News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943) by airstrike on Monday December 17, 2018 @09:41PM (#18704146)
Employment isn't the end goal. What we want is to provide people with the access to goods and services, and employment is a good proxy that is easier to optimize for. Also, for what it's worth, we already live in an age of full* employment in the U.S. and so far we're yet to see that the "maintenance of full employment [causes] social and political changes which [gives] a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders".

This essay also overlooks the problem with the government's ability to efficiently allocate capital, or to do so more efficiently than the market itself does, given that the market is ultimately self-correcting, with few exceptions that we can legislate against.

This essay is largely devoid of academic meaning. It's full of conjectures and extrapolations and lacking any bona fide empirical basis.

Not to mention it is guilty of the seemingly undying habit of the left to posit that those in favor of business hold their beliefs solely because it benefits them, and not because they genuinely want what's best for the whole of society.

Re:Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943) by gumby on Monday December 17, 2018 @11:39PM (#18704560)
> Employment isn't the end goal.

I'm glad to see you write that; it's an uncommon and unpopular view, despite the fact that really many people -- perhaps most -- would love to be liberated from a requirement to perform what fits into the social definition of "work".

Yet in a modern economy "work" fills several roles: access to resources of course (i.e. paycheck) but social ties and perhaps most importantly social status. This latter in particular is a modern invention of the Industrial Age yet, as people's lifespans are shorter than the epochs, it is assumed to be part of the natural order of things.

We can hope that in a future roboticised world where the marginal cost of production approaches nil, that the idea that your "job" determines your status can fade away.

Re:Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943) by JetSpiegel on Tuesday December 18, 2018 @09:30PM (#18712543)
> Not to mention it is guilty of the seemingly undying habit of the left to posit that those in favor of business hold their beliefs solely because it benefits them, and not because they genuinely want what's best for the whole of society.

It's literally the definition of business. Otherwise they would be charities and non-profits.

Re:Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943) by 0db532a0 on Tuesday December 18, 2018 @04:24PM (#18710715)
How can the capitalist, a single man, who knows that no state can efficiently allocate resources also be as presumptuous as to think that he knows what is best for society?
Re:Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943) by airstrike on Tuesday December 18, 2018 @04:44PM (#18710869)
The capitalist doesn't believe he singlehandedly knows what is best for society. In fact, the capitalist believes he alone can only maximize value to shareholders – but in doing so maximizes value for all since he creates economic prosperity through growth.

He simply genuinely believes allowing the market to operate as close to freely as possible is what generates the greatest amount of prosperity for everyone. The fact that the U.S. is the world's strongest economy by far should be proof enough, but apparently people still prefer to hate success

Re:Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943) by 0db532a0 on Tuesday December 18, 2018 @05:16PM (#18711106)
I am not debating the mechanism of capitalism, its ability to allocate goods and how or whether it creates prosperity. For the record, it seems to me the most natural way for humans to interact with each other.

My point is that to think that one knows what is best for society is similar to thinking that one knows how best to allocate goods. It just isn’t possible to know. Any capitalist will surely agree that value is purely subjective.

Re:Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943) by airstrike on Tuesday December 18, 2018 @08:51PM (#18712381)
But the capitalist doesn't believe he knows how to allocate capital, while the statist does.

The capitalist believes the exact opposite – that he can never claim to be a better planner than "nature itself" so we should admit defeat and let things transpire naturally while we each focus on our individual lives and businesses, which presumably we know how to live or run better than the state.