Canadian Politics Today

Economics. Learn something about it.

Society. Learn something about it. Not only is classical liberal economics wrong (since there can be no self-regulating markets, not the least of which because there's no such thing as perfect information and there sure as **** isn't an interventionless market), but not everything should be subject to economic rationality. The way a society provisions for its people's subsistence should not be beholden to the radical myth of self-regulating free markets and the whims of futures investors who buy things not for their use value but for their future price values.

When I say organics SHOULD be the standard and should not cost a premium, I am making a value judgment about social organization and an economic system that does not concern itself with humanity or nature. An economic system that left on its own would annihilate us and the earth.

Economics is simply the study of the economy - something that is intrinsic to all human societies. At the simplest level it looks at the resources expended to produce a good and the value created by that good. If the good cannot recover the value of the resources consumed during its production then that good is not economic. That is why goods like organic farm produce that consume more resources than alternatives must cost more. Value judgements are irrelevant.

Listen, your insistence on pushing neo-classical liberal theories of economy as though this idea of a "self-regulating" economy isn't anything more than a myth has no sway with me. The "Market Society" that you're talking about was created through massive centralized bureaucratic organization and legislation throughout the 1800s. Agriculture is a part of that society that was created. However, my point, that either you refuse or are incapable of seeing, is that this entire social system (both politically and economically) is artificial and not the result of any "natural" processes. You want to talk about the value of resources as if there's something intrinsic about it and there isn't. I do not accept that perspective of economics.

More specifically, I do not believe that human activity and nature are commodities to be bought and sold on the market in the same way as manufactured goods. Human activity, that is labour, exists without markets, and so does nature. Land ownership is nothing more than the parceling up of nature. It exists without markets. Our use of the land, hunting, gathering, subsistence farming, would exist without markets. We rely on nature to survive. How we are socially organized ought to be predicated on the redistribution of resources to meet our basic needs; these are activities that predate market society by thousands of years. It is only since the 1800s that we've fallen into this destructive arrangement of the Market Society. Liberal economics was based on faulty assumptions about a particular period in time where society was transitioning from feudalism to pre-industrial capitalism. There is nothing natural about people competing to sell their human activity to another. There is nothing natural about needing to sell your body to an employer in order to afford the things you need to survive. There is nothing natural about "buying" land. This was crafted by state intervention from the Enclosures, to the pauperism that resulted from the Victorian Era Poor Laws (which undermined the need for the ownership class to actually pay a living wage), and was finally completed by the eradication of those same poor laws which left masses of landless people competing with one another for mere subsistence. The market economy for labour was a state fabrication that began in England and spread across the globe.

So when you talk about the "labour" needed for organic foods and how that's the reason that the prices are what they are, I contest the entire system that was created to make natural food a commodity to be sold at a premium. I contest the entire shift in agriculture that created the need for genetically modified foods and the chemicals used in production, without which there would be no "organic" distinction. I find it ludicrous that food, merely domesticated and grown naturally is actually a premium product when that's all we should have available to us. Just the fact that food is described as "organic" (not to mention bottled water) is a sign of the damage that our entire political economic system has caused and continues to cause to our humanity.

Listen, your insistence on pushing neo-classical liberal theories of economy as though this idea of a "self-regulating" economy isn't anything more than a myth has no sway with me. The "Market Society" that you're talking about was created through massive centralized bureaucratic organization and legislation throughout the 1800s. Agriculture is a part of that society that was created. However, my point, that either you refuse or are incapable of seeing, is that this entire social system (both politically and economically) is artificial and not the result of any "natural" processes. You want to talk about the value of resources as if there's something intrinsic about it and there isn't. I do not accept that perspective of economics.

More specifically, I do not believe that human activity and nature are commodities to be bought and sold on the market in the same way as manufactured goods. Human activity, that is labour, exists without markets, and so does nature. Land ownership is nothing more than the parceling up of nature. It exists without markets. Our use of the land, hunting, gathering, subsistence farming, would exist without markets. We rely on nature to survive. How we are socially organized ought to be predicated on the redistribution of resources to meet our basic needs; these are activities that predate market society by thousands of years. It is only since the 1800s that we've fallen into this destructive arrangement of the Market Society. Liberal economics was based on faulty assumptions about a particular period in time where society was transitioning from feudalism to pre-industrial capitalism. There is nothing natural about people competing to sell their human activity to another. There is nothing natural about needing to sell your body to an employer in order to afford the things you need to survive. There is nothing natural about "buying" land. This was crafted by state intervention from the Enclosures, to the pauperism that resulted from the Victorian Era Poor Laws (which undermined the need for the ownership class to actually pay a living wage), and was finally completed by the eradication of those same poor laws which left masses of landless people competing with one another for mere subsistence. The market economy for labour was a state fabrication that began in England and spread across the globe.

So when you talk about the "labour" needed for organic foods and how that's the reason that the prices are what they are, I contest the entire system that was created to make natural food a commodity to be sold at a premium. I contest the entire shift in agriculture that created the need for genetically modified foods and the chemicals used in production, without which there would be no "organic" distinction. I find it ludicrous that food, merely domesticated and grown naturally is actually a premium product when that's all we should have available to us. Just the fact that food is described as "organic" (not to mention bottled water) is a sign of the damage that our entire political economic system has caused and continues to cause to our humanity.

Yep, I grew up on a farm and for the first ~14 years of my life everything I ate was organic and I hadn't even heard the term. (Well OK except for the odd bottle of Coca Cola) Then I moved into town and the grocery store wanted ~50% more for the same stuff we grew, ate and sold for all those years.

10 people on an island and they all work together to hunt, gather, build shelter, and protect one another. There is no market.

Sorry that is a myth. Humans societies succeed because people *specialize*. Once you have specialization there becomes a value associated with the goods produced by the labour which are exchanged for goods produced by others. What you call "reciprocity" is actually a market base exchanged of goods based on relative value. "Communes" are ideologically driven artificial creations that ignore human nature. That is why they are always small scale and rarely outlast the founders.

To illustrate: lets say one of the people liked to paint pictures on stones. Initially these stones might be of value but if the person continued they would in trouble because they are spending time producing things that have no value. The person would have to switch to an activities that produced economic value.

You don't think artwork has economic value?

Not what I said. On an island with 10 people the market for artwork would quickly become saturated and the value of new works would drop. Someone who already has 10 painted stones may not feel like sharing their fish that they spent a day catching in return for 1 more painted stone even though it was a fair trade when they did not have any painted stones. In a real world the stone painter would likely be simply told to spend time doing tasks that have economic value instead of wasting time on tasks with limited economic value.

Well your little 10 person on an island charade has no relation to the real world. I agree you can't eat artwork but of course it has economic value. Ever hear what people will pay for  Van Gogh? In the real world people excel at various activities many of which have merits even if they don't directly put food on plates.

Classic strawman. I never said art has no economic value. I said even in small societies people are compelled to pursue work that has economic value that exceeds the value of the inputs. The range of viable choices increases as population increases but the mechanism remains the same. Economics is fundamental to human society. If you don't understand how economics works you can't understand society.

The value required to be added to the sum of the value of the inputs is the cost of the work to assemble those inputs into a viable product. Beyond that it is simply profit. Nice but not fundamental to human society other than to quell the greed factor.

More strawmen. Nothing in my argument depends on the concept of profit. Value is simply a measure of what something is worth to other people. Someone could spend a day catching 10 fish or painting 10 rocks. The relative value of the two activities will depend on how much demand there is for fish relative to painted rocks. If the value of fish or painted rocks is less that the inputs then people generally will not engage in that activity.

10 people on an island and they all work together to hunt, gather, build shelter, and protect one another. There is no market. Your example shows exactly why neo-classical liberal economics is a myth. They're not bartering with one another at all. They're working together to survive or distributing their goods based on reciprocity, not the competitive market that is assumed by our economy.

A society where everyone works cooperatively for the benefit of each other only works in smaller societies like villages and communes.  In a society like ours with millions of people where most people have never met each other people naturally care far less for people they never met compared to themselves & their families & friends.  So then you get the problem of free-loaders.

Let's say in your more just society there's 10 million people working for the common good collectively.  There's Ted who works very hard 10-12 hours a day and is super productive in those hours, then there's Larry on the other side of town who is legit just lazy and puts in 6-8 hours a day at minimum effort requires then goes home and smokes weed and plays video games.  Larry doesn't give a crap about anyone else but Larry.  Now Ted is PO'd. How is this fair to Ted?  What incentive does Ted have to work as hard as he can?  What incentive does Larry have to work harder if it's "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" and all his needs are met regardless?

The best answer we've come up with to answer this question is money.  Ted is rewarded for his extra work through more pay, and Larry is punished.  Social programs ensure Larry will never starve from his laziness, but he won't live the sweet life like Ted.  If there's a better and fairer way I'd be all for it.