5 ms·

This conspiracy between all company owners - this is in the article: """ "The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free tim

by zby 12y ago

This conspiracy between all company owners - this is in the article: """ "The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s)." I am immediately bursting with questions. Such as, should we conclude that protesters around the world—in Brazil, India, North Africa, Turkey—are in fact too happy? How does the ruling class co-ordinate all this hiring, and if much of the economy's employment is useless in the first place why not just keep them on during recessions? """

crdoconnor 12y ago
>This conspiracy between all company owners What do you think the American Enterprise Institute is for? Cato? Chambers of Commerce? The multitude of other business umbrella lobby groups? What did you think they did other than come together to form a united front to represent their interests (conspire)? >I am immediately bursting with questions. Such as, should we conclude that protesters around the world—in Brazil, India, North Africa, Turkey—are in fact too happy? I don't see why one would conclude that at all. >How does the ruling class co-ordinate all this hiring Via a labor market which they try to mold using government policy to fit their interests. >if much of the economy's employment is useless in the first place why not just keep them on during recessions Periodic cullings help keep the rest of the employees suitably terrorized.
- chongli 12y ago
  What do you think the American Enterprise Institute is for? Cato? Chambers of Commerce? The multitude of other business umbrella lobby groups? What did you think they did other than come together to form a united front to represent their interests (conspire)? We're talking about a conspiracy to hire people for no other reason than to keep them busy so they don't revolt. This is laughably absurd. What do I, as a company owner, gain by adhering to this conspiracy? What I lose is obvious: huge waste on salaries for jobs that accomplish nothing. This conspiracy does not pass the economics sniff test: it purports a huge artificial externality with no apparent free-riding.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >We're talking about a conspiracy to hire people for no other reason than to keep them busy so they don't revolt. No, we're talking about hiring people for this reason, among others. >This is laughably absurd. What do I, as a company owner, gain by adhering to this conspiracy? You mean a share holder? Nothing. You seem to be laughably under the impression that the company is run for your personal benefit. It isn't. >What I lose is obvious: huge waste on salaries for jobs that accomplish nothing. You explain why companies hire based upon headcount instead of pure cost. It doesn't make intrinsic sense, but that's how it happens. >This conspiracy does not pass the economics sniff test: it purports a huge artificial externality with no apparent free-riding. Congratulations, you just assumed away the principal-agent dilemma.
    - chongli 12y ago
      Now you're just moving the goalposts. My response is directed towards the original claim made in Graeber's essay, not your liberal interpretations thereof.
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        If you use neoclassical assumptions like you did, his claims are absurd. However, we live in the real world, not some magic fantasy of perfect markets, perfect competition and zero transaction costs.

by zby 12y ago

crdoconnor 12y ago

>This conspiracy between all company owners What do you think the American Enterprise Institute is for? Cato? Chambers of Commerce? The multitude of other business umbrella lobby groups? What did you think they did other than come together to form a united front to represent their interests (conspire)? >I am immediately bursting with questions. Such as, should we conclude that protesters around the world—in Brazil, India, North Africa, Turkey—are in fact too happy? I don't see why one would conclude that at all. >How does the ruling class co-ordinate all this hiring Via a labor market which they try to mold using government policy to fit their interests. >if much of the economy's employment is useless in the first place why not just keep them on during recessions Periodic cullings help keep the rest of the employees suitably terrorized.

chongli 12y ago
What do you think the American Enterprise Institute is for? Cato? Chambers of Commerce? The multitude of other business umbrella lobby groups? What did you think they did other than come together to form a united front to represent their interests (conspire)? We're talking about a conspiracy to hire people for no other reason than to keep them busy so they don't revolt. This is laughably absurd. What do I, as a company owner, gain by adhering to this conspiracy? What I lose is obvious: huge waste on salaries for jobs that accomplish nothing. This conspiracy does not pass the economics sniff test: it purports a huge artificial externality with no apparent free-riding.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >We're talking about a conspiracy to hire people for no other reason than to keep them busy so they don't revolt. No, we're talking about hiring people for this reason, among others. >This is laughably absurd. What do I, as a company owner, gain by adhering to this conspiracy? You mean a share holder? Nothing. You seem to be laughably under the impression that the company is run for your personal benefit. It isn't. >What I lose is obvious: huge waste on salaries for jobs that accomplish nothing. You explain why companies hire based upon headcount instead of pure cost. It doesn't make intrinsic sense, but that's how it happens. >This conspiracy does not pass the economics sniff test: it purports a huge artificial externality with no apparent free-riding. Congratulations, you just assumed away the principal-agent dilemma.
  - chongli 12y ago
    Now you're just moving the goalposts. My response is directed towards the original claim made in Graeber's essay, not your liberal interpretations thereof.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      If you use neoclassical assumptions like you did, his claims are absurd. However, we live in the real world, not some magic fantasy of perfect markets, perfect competition and zero transaction costs.