realcoolhand
Posts: 261
Joined: 3/22/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote:
ORIGINAL: realcoolhand Damn. Why bother? The premises are flawed. LE assumes that wealth creation and equitable distribution of wealth are inversely related. They are not. Distributing wealth more fairly does NOT mean producing less wealth. And yes, we are continuing to produce wealth, not merely living off our savings. No one seems to notice, but I've already explained how consumer credit allows us to simulate a FAIR distribution of wealth. So NO, we do not need to roll back liberal society to halt the decline of western civilization. Western civilization is not declining, the distribution of wealth is not dramatically more fair than it was before the industrial revolution, and the credit structures that have been used to convince us that it is more fairly distributed are now used to engender xenophobia even as they render the system as a whole more fragile. And you do not see any issue with foreign credit being introduced to "simulate a fair distribution of wealth"? I definitely do. Not only because it allows western societies to put off the hard work of actually engaging in substantive institutional reform that would result in more equitable distributions of wealth as it is generated, but because it shifts to other economies the risk that the west will be unable to or, more likely, unwilling to make good on the promise to pay. quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I would go further than that though and say that this introduced credit is responsible to great extent for a simulated economic growth too. Depends on what you mean by "simulated economic growth." When properly managed, debt can be a good thing if the debtor invests borrowed funds in such a way that, in the long term, their total volume of income increases, allowing them to pay back the loan with (hopefully) a surplus. Because the availability of credit has a real impact on our ability to generate real wealth, financial services add real value to the real economy. Of course there is a purely speculative side to the financial services economy, but that does not mean that all growth in that sector of the economy is illusory and unsupported by real value. quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Neither are real and each is subversive to retaining whatever wealth we imagine we may have gained from the introduction and whatever wealth we retain from centuries of exploitation and repression, at home and abroad - for it has to be repaid. Not only this but it has been used to mask the decline in our ability to generate the wealth whereby we might have done without the credit and now to repay the credit. Treating wealth solely as the product of oppression and exploitation is as much a mistake as is treating the value added by finance as illusory. Time is money, and so efficiency gains increase real wealth by saving time, without exploiting or oppressing anyone. Although it's not a straight conversion, it's helpful to think of a dollar as equivalent to an hour of labor (it's not such a stretch, which is why wages work). Now imagine that we all need some product called Alpha. It normally takes three precious hours to produce a unit of Alpha, and so a unit of Alpha costs three dollars in a fair market. Now I take out a loan and use the proceeds to develop a technique which allows me to produce a unit of Alpha in one hour. Since that hour is worth a dollar, it costs me a dollar to make a unit of Alpha. I sell it to you for two dollars, and make a dollar of profit. I am now one dollar/one hour richer. Since it would take you three hours to make the Alpha yourself, it would cost you three dollars, and by purchasing from me, you've saved a dollar/hour. You are now one dollar/hour richer. Everyone wins, and I can use the profit I make to pay back the loan I took out. In this example, credit is not masking declining productivity, but rather facilitating an increase in productivity. Consumer credit is, by in large, different. Consumers use credit almost exclusively to increase their present ability to consume, without regard to the fact that their future income streams will be substantially narrowed by the press of repayment obligations. Credit should not be used to facilitate consumption. quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen That wealth generation is hindered by a fair distribution is clear - if workers require pay and condtions that lift them out of poverty then the cost of generating wealth rises, the profit falls and others may easily outcompete us who have not adopted such progressive policies. This is why so much wealth generation has been removed to countries where such policies are absent or underdeveloped, and why the need arose to mask everything here with cheap easy credit. That wealth generation is hindered by a fair distribution is NOT clear, in fact it is counterintuitive. It's all about transaciton costs and incentives. If everyone is ensured a fair share of the wealth they generate, then they have an incentive to cooperate (lowering transaction costs) and innovate (increasing real productivity). The transaction costs of cooperation are lower than those of coercion. Transaction costs are the costs of ensuring that work actually gets done. Imagine that the only means of production is a farm, and the only economic actors are two farmers. They could agree to till the soil together, and to take a share of the produce equal to the share of work each has done. Now both have an incentive to work hard, and neither has to waste time (which, remember, is equal to money) making sure that the other is working. If, on the other hand, farmer John will take all the produce and give farmer Harry only enough produce to survive, farmer Harry has no incentive to work hard, no incentive to innovate, and farmer John will have to spend a considerable amount of time/money just to ensure that farmer Harry is working at all!
< Message edited by realcoolhand -- 5/23/2010 7:52:30 AM >
|