Mises: Economics for Beginners

[PAF]

https://mises.org/economics-beginners

 

[ClaytonB]

So, I reviewed this and... argh. What a missed opportunity. Not sure what's going on at the Mises Institute nowadays.

I was hoping this would be an accessible condensation of the most powerful Austrian arguments. Instead, it's a list of talking-points that any milquetoast Republican member of congress could easily rattle off. "We don't want to grow government as fast as Democrats do... therefore, we're capitalists!"

I'm sorry, their definition of capitalism is not only wrong, it is anti-Austrian: "Capitalism is mass production of goods to satisfy the needs of the greatest number of people."

Mises says, "The concept of capitalism is as an economic concept immutable; if it means anything, it means the market economy." (HA ch. XV.3)

And what is the market economy?:

The market economy is the social system of the division of labor under private ownership of the means of production. Everybody acts on his own behalf; but everybody's actions aim at the satisfaction of other people's needs as well as at the satisfaction of his own. Everybody in acting serves his fellow citizens. Everybody, on the other hand, is served by his fellow citizens. Everybody is both a means and an end in himself, an ultimate end for himself and a means to other people in their endeavors to attain their own ends. (HA XV.1)

Sorry, but I don't understand how the MI has strayed so far from its own namesake that it cannot even define the basic vocabulary terms of Misesian economic theory. While capitalism (that is, the market economy) may give rise to "mass production of goods" yada-yada, the market economy is not about the mass-production of goods (or services) or anything. Rather, it is about what Mises explains in the definition above -- free individuals all striving for their own ends and, in the process, serving the ends of their fellow-citizens as a means to their own ultimate end (satisfaction). Unlike the "mass production of goods" definition, Mises's actual definition is objective and value-free. Whether you are "for" or "against" mass-production is irrelevant to Misesian theory. And you cannot be "against" your own ends... they are, by definition, whatever you are "for"! The rhetorico-political language of being "for mass-production" as opposed to being "against mass-production" is just another infestation of Marxian-Hegelian dialect, this time in the very heart of the Austrian camp.

The Marxists are as predictable as the sunrise. Give them a target to aim at, and they will surely hit it, without fail. Kind of creepy when you think about it...

 

[idiom]

Everybody acts on his own HA XV.1

But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of itself implies no other relations of dependence than those which result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity, only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do this, he must have it at his disposal, must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of his person. [2] He and the owner of money meet in the market, and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights, with this difference alone, that one is buyer, the other seller; both, therefore, equal in the eyes of the law. The continuance of this relation demands that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity. He must constantly look upon his labour-power as his own property, his own commodity, and this he can only do by placing it at the disposal of the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time. By this means alone can he avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it.Capital V. 1 Ch. 6

When engaging with socialists it is far faster to break them if you explain that Capitalism is based on Bodily Autonomy. Any system that gives real bodily autonomy to any degree, will to the same degree exhibit the pathologies of Capitalism. As per Marx.

Socialism is about "realizing" the individual doesn't exist, that it is an illusion of control and discovering that 'you' are part of a larger unit, an economic class, and need to function with a class consciousness rather than an individual consciousness. Will is not individual but class based, and freedom is to align ones body with the will of the class.

Fascism proper btw is acting with alignment to the ethnic group consciousness and being aware of the struggles against other ethnic groups. (Hegel)

Almost any person calling themselves Socialist these days in fact suffers from Capitalist Realism and doesn't want to give up their individuality to a class consciousness. They want Capitalism but minus some form of oppression.

 

[ClaytonB]

When engaging with socialists it is far faster to break them if you explain that Capitalism is based on Bodily Autonomy. Any system that gives real bodily autonomy to any degree, will to the same degree exhibit the pathologies of Capitalism. As per Marx.

Socialism is about "realizing" the individual doesn't exist, that it is an illusion of control and discovering that 'you' are part of a larger unit, an economic class, and need to function with a class consciousness rather than an individual consciousness. Will is not individual but class based, and freedom is to align ones body with the will of the class.

Fascism proper btw is acting with alignment to the ethnic group consciousness and being aware of the struggles against other ethnic groups. (Hegel)

Almost any person calling themselves Socialist these days in fact suffers from Capitalist Realism and doesn't want to give up their individuality to a class consciousness. They want Capitalism but minus some form of oppression.

Agreed.

I also like to deny socialists the use of all words like "equality", "equity" or any variation thereof. I was reading Sowell who pointed out that inequality is an ineradicable aspect of society -- those who are short cannot reach the top shelf, as those who are tall can. Those who are born blind cannot see. Those who die young cannot have a full life. And so on, and so forth. No amount of monetary shell games, no amount of communist councils, no amount of fervent rhetoric about the inequity of modern "capitalism" can ever make these people equal with the rest of us. And these variations are just a few small islands in a vast ocean of inequality/inequity/non-sameness.

This observation shows the baseness of what communism/socialism is really about. Some people are richer than me. That bothers me, and I want some of their money. If I just steal it outright, I will go to jail. So, instead, I will form a "collective" with others who have "class-consciousness" like I do and, together, we will use the means of the State to expropriate those who have more than we do, and divide the spoils amongst ourselves. Obviously, the party officials will dine on caviar and ride in the best cars, while the low-rank party officials will walk on foot and eat bread and canned food, when it's available. But that's somehow not inequality because of reasons.

"Equality", in their mouths, is not a philosophical or moral concept, it's just a matter of accounting. "You have more dollars than me, and that's a travesty of 'social justice.' The collective (mob) will redistribute your wealth to me (us) thereby restoring social justice!"

 

[idiom]

I was born an incredibly hot woman with a dick. Most people just can't compete with me at all. Equality is a scam.