@37:10 "Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington. He was not wrong about it for the past decades, but I hope to hell next decades will destroy his thesis. The European apes who colonized America still want that clash. Huntington kind of made it a bit self-fulfilling by suggesting the clash. I'm really enjoying listening to Asad. I hope his "some thoughts on peace" will get out and permeate a few consciousnesses.
This is the weakest podcast from historic.ly I have listened to, thus far.
The entire podcast is touchy feely - and eerily disjointed even then.
Supposed economists are talking about the soul.
Climate change is an agreed upon societal problem between the 2 people talking, but there is no analysis whatsoever on the scope or scale needed to combat it (regardless of belief in whether it is a problem or not) - we just need to be more "feeling" people in order to make things right.
Great article. I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but will. I disagree that the core problem is the mass exploitation of the poor. I believe the core problem is private property that produces income (not personal property for consumption). Income requires employment. This is different from work. Employment means there is an employer and an employed. The employed does not own property while the employer does. This relationship is a zero sum relationship that is predicated on Malthusian/Darwinian falsehoods of the necessity of intra-social competition.
The only way to end unemployment is to end employment. All property must be communal and all work voluntary. All goods and services must be free. We, together, must plan our society as free men and women. No leaders.
Thanks for the kind words. MMT prescribes a job guarantee, which would transform the very concept of work (redefining terms such as work, value, productivity, and etc.), and eliminate much of the exploitation we currently experience. It would also mute much of the highs and lows of the entire economy, preventing huge bubbles and crashes.
Yes, MMT is the path forward as far as reform goes. You might want to look into the ideas of Henry George, who wrote Progress & Poverty in 1879. His ideas center around the injustice of land (and all monopolies) as a source of rentier income. The New York based Henry George School of Social Science is very interested in combining the ideas of MMT and Henry George. Here's their website: hgsss.org
You are describing a utopia I think, Peter. With respect, I think it is delusional. Thucydides intervenes with "Might makes right." That is just reality. So "free mean and women, no leaders" will be laughed at by the first knuckle-dragger (and his cronies) wielding an ax who just assert "we want more". We need government, but I would say we need it to be self-governance, a collective will, that permits people to live freely within natural constraints. What that means is up to a society to decide, collectively.
I would also suggest (cannot prove it) that in any large society of more than a few thousand, governments of a kind will inevitably form, the human species is a social animal, not a bunch of individuals living entirely freely. It is thee semi-free people though who must legitimize their government, of whatever form it takes, otherwise they become non-free.
Something like your utopia with "no leaders" is possible perhaps in the far future when greed and hunger for power have been educate out of people, but realistically do you see that happening any thousand years soon?
Also, when you say "We, together, must plan our society..." this is expressing a form of government. But how will it function without degeneration? Even anarchists elect leaders, or at least people with assigned responsibilities.
I would agree with you if that is what you mean, I think that is realistic and non-utopian. It is possible to self-organize collectively, and consult to give people with expertise certain responsibilities, I guess it is semantics whether they are called "leaders" but really that is what they become. The key is they are fully accountable to the majority of the people. SO they are leaders in a narrow area, but not absolute leaders.
If I want to learn some mathematical physics, I want some minimal leadership, otherwise I'll be wasting effort. Thus I want some minimal claim on the State to provide such teacher-leaders. I think enough "greedy" people like me hungry for such wisdom from elders will always exist, we will always need some sort of designated leaders. I do not want to be entirely free, left to my own devices, I think that would be degrading. I might not want to grow my own wheat for bread, and so I will wish to move to not-your-country where I can make a claim on the State, and reciprocate in turn by giving up my own time for some other public purpose.
It is not necessary to think of employment as evil. It all depends on the equity. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs," is a good pragmatic ideal, and it only gets enhanced when their is a unit of social currency, a record of credits and debts, since in a large population we cannot old in our own heads all the information about who owe what to whom. This sort of necessary record keeping for harmonious relations is a currency. Capitalism debases it with commodification of things that should not be for sale. It is in our collective power to undo all that.
Lastly, to end this rant, your sort of utopian thinking is dangerous. Utopias are only good if everyone buys into them. I would not buy in to yours, it sounds too simplistic and if not going to maximize human well-being. But hey, if you can convince everyone it will, then I'll be signing up of course. In the men time though, to maximize human flourishing we need to be thinking more practically.
Hi and thanks for being so polite while disagreeing with me. Social media can get ugly sometimes. I understand your position, and both MMT and the ideas of Henry George are key to pursuing reforms to capitalism. You should check out The Henry George School of Social Science in New York. They have many members who are real advocates of MMT. If I remember correctly, Stephanie Kelton's Phd advisor was Mason Gaffney, a member of the HGSSS board.
I'm not a reformist. Of course, if reforms do pass that benefit me, I'll be happy. No "left" institution seeks to remedy the problems that created the need for their existence. Problem solving amounts to institutional suicide. Reform will never work, in my opinion. If I believed reform was the way forward, I would be a hard core Georgist.
So what to hope for? I believe the political economy of both Marx and the anarchists is where truth lies, even though they both are at times contradictory to each other. This is a hard nut to crack. The people who best understand this conundrum are The Socialist Party of Great Britain, founded in 1904. I really recommend you go to their website and read a little. They bring things together quite nicely. I don't think the website will persuade you to change your outlook, because these things are not a function of intellect and information. They are emotional, in my opinion. But at least you will understand the position more.
I do think the ideas of Henry George will appeal to you, because you (and Jeffrey Epstein) are already there. That's going to be fun for you to explore. I'll also add that the ideas of Silvio Gesell would be right up your alley.
Hi Peter, you were right. I have found a lot of sympathy for the Henry George School. I also agree with Jeff Epstein that taxes also can fall under "fees, fines and levies." I reckon a single land tax is appropriate, but maybe even property per cubic metre, to cut down on energy use excesses too. I think then to balance an economy we do need the MMT lens for other demand leakages to create fiscal space, so workers can be hired to do what they want to do for broadly defined "public purpose," and these do not need to be taxes, they can be fines, fees and levies, they will do the job for creating the desired fiscal space. All the best to you.
Yes. But it’s been put on hyperdrive in the past two hundred years, consuming the entire planet and most of its occupants. So much so, that it pushes the entire global society to the brink of extinction.
Sure, Godfrey. But people elected to government do not always know this is the effect of their policy. Most never even know 1% of the policy, have you seen the stacks of Statutes and Acts in Parliaments? It's insane. So, all due respect, you comment is a bit pathetic, it is not helpful. Are you advocating violent overthrow of governments? How? We already elect people in to political seats who surely do not want to be voting to exploit the poorest. We can do things to help them be better. Send them this podcast episode for instance, they might not listen, but you never know when you will get lucky and strike a good soul.
"Mass exploitation of the poor, alternating with mass indifference to the poor, has been government policy since ancient Roman times, but not since ancient Confucian times. We would do well to study the a governance system built on compassion, like China's".
@37:10 "Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel Huntington. He was not wrong about it for the past decades, but I hope to hell next decades will destroy his thesis. The European apes who colonized America still want that clash. Huntington kind of made it a bit self-fulfilling by suggesting the clash. I'm really enjoying listening to Asad. I hope his "some thoughts on peace" will get out and permeate a few consciousnesses.
This is the weakest podcast from historic.ly I have listened to, thus far.
The entire podcast is touchy feely - and eerily disjointed even then.
Supposed economists are talking about the soul.
Climate change is an agreed upon societal problem between the 2 people talking, but there is no analysis whatsoever on the scope or scale needed to combat it (regardless of belief in whether it is a problem or not) - we just need to be more "feeling" people in order to make things right.
I am sorry you feel this way. But, I will be sure to interview someone on Climate change in the upcoming weeks.
Great article. I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but will. I disagree that the core problem is the mass exploitation of the poor. I believe the core problem is private property that produces income (not personal property for consumption). Income requires employment. This is different from work. Employment means there is an employer and an employed. The employed does not own property while the employer does. This relationship is a zero sum relationship that is predicated on Malthusian/Darwinian falsehoods of the necessity of intra-social competition.
The only way to end unemployment is to end employment. All property must be communal and all work voluntary. All goods and services must be free. We, together, must plan our society as free men and women. No leaders.
Thanks for the kind words. MMT prescribes a job guarantee, which would transform the very concept of work (redefining terms such as work, value, productivity, and etc.), and eliminate much of the exploitation we currently experience. It would also mute much of the highs and lows of the entire economy, preventing huge bubbles and crashes.
Yes, MMT is the path forward as far as reform goes. You might want to look into the ideas of Henry George, who wrote Progress & Poverty in 1879. His ideas center around the injustice of land (and all monopolies) as a source of rentier income. The New York based Henry George School of Social Science is very interested in combining the ideas of MMT and Henry George. Here's their website: hgsss.org
Yes! We don’t go too in depth but here’s my interview on the relationship between Georgism and MMT: https://activistmmt.libsyn.com/ep101-12-derek-ross-it-takes-energy-to-get-energy-georgism-and-mmt
Also, MMT founder Warren Mosler believes that all taxes should be replaced with a land value tax.
You are describing a utopia I think, Peter. With respect, I think it is delusional. Thucydides intervenes with "Might makes right." That is just reality. So "free mean and women, no leaders" will be laughed at by the first knuckle-dragger (and his cronies) wielding an ax who just assert "we want more". We need government, but I would say we need it to be self-governance, a collective will, that permits people to live freely within natural constraints. What that means is up to a society to decide, collectively.
I would also suggest (cannot prove it) that in any large society of more than a few thousand, governments of a kind will inevitably form, the human species is a social animal, not a bunch of individuals living entirely freely. It is thee semi-free people though who must legitimize their government, of whatever form it takes, otherwise they become non-free.
Something like your utopia with "no leaders" is possible perhaps in the far future when greed and hunger for power have been educate out of people, but realistically do you see that happening any thousand years soon?
Also, when you say "We, together, must plan our society..." this is expressing a form of government. But how will it function without degeneration? Even anarchists elect leaders, or at least people with assigned responsibilities.
I would agree with you if that is what you mean, I think that is realistic and non-utopian. It is possible to self-organize collectively, and consult to give people with expertise certain responsibilities, I guess it is semantics whether they are called "leaders" but really that is what they become. The key is they are fully accountable to the majority of the people. SO they are leaders in a narrow area, but not absolute leaders.
If I want to learn some mathematical physics, I want some minimal leadership, otherwise I'll be wasting effort. Thus I want some minimal claim on the State to provide such teacher-leaders. I think enough "greedy" people like me hungry for such wisdom from elders will always exist, we will always need some sort of designated leaders. I do not want to be entirely free, left to my own devices, I think that would be degrading. I might not want to grow my own wheat for bread, and so I will wish to move to not-your-country where I can make a claim on the State, and reciprocate in turn by giving up my own time for some other public purpose.
It is not necessary to think of employment as evil. It all depends on the equity. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs," is a good pragmatic ideal, and it only gets enhanced when their is a unit of social currency, a record of credits and debts, since in a large population we cannot old in our own heads all the information about who owe what to whom. This sort of necessary record keeping for harmonious relations is a currency. Capitalism debases it with commodification of things that should not be for sale. It is in our collective power to undo all that.
Lastly, to end this rant, your sort of utopian thinking is dangerous. Utopias are only good if everyone buys into them. I would not buy in to yours, it sounds too simplistic and if not going to maximize human well-being. But hey, if you can convince everyone it will, then I'll be signing up of course. In the men time though, to maximize human flourishing we need to be thinking more practically.
Hi and thanks for being so polite while disagreeing with me. Social media can get ugly sometimes. I understand your position, and both MMT and the ideas of Henry George are key to pursuing reforms to capitalism. You should check out The Henry George School of Social Science in New York. They have many members who are real advocates of MMT. If I remember correctly, Stephanie Kelton's Phd advisor was Mason Gaffney, a member of the HGSSS board.
I'm not a reformist. Of course, if reforms do pass that benefit me, I'll be happy. No "left" institution seeks to remedy the problems that created the need for their existence. Problem solving amounts to institutional suicide. Reform will never work, in my opinion. If I believed reform was the way forward, I would be a hard core Georgist.
So what to hope for? I believe the political economy of both Marx and the anarchists is where truth lies, even though they both are at times contradictory to each other. This is a hard nut to crack. The people who best understand this conundrum are The Socialist Party of Great Britain, founded in 1904. I really recommend you go to their website and read a little. They bring things together quite nicely. I don't think the website will persuade you to change your outlook, because these things are not a function of intellect and information. They are emotional, in my opinion. But at least you will understand the position more.
I do think the ideas of Henry George will appeal to you, because you (and Jeffrey Epstein) are already there. That's going to be fun for you to explore. I'll also add that the ideas of Silvio Gesell would be right up your alley.
Here's the SPGB link:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/welcome/
I love all the people who show so much love around our community!
Hi Peter, you were right. I have found a lot of sympathy for the Henry George School. I also agree with Jeff Epstein that taxes also can fall under "fees, fines and levies." I reckon a single land tax is appropriate, but maybe even property per cubic metre, to cut down on energy use excesses too. I think then to balance an economy we do need the MMT lens for other demand leakages to create fiscal space, so workers can be hired to do what they want to do for broadly defined "public purpose," and these do not need to be taxes, they can be fines, fees and levies, they will do the job for creating the desired fiscal space. All the best to you.
"The core problem in our society is not "capitalism" or "the free market", per se, but rather the mass exploitation of the poor."
Mass exploitation of the poor, alternating with mass indifference to the poor, has been government policy since ancient Roman times.
Yes. But it’s been put on hyperdrive in the past two hundred years, consuming the entire planet and most of its occupants. So much so, that it pushes the entire global society to the brink of extinction.
Sure, Godfrey. But people elected to government do not always know this is the effect of their policy. Most never even know 1% of the policy, have you seen the stacks of Statutes and Acts in Parliaments? It's insane. So, all due respect, you comment is a bit pathetic, it is not helpful. Are you advocating violent overthrow of governments? How? We already elect people in to political seats who surely do not want to be voting to exploit the poorest. We can do things to help them be better. Send them this podcast episode for instance, they might not listen, but you never know when you will get lucky and strike a good soul.
Yes, I should have completed my thought:
"Mass exploitation of the poor, alternating with mass indifference to the poor, has been government policy since ancient Roman times, but not since ancient Confucian times. We would do well to study the a governance system built on compassion, like China's".