Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

mrzine.monthlyreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

#11

Post by starbeast »

mc32 wrote: post #5
starbeast wrote: post #4

One of the best arguments against full employment that I have ever encountered was made by the German general Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, who fought in both of the world wars and died in 1943. His argument was regarding his officers, but it can be readily applied to the population as a whole. >"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics a…

I don't think that's a good analogy. Maybe an army can't make use of every type of person (doubtful, in this context) but doubly doubtful in the economy at large where employers need many different kinds of people. Moreover, who is to say the stupid and diligent, to borrow from your quote, wouldn't do worse harm at home left to their devices? In any event, Japan, in the 80s, was pretty much near full-employment. I do…

Japan throughout the '80s (and still today, though maybe a little less so) has been practicing something fairly close to what I am suggesting, by having a non-job role for the "madogiwa zoku", the window seat tribe.

They may not be paid to stay home, but they are paid to stay the hell out of the way of anything that could affect the smooth running of the business.

Re: Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

#12

Post by mc32 »

starbeast wrote: post #11
mc32 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a good analogy. Maybe an army can't make use of every type of person (doubtful, in this context) but doubly doubtful in the economy at large where employers need many different kinds of people. Moreover, who is to say the stupid and diligent, to borrow from your quote, wouldn't do worse harm at home left to their devices? In any event, Japan, in the 80s, was pretty much near full-employment. I do…

Japan throughout the '80s (and still today, though maybe a little less so) has been practicing something fairly close to what I am suggesting, by having a non-job role for the "madogiwa zoku", the window seat tribe. They may not be paid to stay home, but they are paid to stay the hell out of the way of anything that could affect the smooth running of the business.

The window watchers is an intetesting phenomenon, and you have a point in that in a way it’s like keeping useless employees out of the way. However, I would hesitate to say they are actually useless, but rather the labor market in Japan is such that it’s extremely difficult for a good employable person to “hop” jobs. Once hired out of University, which is the main avenue for hiring for the sarariiman, workers have little chance to change jobs. In that atmosphere and culture, it’s nigh impossible to have your window watchers go out and find a job where they could actually be productive. Many of them (most?) are able and productive but the company has moved on to other things, or refocused, realigned, reorganized and these people get trapped.

Re: Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

#13

Post by 0db532a0 »

airstrike wrote: post #6

Employment isn't the end goal. What we want is to provide people with the access to goods and services, and employment is a good proxy that is easier to optimize for. Also, for what it's worth, we already live in an age of full* employment in the U.S. and so far we're yet to see that the "maintenance of full employment [causes] social and political changes which [gives] a new impetus to the opposition of the business…

How can the capitalist, a single man, who knows that no state can efficiently allocate resources also be as presumptuous as to think that he knows what is best for society?

Re: Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

#14

Post by airstrike »

0db532a0 wrote: post #13
airstrike wrote: post #6

Employment isn't the end goal. What we want is to provide people with the access to goods and services, and employment is a good proxy that is easier to optimize for. Also, for what it's worth, we already live in an age of full* employment in the U.S. and so far we're yet to see that the "maintenance of full employment [causes] social and political changes which [gives] a new impetus to the opposition of the business…

How can the capitalist, a single man, who knows that no state can efficiently allocate resources also be as presumptuous as to think that he knows what is best for society?

The capitalist doesn't believe he singlehandedly knows what is best for society. In fact, the capitalist believes he alone can only maximize value to shareholders – but in doing so maximizes value for all since he creates economic prosperity through growth.

He simply genuinely believes allowing the market to operate as close to freely as possible is what generates the greatest amount of prosperity for everyone. The fact that the U.S. is the world's strongest economy by far should be proof enough, but apparently people still prefer to hate success

Re: Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

#15

Post by 0db532a0 »

airstrike wrote: post #14
0db532a0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can the capitalist, a single man, who knows that no state can efficiently allocate resources also be as presumptuous as to think that he knows what is best for society?

The capitalist doesn't believe he singlehandedly knows what is best for society. In fact, the capitalist believes he alone can only maximize value to shareholders – but in doing so maximizes value for all since he creates economic prosperity through growth. He simply genuinely believes allowing the market to operate as close to freely as possible is what generates the greatest amount of prosperity for everyone. The f…

I am not debating the mechanism of capitalism, its ability to allocate goods and how or whether it creates prosperity. For the record, it seems to me the most natural way for humans to interact with each other.

My point is that to think that one knows what is best for society is similar to thinking that one knows how best to allocate goods. It just isn’t possible to know. Any capitalist will surely agree that value is purely subjective.

Re: Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

#16

Post by airstrike »

0db532a0 wrote: post #15
airstrike wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The capitalist doesn't believe he singlehandedly knows what is best for society. In fact, the capitalist believes he alone can only maximize value to shareholders – but in doing so maximizes value for all since he creates economic prosperity through growth. He simply genuinely believes allowing the market to operate as close to freely as possible is what generates the greatest amount of prosperity for everyone. The f…

I am not debating the mechanism of capitalism, its ability to allocate goods and how or whether it creates prosperity. For the record, it seems to me the most natural way for humans to interact with each other. My point is that to think that one knows what is best for society is similar to thinking that one knows how best to allocate goods. It just isn’t possible to know. Any capitalist will surely agree that value i…

But the capitalist doesn't believe he knows how to allocate capital, while the statist does.

The capitalist believes the exact opposite – that he can never claim to be a better planner than "nature itself" so we should admit defeat and let things transpire naturally while we each focus on our individual lives and businesses, which presumably we know how to live or run better than the state.

Re: Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

#17

Post by JetSpiegel »

airstrike wrote: post #6

Employment isn't the end goal. What we want is to provide people with the access to goods and services, and employment is a good proxy that is easier to optimize for. Also, for what it's worth, we already live in an age of full* employment in the U.S. and so far we're yet to see that the "maintenance of full employment [causes] social and political changes which [gives] a new impetus to the opposition of the business…

> Not to mention it is guilty of the seemingly undying habit of the left to posit that those in favor of business hold their beliefs solely because it benefits them, and not because they genuinely want what's best for the whole of society.

It's literally the definition of business. Otherwise they would be charities and non-profits.

Post reply on HN