Re: Long-term economic views

Frederick R. Magdoff (fmagdoff@zoo.uvm.edu)
Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:19:31 -0400 (EDT)

Jim,
Regarding your thought that capitalism has been around for as long
as there was mercantile activity -

There is a big difference between producing things that you need
and selling extra quanties in a village market vs. producing for the sole
purpose of making a profit. Exchanges of goods, both formal and
informal, have certainly gone on for thousands of years under many
different types of economic systems. But it is when the purpose of all
production is to make a profit AND "the market" becomes for all practical
purposes where all products are exchanged - that is capitalism. And it is
a relatively young system (considering the amount of time that humans have
walked the planet)- only a few hundred years old, having had its birth in
18th century England.
There is a big difference between a system that uses markets to
exchanges some items and one in which the purpose of all economic activity
is to a) make a profit and b) to sell items into markets.

FRED

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Jim Quinton wrote:

> I think I follow most of your thinking, but I am not persuaded that there
> is enough understanding of economics here to go a lot farther. It seems to
> me capitalism may be poorly understood in this forum. It's my observation
> that capitalism “started” a lot longer ago than just in recent centuries
> (mercantile activity around the Mediterranean area back way before Christ
> and that satisfies me as some proof of capitalism).
>
> Boiled down, capitalism motivates an exchange of value. It is certainly not
> dependent on the existence of monetary exchange or the accumulation of
> liquid resource. It does not require continuous expansion nor is it
> judgmental or subjective as Marx was. He was proven quite wrong again and
> again because he simply failed to comprehend it. He wrongly thought
> coercion is a valid mechanism for exchanging value. For that matter, my
> recent observation is that the tendancy here on Sanet appears to be
> coercive rather than to weigh, consider, and compare although I have only
> been reading these messages for a few weeks.
>
> Doug Hinds wrote ..."What we may have here is a bit of an assimilation
> problem......"
>
> and
>
> ..."the point here - and it's an important point - is the collaborative
> nature of agriculture AND the whole business of being alive. If THAT TOO
> is arguable to you, well it's time to either do some homework, or separate
> the wheat from the chaff".
>
> I'm sure I have a bit of an assimilation "problem" as an outsider which
> needs to be resolved before I can fully understand responses to my
> thoughts. It's a stimulating challenge. How does sustainability separate
> itself from economics if there is not some mutually satisfying exchange of
> value? Produce something and sell the surplus. That must be a satisfying
> exchange of value -- long-term as well as short-term. Before there can be
> production, there must be the production decision. If the production
> decision is faulty, sustainability cannot follow. Perhaps what we are
> focusing on with some of this discussion is the frustration of not being
> fully comfortable with the climate for making production decisions.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".