Must have if you are interested in social science

books:


	• Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition Milton Friedman University Of Chicago Press, 2002 - 230 pages average customer review:based on 121 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Must have if you are interested in social science

This book is extremely important! Together with another classical von Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom" it gives a basic argument for thinking about politics and economics.

In today's Russia both common people and scientists/politicians are involved in post-planned economy discourse. They look at the free markets as something chaotic, uncotrolled and therefore - bad. They are thinking in terms of state intervention and paternalism and that's a big mistake.

This book won't give concrete recipies for recovey in transitional or developing countries. But it will give a framework for thinking about resource allocation, taxation and spending, monetary policy and other stuff from the right point. A point where free society stands.

for more information click here

parecon? this is directed to Mr. J. D. Shockley

About an hour away from san francisco, in the towns of the central valley a way is going on right now. A war between the union grocery stores and the non-union grocery stores. Guess who's winning the war?

Save mart, A union grocery store, has shut down 5 stores in the stockton and is going to shut down even more in the central valey and in the south bay, while a whopping 40+ non-union big box stores have opened shop.

Savemart, safeway and the like will continue to lose this war because they are paying an overwhelmingly high cost of 35 dollars in wages and health benefits to their workers. Wall-mart, food-for-less, and winco on the other hand, pay all their workers 9-13 dollars maximum.

The people of the central valley, mostly low income, are offering a signal to the grocery industry. You see, the people have decided that union workers aren't worth the cost of paying 2 dollars for a loaf of bread (as opposed to wal-mart's 79cents). They'd rather wait in long lines at non-union big box super centers than pay an extra 30% more on groceries. This leaves only a select few to now shop at union stores, and they include the rich or the bourgeoisie as your ilk like to call them. very soon there won't be many union grocery stores.

Those on the left will be quick to blame wal-mart or "evil" corporations for this "wiping away" of inefficient firms, but it is complete and utter idoitic ignorace to so blindly fail to see that the consumer created this "evil". The consumer's desire to purchase more for less created wal-mart, food-4-less and winco foods. Big box stores only exists because union labor created large scale inefficiencies in the grocery industry--inefficiencies that led to higher prices.

I don't have an economics degree. i'm just casual observer of politcal and social events. In fact, I'm pretty low on the social ladder because I work as a grocery clerk for a union Grocery store; One that is about to shut-down for good. It's sad, and It's hard to see why our store would close. Everyone at my store is nice, and all of the costumers like us. However, over the years I saw many of customers disapear. I see them at outside of work, and i'm constantly told, from the customers themselves, that they just can't afford to shop at our store anymore. That's a nice excuse , but their incomes hadn't changed; prices had changed, and it just didn't make anymore sense to shop at our noticably more expensive store. Automatically, I always repond to them, "shop at are store! we're union!", but Instead of the reaction that hope for, I always a get silent apologetic smile in return indicating that their shopping habits will not change.

this might seem like a messy rant but What i'm trying to say is this: Parecon, or anything remotely like it is built on a idealogy that refuses to deal with the reality of human nature. That refuese to ultimately concede that corporations exist because PEOPLE want them and the products they make to exist. The people don't care about how the products are made. If two people can bring a product to the market and offer a price cheaper than a company owned by 1000 workers, then, in the end, two people will be working and 1000 people will be unemployed. In order for something like parecon to work, not only would the government control how firms chose to make products, but it would also have to control what the people chose to buy, and This takes governmental powers to an alarming level. A level that few people are willing to accept. I think this is why free-trade is becoming an easy target in the mainstream media. Free-trade gives consumers more choices, and these chioces could lead to union workers like myself losing our jobs. This is very bad for me. I'm old and I can't go back to school. America, however, is built on a ideal of freedom, and i don't think I could ever be so selfish as to put my personal well-being above other people's rights to pursue happiness--something that this country was built on.

for more information click here

Response to JD Shockley

J.D. Shockley wrote:
"NO, CORPORATIONS HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION, A DUTY TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT. THAT'S IT. CREATING GOOD PRODUCTS, OR PRODUCT THAT ARE GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, OR PROVIDING PEOPLE'S WANTS, OR WHTEVER IS INCIDENTAL, NOT NECESSARILY A CONCOMITANT."

JD, you got it wrong. Here's why.
You're separating "maximizing profits" from "creating good products" and "providing people's wants." The latter are NOT incidental...they are one and the same with maximizing profits. If "people's wants" are not satisfied by the company's products, (and they won't be satisfied if the products are not good) the company can't sell its products, and the company can't make a profit.

As to being "good for the environment," that means something different to everybody.

for more information click here

Not laissez-faire enough

"Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. A democracy where people have a say over decisions TO THE EXTENT they are affected by those decisions.
Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward.

Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy. Participatory economics (PARECON) is the way to go.I'd love to see centralized power eliminated, whether it's the state or the economy, and have it diffused and ultimately under direct control of the participants. Moreover, I think that's entirely realistic. Every bit of evidence that exists (there isn't much) seems to show, for example, that workers' control increases efficiency.

A corporation is a form of private tyranny. Its directors have a responsibility to increase profit and market share, not to do good works. If they fail that responsibility, they will be removed. They have some latitude for public relations purposes, and the talk about corporate responsibility falls within that territory. But it makes no sense to regard them as benevolent institutions, freed from their institutional role. It is a public responsibility to enforce decent behavior.
What is called "globalization" is a specific form of international integration, designed and instituted for particular purposes. There are many possible alternatives. This particular form happens to be geared to the interests of private power, manufacturing corporations and financial institutions, closely linked to powerful states. Effects on others are incidental. Sometimes they happen to be beneficial, often not.

What is called "free trade" has highly protectionist elements. What is at issue are investor rights agreements, not free trade. The protestors, including the AFL-CIO, have good reasons to oppose investor rights agreements that insist on very high protection for property rights (often resulting, in fact, from taxpayer subsidy), but little or no protection for the rights of flesh-and-blood people, including rights of working people -- both in the US and in other countries. That's not oppostion to "free trade." It is worth remembering that the press has refused even to permit the official positions of the labor movement to appear. Thus during the NAFTA debate, the labor movement had a clearly developed position, not opposed to a NAFTA, but opposed to this particular version. Its analysis and proposals happened to be rather similar to those of Congress's own research bureau, the Office of Technology Assessment. But while the labor movement was constantly berated on false grounds, its actual position was never reported. The observation generalizes.

There was a brief experiment, a very brief experiment, with something more or less like capitalism, not really but partially, really free markets, and it was such a total catastrophe that business called it off because it couldn't survive, and there were moves in the late 19th century to overcome these radical market failures and they led to various forms of concentration of capital: trusts, cartels, and others, and the one that emerged was the corporation in its modern form. Soon after corporations were granted rights by the courts. They gave them the rights of persons, meaning they have the right of freedom of speech, they can propagandize freely, advertise, they run elections and so on, and they have the protection from inspection by the state authorities which means that just as the police technically can't go into your apartment and read your papers, the public can't find out what's going on inside these totalitarian entities.
They're mostly unaccountable to the public. Of course they are not real persons, they are immortal, they are collectivist legal entities. In fact they are very similar to other organizational forms we know and are one of the forms of totalitarianism that developed in the 20th century. The others were destroyed, these still exist, and later they were required by law to be what we would call pathological in the case of real human beings.So they are required legally to maximize power and profit no matter what effect that has on anyone else. They are required to externalize costs, so if they can get the public or future generations to pay their costs, they are required to do that. It would be illegal for corporate executives to do anything else.
By now, in what are called trade agreements, which have nothing much to do with trade, corporations are granted rights that go way beyond the rights of persons. They are granted the right of what's called "national treatment." Persons don't have that right. Like if a Mexican comes to New York, he can't claim national treatment, but if General Motors goes to Mexico, it can claim national treatment. In fact corporations can even sue states, which you and I can't do.So they're granted rights way beyond persons.
They are immortal, they are extraordinarily powerful, they are pathological by legal requirement, and that's the contemporary form of totalitarianism. They are not truly competitive, they are linked to one another. So Siemens and IBM and Toshiba carry out joint projects. They rely heavily on state power; the dynamism of the modern economy comes mostly out of the state sector, inot the private sector. Almost every aspect of what's called the "New Economy" is developed and designed at public cost and public risk: computers, electronics generally, telecommunications, the internet, lasers, whatever...Take radio. Radio was designed by the US Navy.
Mass production, modern mass production was developed in armories. If you go back to a century ago, the major problems of electrical and mechanical engineering had to do with how to place a huge gun on a moving platform, namely a ship, designing it to be able to hit a moving object, another ship, so naval gunnery.
That was the most advanced problem in metallurgy, electrical and mechanical engineering, and so on. England and Germany put huge efforts into it, the United States less so. Out of associated innovations comes the automotive industry, and so on and so forth. In fact, it's very hard to find anything in the economy that doesn't rely critically on the state sector.
People like Friedman often talk about how "things have improved" under capitalism. One could say the same thing about slavery. A slave in 1850 was better off than a slave in 1750.Is that a justification for slavery?
After 1917 Russia underwent very significant economic growth, is that a justification for bolshevism?
Throughout the 30's Hitler was probably the most popular leader in German history. He understood (like the US during WW2) that massive state expenditures can rescue a morbid capital economy from collapse. The economy was booming and Germans were living a lot better. Is that a justification for fascism?"

It's obvious that you know very little about economic facts. In a free market with private property rights (which themselves are nothing more than a natural extension of personal property and individual rights), businesses and all individuals only make a profit from providing people's wants and needs. Corporations may have a duty to shareholders, but that duty is ultimately to create good products that people will actually buy with their own hard-earned money. Capitalism (which itself is nothing more than a system of individual rights) as a result is democratic, because those companies that help the most people are the ones that get a profit. Compare this to all other forms where people are forced to pay and work for someone or something irregardless of whether hold up their end of the bargain (like how Americans are forced to huge taxes to public school systems despite a constantly iferior performance when compared to private "capitalist" schools that spend far less on each student, yet perform a superior job). Capitalism works by trade and consumer demand. Not the other way around. And businesses can't drive a competitor out who may provide for consumers more, unless it has the government impose regulations and other such things upon the competitors.

You're right that many free trade agreements aren't really "free trade", but this is the fault of the state the those that often do democratically elect them (kind of like how people democratically elected Bill Clinton twice, who actually signed the NAFTA), not of the actual free market. Consumers acting freely often have greater control over the economy than participants in a democracy. Plus, participants in a democracy aren't often aware of the things that a business has to cope with, such as the actual transaction costs, scarcity, and other things. If workers' directly controlling a business actually was more efficient, then they would be far more successful and famous than Wal-Mart, Ford, and others (due to consumer demand), but the simple fact is that all humans aren't created equal. Sure we should have equal treatment under the law, but we all have different skills, abilities, knowledge of certain costs that relate to decisions, different ways of organizing our time, etc.

Also, fascism (an offshoot of socialism) destroyed much of the German economy during the 1930's and 40's. The reason Hitler was so popular was because he was able to find a scapegoat in many groups, including Jews (many of whom were capitalist businessmen) rather than the State itself. Also, while Milton Friedman is right in many respects, it was largely incomplete. The Austrians tended to fare better though as one of Mland those of you decrying things like the WTO, IMF, and other such things that have caused economic instability the world over, those things are State, not market institutions. They are a result of interventionism, not laissez-faire.
As for not having democracy in capitalism. Full, unfettered economic democracy results in the absolute loss of civil liberties as well as the loss of a distribution of responsibility and power, thus creating a plutocracy. The people cannot control and run a government that they have given the power to control and run them instead. Pure social democracy is inherently illogical and impossible.
Friedman isn't without his faults though. His school-voucher scheme is just plain market-socialism really that has helped destroy the independence of many private schools and he has nothing but kind words to say about the Federal Reserve and the banking industry as all Chicagoites do. This is where the Austrian school of economics fares much better. Ron Paul himself, a presidential candidate has gained immense popularity for pointing out he destructive nature of the Federal Reserve on the poor and middle classes. Let us also not forget that it was the Chicagoites that gave us the witholding tax, so that us workers can't see how much of each of our pay check is actually taken out each month. Sadly, much of Milton Friedman's ideas have been somewhat distrous to say the least. A much better treatise to read on capitalism is would be one of the following:

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market by Murray N. Rothbard
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
Healing our World in an Age of Aggression by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart

for more information click here

reviews: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, page 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

hot

not?

What's your opinion?

Write a review and share your thoughts!

recommendations

Political and Economic Philosophy: A Wishlist
Economic Thought Bookshelf
My Top 10 Economics Books
Conservative Reads # 3
Economics Bookshelf

search for books
capitalism and, anniversary, capitalism, edition, fortieth, freedom

Impressum / about us