by
Bob Hughes
View all notes
The attempt to shut down the economy in October 1972 not only failed; it also shone a floodlight on the sheer scale of the redundancy (in terms of unnecessary equipment and so on) a supposedly 'efficient', competition-based economy needs, just to that its players can compete with each other.
re: a trucking strike in October 73, funded by US govt
I think about this a lot ... the amount of redundancy is so wasteful, esp in tech (think of all the competing apps like Uber/Lyft and shit that have to develop the same tech independently cus they're trying to "compete")
In 2013, the New Yorker's George Packer found that companies like Google and Facebook are full of people who fervently believe they are changing the world more effectively than any government can, and that it is entirely appropriate to become extremely rich by doing so. Packer found the phrase 'change the world' used constantly in these companies and among their backers, yet they were surrounded by (and oblivious to) levels of homelessness and poverty that had been unknown in San Francisco a couple of decades earlier.
false consciousness? hubris? or another phenomenon entirely
Given the extreme discomfort and danger of coalmining work, it can seem extraordinary that people would fight so hard and suffer so much to preserve it--but perhaps it is no more extraordinary than the lengths dancers, musicians, writers and climbers will go to, to do what they have set their hearts on doing. It may seem odd to speak of coalminers in the same breath as ballet dancers and composers, but that may reflect more on the inequality of a society in which these different communities have so little mutual contact, than it does on the nature of their per se.
never thought about it this way but good point. it gives them meaning, and that's the big factor you have to account for
Instead of confronting the problem of excess wealth, liberal-minded political groups usually focus on relieving poverty, perhaps by enforcing and raising minimum wages. But raised minimum wages are easily negated when earnings and wealth at the top explode, driving up the price of housing and further augmenting the power of interests that are inimical to things that support general welfare, such as public transport, schooling and healthcare. As wealth gaps widen, the poor rely more on credit, which further enriches the already wealth. Investment becomes increasingly focused on financial opportunities. The principle of inequality, unchallenged, becomes further entrenched.
The epidemiological evidence suggests that inequality is a bit like asbestos: it has no known 'safe level'. Why not ban it? Or why not at least discuss banning it, to draw out all the arguments pro and con? [...]
Elitism's defenders have often argued that inequality is needed to spur innovation. The evidence gathered by this book contradicts that. The story of computers and high technology, in particular, tells us that tolerating inequality becomes downright dangerous as technology gets more powerful. The idea that big rewards (or even any material reward at all) are helpful in any productive sense, has no support [...]
last paragraph: cough paul graham cough
There is an objection which points out that absolute equality is not achievable. That has never stopped societies outlawing other intractable injustices such as rape, murder, apartheid or even slavery. All the great battles against injustice, in which modern societies take such pride, were considered unwinnable until, suddenly, they were won. And some of society's most mundane underpinnings depend on equally 'unachieveable' goals. Perfect verticality is a completely unachievable abstraction but it does not stop bricklayers continually checking that walls and lintels are as vertical and level as they can possibly be; we would never trust a bricklayer who did anything else [...]
To bring global capital back onshore would be transformational of the global monetary order. Only then could we hope to restore stability, prosperity and social justice to a polarised and dangerously unequal world. Only then could we hope to manage the challenge of climate change.
this is like the main proposal of her book tbh. the "climate change" part feels v throwaway
[...] As Michael Hudson writes, 'the financial sector's aim is not to minimize the cost of roads, electric power, transportation, water or education, but to maximize what can be charged as monopoly rent.'
However, the power of private, commercial bankers to create and distribute finance at a ‘price’ (the rate of interest) they themselves determine is a great power. It is bestowed and backed by public infrastructure (the central bank, the legal system and the system of public taxation). It is a power that must therefore be carefully and rigorously regulated by publicly accountable institutions if it is not to become ‘despotic’. The authorities should ensure that finance or credit is deployed fairly, at sustainable rates of interest, for sound, affordable economic activity, and not for risky and often systemically dangerous speculation. Above all, the great power bestowed on banks by society – the power to create money ‘out of thin air’ – should not be used for their own self-enrichment. Nor should banks use retail customer deposits or loans as collateral for the bank’s own borrowing and speculation. That much is common sense, and should inform a democratic society’s regulatory oversight of the banks.
basically saying, with great power comes great responsibility
Furthermore, because neoclassical economists conceive of money as having (like gold or silver) a scarcity value, they theorise as if money is subject to market forces, as if money’s ‘price’ – the rate of interest – is a consequence of the supply of and demand for money. Many argue that like commodities, money or savings can become scarce.
But money is not like a commodity, and to define it as such is to create a ‘false commodity’ as Karl Polanyi argued. On the contrary, with the development of sound monetary systems in developed economies, there is never a shortage of money for society’s most important needs. Instead the relevant question is: who controls the creation of money? And to what end is money created?
A small group of distinguished economists all understood that money as part of a developed monetary system is not, and never has taken the form of a commodity. Instead money and the rate of interest are both social constructs: social relationships and social arrangements based primarily and ultimately on trust. The thing we call money has its original basis in belief. Credit is a word based on the Latin word credo: I believe. ‘I believe you will pay, or repay me now or at some point in the future.’ Money and its ‘price’ – the rate of interest – became the measure of that trust and/or promise. Or, if trust is absent, the measure of a lack of trust. If the banker does not fully trust a customer to repay, they will demand more as collateral or in interest payments.