Towards a Critique of Economic Theory

Discussion in 'Economy' started by diptherio, Nov 22, 2011.

  1. diptherio
    Offline

    diptherio Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +5
    We start off broadly, by asking what exactly we mean when we use the word “economy?” We might define an economy as a system of producing and distributing goods and services within and between groups of people. There are, of course, many ways in which such a system might be designed, as we can see from studies of history and anthropology. From an ethical, normative standpoint, we might distinguish between just and unjust economic systems. We could define a just economic system as one in which there is a high positive correlation between effort expended in the production process and the ability to consume the fruits of that process. An unjust system, then, would be one in which there is no correlation, or a negative correlation, between effort expended and the consumption potential realized by any given individual.

    To demonstrate this we can consider the economic system of slavery as practiced in the United States prior to 1865. Using our simple guidelines above, we conclude that the slavery system is unjust, since those expending the greatest amount of effort in the productive process (the slaves) receive the least amount of remuneration and vice versa; those whose exertions in the productive process are minimal (the plantation owners) receive the greatest reward from the process. There is an obvious negative correlation between effort and gain within the system and we are therefore justified in criticizing such a system as economically unjust1.

    In discussing contemporary “capitalist” economics, the standard explanation breaks down the production process into three major areas of input along with the individuals who provide each of the inputs. These inputs are typically listed as land, labor, and capital; owned, respectively, by the landlord, the worker, and the capitalist. For allowing his/her land to be used in production the landlord receives rent, for contributing his/her labor the worker receives a wage, and for supplying the necessary real and financial capital (i.e. tools, factories, money) the capitalist receives profit. Thus each contributor to the process of production receives their repayment. Without considering any deeper than this we might conclude that the modern capitalist economy is, in fact, a just one.

    That would, however, be a premature conclusion, for in examining this system we see that there is something different, something special and unique about the capitalist's profits. This unique aspect of capitalist profit-making, different from either the rent of the landlord or the wages of the worker, is that in exchange for a temporally-limited contribution to production the capitalist is able to realize temporally unlimited returns. Whereas for the landlord and the laborer their incomes cease the moment they remove their factors of production from the economic process, the capitalist is able to make a one-time contribution to the process in exchange for a (conceivably) never-ending income.

    To clarify this point, we can consider a simplified case involving only labor and capital. Let us suppose we have a capitalist who puts up the money to build a factory and purchase initial inputs and pay wages during the first production-cycle. The revenue realized from sale of the product must, necessarily, be enough to cover the cost of the material and labor inputs (variable costs) as well as some amount to off-set the capitalist's initial investment in the factory (fixed costs). As the production-cycle continues the revenue generated by the factory must continue to cover the variable costs of production as well as pay down the capitalist's fixed cost in the factory2. After some period of time the capitalist will have been fully repaid for his/her initial financial investment in the productive enterprise, i.e. all fixed costs will have been fully covered by returns to the enterprise. From this point on any gains realized by the capitalist are what we can consider actual profits.

    Since the revenues created by the factory must continue to cover all variable costs, and since the fixed costs have been fully repaid, the returns to the capitalist from this point on represent not remuneration for contributing to the process of production, but rather returns to the legally-defined right of ownership. While the laborers must continue to supply their labor-power to the production process in order to continue receiving their returns in the form of wages, the capitalist need now contribute nothing further to the production process to continue receiving his/her returns in the form of profits. While it is true that without some actual profit, above and beyond simple repayment of the initial financial outlays, the capitalist could not be convinced to contribute his/her resources to the production process, it should be apparent that the potential gains to ownership of a productive enterprise far outstrip the minimum return on investment that would be sufficient incentive for the capitalist to engage their resources.

    Given our above minimal definition of just and unjust economic systems, we now see that capitalism must be placed, at least on the prima facie evidence, into the latter category. For the workers3 in the system, a fixed amount of time and effort engaged in production yields a fixed amount of return, i.e. consumption potential. Whereas, for the capitalist, a fixed amount invested in production can yield, at least theoretically, unlimited returns. For certain actors in the economic process a one-time effort leads to a one-time reward, while for other actors a one-time effort can lead to endless rewards; thus effort expended does not positively correlate with consumption potential realized; thus the system is open to criticism on grounds of basic injustice.

    1Besides considerations of simple “fairness,” unjust economic systems, as we have defined them here, also create divergent and conflicting incentives between different actors in the production process which lead inevitably to decreased efficiency in production. This aspect will be discussed in greater detail later.

    2In this simplified treatment I am not taking additional costs of production (namely capital depreciation) into account, however the analysis can be easily expanded to cover these, as it is apparent that any firm whose revenue does not cover all costs, from whatever source, can not long remain a going concern.

    3For simplicity we will continue with a basic labor/capital dichotomy. How the question of land ownership fits in will be examined later.
     
  2. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,564
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    America has had the most capitalism and is the richest country in human history so why would it or its economic system be placed in a "latter category"? That certainly seems absurd based on the prima facie evidence.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2011
  3. diptherio
    Offline

    diptherio Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +5
    Ever worked a blue collar job? If you have, you know that most of the gains our economic system produces go to those who do the least actual work. Those of us who do the most work almost always get the least pay. That's why I would claim that capitalist ownership structures are unjust: they allow unproductive members of society to gain outsized rewards. Take a look at the Congressional Budget Offices website, at a report called something like "Trends in Household Income Distribution between 1979 and 2007" (it's a new report, from October of this year) and you can see clearly that those at the top of the income scale are receiving more and more of the total income in our society. And most of those people are not engaged in productive enterprise, but rather in things like selling derivatives products of the sort that crashed our economy. Our current income and wealth disparities are not only immoral, they are historical abberations and I believe we need to question how we have arrived at this juncture.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2011
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    they like it better when money makes money instead of people
     
  5. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,564
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    Of course that is idiotic and typical Marxist class war rhetoric. In a free society you too are free to become unproductive and gain outsized rewards for doing so. You are also free not to buy what unproductive members of society are selling.

    If you choose to be very productive for no reward that is your business.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,230
    Thanks Received:
    14,913
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,015
    Good Fucking Grief, is this what passes for economic education today? Do yourself a favor and give me your address, I bought a new refrigerator and I will send you the box so you will always have a home.

    If I were you I'd also contact an attorney and sue for a refund of your tuition.
     
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,230
    Thanks Received:
    14,913
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,015
    Money makes people.

    Yeah.

    That makes sense...in a TruthMatters sort of way
     
  8. BillyV
    Offline

    BillyV Antidisestablishmentarian

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    591
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +118
    Quite interesting concepts you have put forth, and it is somewhat persuasive if you take it on its face. However, what you neglect to mention, and it is key to the discussion, is that businesses often, and perhaps usually, fail. In that situation, not only is the capitalist not rewarded for his capital, he in fact forfeits it. This risk is not assumed by your other inputs; the worker is paid soon after his input is finished, as is the landlord. Both are free to pursue other work or tenants in the likely event that the startup you have outlined fails . Not so the capitalist, who is now perhaps penniless and destitute (I'll bet owners of American Airlines stock are not feeling unjustly enriched today!). For assuming this significant downside risk, he is allowed the upside risk which can, in fact, be unlimited, although in the real world, competition is a great limiting factor. There is no injustice in this, and as has been said, in the modern capitalist economy, every worker and landlord is also able to become a capitalist, and at a minimal cost, and in fact most are. If you have shares of stock in a 401K, you are a capitalist. Your assessment assumes that the poor worker and landlord have no disposable income whatsoever, but this is rarely the case. And even a poor worker who bought 10 shares of Apple Computer in 1980 would be wealthy today, and a poor worker today who invests in the winning company of tomorrow will also be wealthy. As with most things, oversimplification can lead to erroneous conclusions.
     

Share This Page