only individualism. Such an attitude is excessive and unnecessary.

- - - -end

Boulding found it impossible to stay in the field and changed his job description (as did Deirdre McCloskey). Ideas in economics clearly range all over the place.