Has there ever been a time period when labor was in shortage and conditions of laborers improved not through conflict but because it was necessary to attract them?
>>855003
After the Black Death briefly.
There was a time after the Black Death when the value of labor increased and the bourgeoisie emerged from the Void
>>855014
Didn't the state try to keep prices down though?
Which lead to the peasant rebellions in England among others.
>>855023
>>855026
It's never sat right with me: The libertarian argument that a laborer is a supplier of labor, and is in control of their own supply. How, when the few historical accounts of it actually working like this rely on populations being decimated or worse, is this used as a pillar in American economic policy?
>>855026
> Didn't the state try to keep prices down though?
Yes but rebellions was powerful enough to stop this shit. Look how Mamlucs ended up with the same black death but with successful oppressive apparatus to keep prices in old level.
>>855003
Pretty much colonial US. The brits wanted to emulate the Spanish and Portuguese empires, as much as gold and silver were wanted the real prize of america was the free labor indians produced, yet north american east coast had little to no gold, indians were scarce and untrustworthy of the white men, so Brit colonial authorities had no other choise but to provide colonist with incentives, such as an extense autonomy and democratic powers.
>>855191
Does it function differently in mercantilism than it would a free market? Not trying to be pedantic, just an honest question.
>>855142
So, Western Europe may have done better because our states sucked at keeping people from adopting new things?
>>855128
1. Libertarianism isn't a pillar of American economic policy. Free trade =/= libertarianism.
2. Because the world simply isn't fair.
>>855128
>is in control of their own supply.
This is the part that is wrong. Laborer is not in control of their own supply, they either work or die screaming on the streets from hunger and disease.
The assumption is that you can choose not to provide labor which makes no sense in a model where the majority of capital is in the hands of the few and wages are optimized so that no one can make money from their capital and it is high enough that no one would rebel against the system.
>>855247
>2. Because the world simply isn't fair.
Oh here's the obligatory argument for any discussion on this topic. World being not fair has nothing to do with anything. System that is implemented being unfair is the problem.
Unfortunately I can't offer any alternatives, but saying world is not fair is wrong, you should say system is not fair or capitalism is not fair. Just because when you say it like that it shakes your beliefs should not stop you from saying the truth.
>>855214
> sucked at keeping people from adopting new things
It was sucked in forcing people to work for profits of the elites in the style of more despotic eastern societies where elites was too greedy in the end.
>>855279
>System that is implemented being unfair is the problem.
Why should we believe that a perfectly just system can be implemented?
>Unfortunately
You're goddamn right it's unfortunate.
>but saying world is not fair is wrong, you should say system is not fair or capitalism is not fair
But the world is what's unfair, the unfairness goes beyond the economy. Animals suffer, too, and they suffered before capitalism existed and before humans existed.
>Just because when you say it like that it shakes your beliefs should not stop you from saying the truth.
What is the point you're trying to make here?
It is always like this.
In a boom, it is pretty hard to hire good people. So, there is a lot of competition and the wages go up.
I work in Human Resources in a country that had a boom a few years back.
Usually, conflict doesn't help that much.
>>855128
America was sparsely populated and labor was in high demand so labor could procure more individual freedoms. As populations increased on the east coast this era was drawing to a close until the American revolution which secured these rights until the modern era where people conflate inequality and poverty with individualism among the middle and lower classes.
>>855281
check up that grammer, brah.
>>855299
>Why should we believe that a perfectly just system can be implemented?
There is nothing wrong with striving for perfection. Even I don't think it's possible but the kind of thinking you have leaves no option for research.
>You're goddamn right it's unfortunate.
Fully agreed.
>But the world is what's unfair, the unfairness goes beyond the economy. Animals suffer, too, and they suffered before capitalism existed and before humans existed.
The examples you gave are natural order of things, no one is questioning those. But economy is a human construct, we put these restrictions on ourselves, we made the rules, in this sense it's not very reliable to use analogies. I'm not saying everything should be fair, I'm just pointing out that the system we have favors some people disproportionately. Unfortunately economy in its current state is a game that can be won.
>What is the point you're trying to make here?
I just want you to acknowledge that just because the country you love uses this system does not make it great. I want you to acknowledge that capitalism is also broken, and that it's just tagging along because something better has not showed up yet. I want you to question your beliefs, I want you to give up on defending things by saying "meh world's not fair anyway". Strive for perfection.
![0a5b52d242d911e33c6453e57acadb45[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rQwWB4N.jpg "0a5b52d242d911e33c6453e57acadb45[1].jpg")
>>855003
Sort of. When workers died like canaries in the English coal-mines it became a problem for the military to find recruits, so the shortage of able-bodied people in both fields (poor people) lead to work-environmental improvements in the mines.
>>855313
This is exactly what's wrong with capitalism. Once a new sector is opened for business the fundamentals work fantastically. But once the new sector is saturated it becomes completely unfair towards laborers and favors investors with huge capitals.
This is the problem I think that the competition can be won, and when it's won no fundamental basis of capitalism apply.
>>855337
>There is nothing wrong with striving for perfection
I disagree in principle, and I do not think m that movig in the direction you're suggesting has proven to move anything in fact toward perfection.
>But economy is a human construct
No it isn't, humans cannot survive without participating in an economy. Economies are a matter of natural necessity.
You haven't answered my question. Why should we think that a Communist utopia is possible?
>>856087
The whole discussion aside, you didn't ask that, I didn't say that but the fact that you were so inclined to think that everyone who does not like capitalism is communist frightens me. It shows how biased people are.
>I disagree in principle, and I do not think m that movig in the direction you're suggesting has proven to move anything in fact toward perfection.
You are entitled to your personal opinion.
>No it isn't, humans cannot survive without participating in an economy. Economies are a matter of natural necessity.
But the rules that form the economy are not natural forms. For example is not stealing natural? It's just a rule that we made up so that we can accumulate stuff because the system that we thought would work for our best interests required that. Even though origins are supposed to mimic nature, the current economic system has nothing to do with the nature. They are born from necessity though, that I agree.
I don't think communist utopia is possible, and I never said that. I don't believe in absolute equality but I believe in equality in opportunities presented to people of same standing.
>>856509
>you didn't ask that,
>>855299
>Why should we believe that a perfectly just system can be implemented?
Yes I did. You seem to conceive of a perfect society as one without unemployment. This seems like a Communist society, by definition.
>You are entitled to your personal opinion
Don't you want to discuss this?
>But the rules that form the economy are not natural forms.
Naturalism isn't always fallacious, but this is.
>>855003
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know!
Its the United States of America at this very moment!
>>856519
You did not say anything about communism explicitly and I wasn't trying to do communist propoganda.
>Yes I did. You seem to conceive of a perfect society as one without unemployment. This seems like a Communist society, by definition.
I'm not claiming this, I'm saying that people should be able to choose, in current system it makes no sense to refuse a job offer on the grounds that the pay is low (unless of course if you are at the end of your carreer and about to retire). This is a problem that works for the benefit of anyone who has some amount of capital, and thus it is possible to say that capital gives better return than labor.
>Don't you want to discuss this?
Not really, because it's pretty much your personal opinion, you didn't provide any arguments, you just said you disagreed.
>Naturalism isn't always fallacious, but this is.
I don't know why you quoted this part, are you a news reporter? Because you definitely know which part to quote to prove someone wrong. But if you read the whole thing, I was trying to point out that the rules of economy are laid out by humans which makes it a human construct. Is other rulesets possible? Yes. Is the same true for nature? No.
>>856558
>You did not say anything about communism explicitly and I wasn't trying to do communist propoganda.
Not my fault you don't understand what you're asking for. You're advocating socialism, Communism is the end toward which socialism is oriented.
>I'm not claiming this, I'm saying that people should be able to choose, in current system it makes no sense to refuse a job offer on the grounds that the pay is low (unless of course if you are at the end of your carreer and about to retire).
Hume
>opinion
There you go again, acting as if two people disagreeing about something is grounds for not trying to figure out what's true.
>I don't know why you quoted this part,
Because
>the rules of economy are laid out by humans
is simply not true. The economy exists as a matter of natural necessity. The rules that govern economic activity are not man-made any more than the laws of physics are. Social constructs are also subject to the laws of nature, I see no reason to think they wouldn't be.
>>855003
Sweden and 20th century
>>856582
Well, I'd rather not be classified as anything and you shouldn't be so quick to classify, this is indoctrination speaking rather than your own beliefs I think.
Also how can I argue with a statement that you made about thinking the way I'm suggesting is not going to perfection? It's just your belief, and I believe otherwise, I can't discuss beliefs. I can discuss at which points you disagree with me which are not provided in your statement.
>is simply not true. The economy exists as a matter of natural necessity. The rules that govern economic activity are not man-made any more than the laws of physics are. Social constructs are also subject to the laws of nature, I see no reason to think they wouldn't be.
No way. We have written laws that regulate our economies, and it is always for the benefit of the law breaking person to break these laws had there been no penalty enforced by other humans. So nature would settle to breaking the rules we write ourselves. Like making stealing illegal in the economy game. It's not illegal in nature, if there wasn't any human construct involved it would've been perfectly fine to steal things as in nature every living thing steals from each other.
>>856605
>I'd rather not be classified as anything
I'm classifying your argument, not you. Please don't take this personally, I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you.
>How can I argue with a statement that you made
I'm asking you to support your claim that you make in >>855337
>There is nothing wrong with striving for perfection.
I don't understand what you mean by this, or why one should believe it. I literally want you to give me reasons to believe the things you're saying.
People here get so salty when you ask them for a little bit of argumentation or evidence. I don't understand it.
>We have written laws that regulate our economies,
Are economic goods somehow immune to the laws that govern every other material object?
>It's not illegal in nature
Not my point. The laws of physics are not the same as written laws, this is not a hard concept to understand. Nobody enacted a law that made the laws that govern the processes occurring in the heart of the Sun legal, barring the existence of a deity. Even in that case, it wouldn't be human laws governing the nuclear reactions in the Sun.
>and it is always for the benefit of the law breaking person to break these laws had there been no penalty enforced by other humans
Could you back this up with an argument?
>>856621
>I'm classifying your argument, not you. Please don't take this personally, I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you.
We are on an anonymouse chinese cartoon website, I don't think me or anyone cares.
>I don't understand what you mean by this, or why one should believe it. I literally want you to give me reasons to believe the things you're saying.
People here get so salty when you ask them for a little bit of argumentation or evidence. I don't understand it.
Because saying capitalism is the best there can never be a better economic system is simply naive and leaves no room for research. The type of thinking you have is a side effect of indoctrination they have in US so that no one would become communist willingly but this also makes them dull enough to believe that there can never be a capitalism 2.0 and that the system they have is the best. This is everything I claim, nothing else nothing more. Therefore there is nothing wrong with striving for a better economic system whether it's capitalism 2.0 or communism 2.0 or something entirely new.
>Are economic goods somehow immune to the laws that govern every other material object?
I couldn't follow.
> Not my point. The laws of physics are not the same as written laws, this is not a hard concept to understand. Nobody enacted a law that made the laws that govern the processes occurring in the heart of the Sun legal, barring the existence of a deity. Even in that case, it wouldn't be human laws governing the nuclear reactions in the Sun.
And what you said has nothing to with the point I was trying to make.
So the point I'm trying to make is clearly this:
- Economy is born out of necessity and natural order of human interaction.
- Rules on how to govern economy are human constructs. Therefore not natural at all and can be subject to change. Unlike laws of physics (which can be changed also but it's more like our understanding of them changes, they're not human constructs)
cont'd
>>856671
Anyway in the end is it possible to make stealing stuff from others legal? Yes. Would they steal from others if it was? Yes. Where is your natural order of things now? In your claim we ruled that stealing is not allowed but in the actual natural order of things it is certainly allowed and people would steal. We just ruled it out ourselves, it was not natural we did not observe no stealing rule from the nature and wrote the law. Is this human construct or not? Are you going to claim I'm an anarchist now?
>>856671
>I don't think me or anyone cares.
About what?
>Because saying capitalism is the best there can never be a better economic system is simply naive and leaves no room for research
You aren't giving me a good reason to believe otherwise.
Could you please do that instead of putting words into my mouth?
>I couldn't follow
Why the hell not? Have you even heard of historical materialism? What is the perspective from which you're making this critique?
>- Economy is born out of necessity and natural order of human interaction.
No, economy produces human action as much as economic activity is produced by human acts.
>Rules on how to govern economy are human constructs
What do you mean by this, though? I just don't get it.
>Therefore not natural at all and can be subject to change
This is where your refusal to give reasons comes into play. Why is the existence of economic policy unnatural?
>Anyway in the end is it possible to make stealing stuff from others legal? Yes. Would they steal from others if it was? Yes.
I don't understand the point you're making because you refuse to elaborate on the basic premise that I can't follow. You've completely lost me.
>>856686
>About what?
About insults, personal comments, rational discussions.
Now that you are lost, I guess we can stop, at least I am going to. I'm bored because you are kinda stubborn and convinced yourself that there could never be a better economic model even though I pointed out I don't know if a better one exists but we should strive for a better one instead of accepting the problems of this one and say world is not fair. There is no fun in discussing with a person like that.
>>856697
>but we should strive for a better one
I'm just asking you to support this point. Read the fucking sticky before making another thread like this, it's somewhat disappointing to encounter someone who asks pertinent questions about political economy like these and then refuses to engage in discussion. I don't know why you made this thread, desu.
>>855003
Yes, when labor was much more important than capital in terms of productivity, and capitalists had all this capital lying around that needed labor to turn a profit.
>>856522
There is no shortage of labour.
