11 ms·

> Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earni

> Under such a system, most people would be able to earn a living without having to rely on the use of the property of others to do so. Examples of people earning a living in this way would be farmers who own their own land and related machinery, plumbers who own their own tools, software developers who own their own computer Nonsense. Our abundance is increased by specialization not a lack of it. Specialization and trade allow for higher-order goods to be used as inputs to produce lower-order goods. Farming doesn't just require a tractor and some land. You need fuel to run the tractor, other industries to come together to make the tractor, a merchant to purchase the tractor from, and on and on. It does not follow that owning more things related to a trade will produce more things. The opposite is the case, it's cheaper for the farmer to buy the tractor than produce tractors himself.

ken47 10y ago
You are assuming abundance is the issue. It is not.
lucideer 10y ago
Generally speaking, I agree with the overall content of your post. However your first and last sentences really emphasise for me the real problem: oversimplifying and stratifying the discussion. "Nonsense" is an extreme overstatement, there are nuances to both arguments. "This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely what's needed, and I'd argue that while your arguments are sound, they've been treated as absolutes, which they're not. A farmer needs to buy their tractor from a tractor manufacturer and fuel it from a fuel extractor/generator, but not everyone need be involved in this cycle and not every step need be specialised in a completely unary manner. Also, the emphasis on individual economic efficiency over efficiency of communal benefit is important: if a farmer can produce less - but sufficient - food, for less - but sufficient - material profit, while not producing negative impacts for others elsewhere in the economic system at large, that's a more "efficient" overall system. The most important word in the excerpt you quoted is "most"
- sqeaky 10y ago
  How do you build a system that is stable where an individual is expected to leave some personal gain on the table? That runs entirely counter to human nature. If you can solve that you may have something workable, but without it "Nonsense" is as good a word as any.
  - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
    Really? In Northern Europe I would argue we have this working decently well. To point where we have a health care system and educational system which is both less expensive than some and more productive/effective at the same time.
    - jimbokun 10y ago
      Stop rubbing it in.
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      What's notable is that Northern European economies have among the freest, most "market capitalist" economies on Earth. There's a substantial amount of tax-and-redistribute to them, but very little in the way of economic planning, or actual-socialist communalism. Mostly it's just a large welfare state.
  - nico_h 10y ago
    a) is this worse than the current system? b) Is it really human nature? This is what social norms are for. Slavery is for now still mostly frowned upon, and in some circles even racism is. Even though using either usually results in huge personnal gains for some.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      Slavery is a great example to work with. It has been made so costly to own slaves that no one in the western world can or wants to do it. In most areas just the social of ramifications of attempting to acquire slaves will cause all your customers to leave and employers to fire you. Then if you somehow do get a few slaves law enforcement or military agencies will try to stop you. Since they generally enforce their monopoly on violence they will probably succeed at stopping you. Only in the places most removed from these incentives do we see slavery. Look at North Korea, much of the population can be seen as slaves (The subsistence farmers for example). The costs of keeping the slaves can be thought of as the cost of running their propaganda machine, arming their military, controlling the border and the loss in relations with the rest of the world. As long the leaders fail to gain a sense of compassion then the only thing that matters to them is their slaves make more than they cost.
jjoonathan 10y ago
If 5 companies all invest R&D in developing smartphones that fulfill essentially the same purpose, is 4/5ths of the R&D money wasted? I'd say not -- competition decreases prices and increases quality. Even if it's "morally" redundant as compared to a world run by a benevolent supercomputer, it serves a concrete purpose with concrete benefits. Similarly, if a tractor can prevent Joe from working a miserable low-skill job in a world where the supply of labor dramatically exceeds demand, it's a good investment for Joe. Even if it's "morally" just as redundant as the R&D dollars, it serves a concrete purpose with concrete benefits. Of course, Joe would have to buy a great deal more than a tractor to realize this dream, not to mention that the fabled "tractor" which could actually free Joe from working harder than a minimum wage job doesn't exist yet, and probably bears little resemblance to the "car for farming" we've been talking about. Currently the cost of centralized production (the rent-seeking it enables) is small compared to the benefits. I don't think that's in question. I do think it's a function of manufacturing technology, though, and I don't think the scales are destined to forever tip the way they do now.
- ben_jones 10y ago
  Agreed. Take something relatively recent, water resistance in modern smart phones, had Samsung R&D not gone down that rabbit hole it would not be nearly as ubiquitous.
  - tristor 10y ago
    To be accurate, Sony did it first with their Xperia Z line.
    - justneedto 10y ago
      My Nokia 3310 survived the cloth washer twice. Fifteen years ago. It's battery also lasted for several weeks. This line of reasoning is amusingly similar to NIH-syndrome.
      - agumonkey 10y ago
carsongross 10y ago
Specialization is (mostly) orthogonal from self-ownership. Distributism is concerned not primarily with autarkic relationships, but rather with reducing the amount of usury, rent and wage slavery. Yes, self reliance (and sustainability) is more emphasized than it is in modern liberal western economics, but that doesn't denigrate the concept of specialization, it just elevates other aspects of political economy as well. It's a set of ideas worth approaching with an open mind, in my opinion. John Medaille's books is very well written, even if you don't agree with much of it.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
That's definitely a problem in the limit. However, we are nowhere close to that limit: our economy now mostly consists of vertically-integrated monopolies and oligopolies. Just think about, say, Comcast, which is simultaneously the most hated firm in America and yet subject to neither government regulation nor market competition. Among simple and easy slogans for solving our problems, "break them all up" is actually a pretty good one.
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  It's impossible to have both "neither government regulation nor market competition". (This is clearly the case with Comcast.) The reason for the lack of competition is exactly the presence of government regulation.
gkafkg8y8 10y ago
> Our abundance is increased by specialization not a lack of it. Specialization and trade allow for higher-order goods to be used as inputs to produce lower-order goods. Farming doesn't just require a tractor and some land. You need fuel to run the tractor, other industries to come together to make the tractor, a merchant to purchase the tractor from, and on and on. Agree with this. And, as jobs are replaced by computers/automation, there will be other jobs created through specialization; however those new jobs will be new niches that will require people to learn new skills or be trained, and unless the money is there for that retraining, then you have a risk of years of unemployment.
zappo2938 10y ago
Today farming requires a constellation of satellites to communicate with a GPS system that automates the tractor.
msandford 10y ago
Yes of course, specialization increases abundance. But if you read the given examples it wasn't suggested that farmers make their own diesel. But rather that they own their land and equipment. Same for plumbers, it's advocated that they own their own tools. Basically it's lamenting the lack of small businesses. That's not really wrong either. Diversity in business ownership might not be maximally "efficient" in certain regards but I think most folks would prefer that there isn't just one farming conglomerate, one nationwide plumbing service, etc.
- srtjstjsj 10y ago
  What's special about energy that makes it OK to rent, but not a tractor? (I can't buy a lifetime supply of diesel any more or less than I can pre-pay for a lifetime tractor rental)
  - msandford 10y ago
    You don't rent energy, you buy it. You go to the pump and buy a gallon of fuel. When you buy electricity you pay for a kWh, you don't rent the kWh and give it back when you're done. I don't see the problem with a person buying a house to live in or a car to drive. I don't see a problem with a programmer buying a computer to start a software business instead of renting it. So why should plumbers be employed by others who own the tools and the brand? Why should farmers not attempt to own their land and tools? Why are people here so down on "normal" people owning small businesses but startups are totally great?
srtjstjsj 10y ago
The "own your own stuff" part is a misdirection. What matters more is that there should be a competitive market for consumer / small business stuff, so no one pays usurious/extortionate rents.

ken47 10y ago

You are assuming abundance is the issue. It is not.

lucideer 10y ago

Generally speaking, I agree with the overall content of your post. However your first and last sentences really emphasise for me the real problem: oversimplifying and stratifying the discussion. "Nonsense" is an extreme overstatement, there are nuances to both arguments. "This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely what's needed, and I'd argue that while your arguments are sound, they've been treated as absolutes, which they're not. A farmer needs to buy their tractor from a tractor manufacturer and fuel it from a fuel extractor/generator, but not everyone need be involved in this cycle and not every step need be specialised in a completely unary manner. Also, the emphasis on individual economic efficiency over efficiency of communal benefit is important: if a farmer can produce less - but sufficient - food, for less - but sufficient - material profit, while not producing negative impacts for others elsewhere in the economic system at large, that's a more "efficient" overall system. The most important word in the excerpt you quoted is "most"

sqeaky 10y ago
How do you build a system that is stable where an individual is expected to leave some personal gain on the table? That runs entirely counter to human nature. If you can solve that you may have something workable, but without it "Nonsense" is as good a word as any.
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  Really? In Northern Europe I would argue we have this working decently well. To point where we have a health care system and educational system which is both less expensive than some and more productive/effective at the same time.
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    Stop rubbing it in.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    What's notable is that Northern European economies have among the freest, most "market capitalist" economies on Earth. There's a substantial amount of tax-and-redistribute to them, but very little in the way of economic planning, or actual-socialist communalism. Mostly it's just a large welfare state.
- nico_h 10y ago
  a) is this worse than the current system? b) Is it really human nature? This is what social norms are for. Slavery is for now still mostly frowned upon, and in some circles even racism is. Even though using either usually results in huge personnal gains for some.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    Slavery is a great example to work with. It has been made so costly to own slaves that no one in the western world can or wants to do it. In most areas just the social of ramifications of attempting to acquire slaves will cause all your customers to leave and employers to fire you. Then if you somehow do get a few slaves law enforcement or military agencies will try to stop you. Since they generally enforce their monopoly on violence they will probably succeed at stopping you. Only in the places most removed from these incentives do we see slavery. Look at North Korea, much of the population can be seen as slaves (The subsistence farmers for example). The costs of keeping the slaves can be thought of as the cost of running their propaganda machine, arming their military, controlling the border and the loss in relations with the rest of the world. As long the leaders fail to gain a sense of compassion then the only thing that matters to them is their slaves make more than they cost.

jjoonathan 10y ago

If 5 companies all invest R&D in developing smartphones that fulfill essentially the same purpose, is 4/5ths of the R&D money wasted? I'd say not -- competition decreases prices and increases quality. Even if it's "morally" redundant as compared to a world run by a benevolent supercomputer, it serves a concrete purpose with concrete benefits. Similarly, if a tractor can prevent Joe from working a miserable low-skill job in a world where the supply of labor dramatically exceeds demand, it's a good investment for Joe. Even if it's "morally" just as redundant as the R&D dollars, it serves a concrete purpose with concrete benefits. Of course, Joe would have to buy a great deal more than a tractor to realize this dream, not to mention that the fabled "tractor" which could actually free Joe from working harder than a minimum wage job doesn't exist yet, and probably bears little resemblance to the "car for farming" we've been talking about. Currently the cost of centralized production (the rent-seeking it enables) is small compared to the benefits. I don't think that's in question. I do think it's a function of manufacturing technology, though, and I don't think the scales are destined to forever tip the way they do now.

ben_jones 10y ago
Agreed. Take something relatively recent, water resistance in modern smart phones, had Samsung R&D not gone down that rabbit hole it would not be nearly as ubiquitous.
- tristor 10y ago
  To be accurate, Sony did it first with their Xperia Z line.
  - justneedto 10y ago
    My Nokia 3310 survived the cloth washer twice. Fifteen years ago. It's battery also lasted for several weeks. This line of reasoning is amusingly similar to NIH-syndrome.
    - agumonkey 10y ago

carsongross 10y ago

Specialization is (mostly) orthogonal from self-ownership. Distributism is concerned not primarily with autarkic relationships, but rather with reducing the amount of usury, rent and wage slavery. Yes, self reliance (and sustainability) is more emphasized than it is in modern liberal western economics, but that doesn't denigrate the concept of specialization, it just elevates other aspects of political economy as well. It's a set of ideas worth approaching with an open mind, in my opinion. John Medaille's books is very well written, even if you don't agree with much of it.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

That's definitely a problem in the limit. However, we are nowhere close to that limit: our economy now mostly consists of vertically-integrated monopolies and oligopolies. Just think about, say, Comcast, which is simultaneously the most hated firm in America and yet subject to neither government regulation nor market competition. Among simple and easy slogans for solving our problems, "break them all up" is actually a pretty good one.

mdpopescu 10y ago
It's impossible to have both "neither government regulation nor market competition". (This is clearly the case with Comcast.) The reason for the lack of competition is exactly the presence of government regulation.

gkafkg8y8 10y ago

> Our abundance is increased by specialization not a lack of it. Specialization and trade allow for higher-order goods to be used as inputs to produce lower-order goods. Farming doesn't just require a tractor and some land. You need fuel to run the tractor, other industries to come together to make the tractor, a merchant to purchase the tractor from, and on and on. Agree with this. And, as jobs are replaced by computers/automation, there will be other jobs created through specialization; however those new jobs will be new niches that will require people to learn new skills or be trained, and unless the money is there for that retraining, then you have a risk of years of unemployment.

zappo2938 10y ago

Today farming requires a constellation of satellites to communicate with a GPS system that automates the tractor.

msandford 10y ago

Yes of course, specialization increases abundance. But if you read the given examples it wasn't suggested that farmers make their own diesel. But rather that they own their land and equipment. Same for plumbers, it's advocated that they own their own tools. Basically it's lamenting the lack of small businesses. That's not really wrong either. Diversity in business ownership might not be maximally "efficient" in certain regards but I think most folks would prefer that there isn't just one farming conglomerate, one nationwide plumbing service, etc.

srtjstjsj 10y ago
What's special about energy that makes it OK to rent, but not a tractor? (I can't buy a lifetime supply of diesel any more or less than I can pre-pay for a lifetime tractor rental)
- msandford 10y ago
  You don't rent energy, you buy it. You go to the pump and buy a gallon of fuel. When you buy electricity you pay for a kWh, you don't rent the kWh and give it back when you're done. I don't see the problem with a person buying a house to live in or a car to drive. I don't see a problem with a programmer buying a computer to start a software business instead of renting it. So why should plumbers be employed by others who own the tools and the brand? Why should farmers not attempt to own their land and tools? Why are people here so down on "normal" people owning small businesses but startups are totally great?

srtjstjsj 10y ago

The "own your own stuff" part is a misdirection. What matters more is that there should be a competitive market for consumer / small business stuff, so no one pays usurious/extortionate rents.