I think Road to Wigan Pier is essentially a pro-socialism argument. It never actually says “therefore we need socialism, which should be designed by principles x y z.” It’s just recording all the misery of a non socialism system. But, that’s just kind of the form of the most effective pro-socialism arguments.
Orwell evaded the 300K years of non-socialist misery in hunting-gathering and primitive farming cultures that were inherited by capitalism. And its extremely probable that there were production-decreasing govt economic controls in Orwells nation and era.
Are the Government Police a parasite on society like the Japanese Samari warrior, firstly a Thief tells you your security is not good enough a lesson at a cost, second police protect you from peaceful exchange.
"But once you grasp the wage-unemployment connection, you start to worry that the dole prolongs unemployment by reducing the pressure to bring wages down to the full employment level."
Imagine being the legislator trying to explain to constituents during a reelection campaign that the reason they can't get any government help is because the market needs to adjust down the wages they will get when they finally do get back to work. In the meantime they just need to suck it up. I wonder how that conversation would go?
For 300 years, including between the first and second editions of Marx's, _Capital_, wages have risen. When, excepting as response to govt controls, inc/govt counterfeiting, have wages fallen?
First, I never claimed they had - I was simply responding to the quoted hypothetical that Bryan posed in his article.
Second, while it's true that wages have trended upward through the period you mention, there have been several periods of falling wages (e.g. in the U.S. 1840s, 1880s, 1907 until WW1, 1930s) during which if you were your prime working years you would have suffered. Who has ever cared that wages have been trending up for the last century when they can't feed their family?
You evade govt economic controls that decrease production. The US has ALWAYS had some controls. These are virtually always evaded. Eg, the Fed counterfeited money in the 1920s that boomed housing and stocks that then busted. FDRs massive 1930s attack on production that sustained the Gr. Depress. until the post-war decrease in controls. The 1840s and 1907 were caused by govt monetary and fiscal policies. Most online links say private banks caused the depressions but evade the cause to which banks responded. Like Putins enemies falling out of windows, true, out of context.
Every allegedly neutral description is valid only within the context of a specific explanation. Knowledge is contextual. See Ayn Rand's epistemology for more.
I think Road to Wigan Pier is essentially a pro-socialism argument. It never actually says “therefore we need socialism, which should be designed by principles x y z.” It’s just recording all the misery of a non socialism system. But, that’s just kind of the form of the most effective pro-socialism arguments.
Orwell evaded the 300K years of non-socialist misery in hunting-gathering and primitive farming cultures that were inherited by capitalism. And its extremely probable that there were production-decreasing govt economic controls in Orwells nation and era.
>unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect,
The unfocused minds of subjectivists and mystics are full of somehows and contradictions.
>which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
This is an evasion of centuries of Christian poverty and war.
Are the Government Police a parasite on society like the Japanese Samari warrior, firstly a Thief tells you your security is not good enough a lesson at a cost, second police protect you from peaceful exchange.
"But once you grasp the wage-unemployment connection, you start to worry that the dole prolongs unemployment by reducing the pressure to bring wages down to the full employment level."
Imagine being the legislator trying to explain to constituents during a reelection campaign that the reason they can't get any government help is because the market needs to adjust down the wages they will get when they finally do get back to work. In the meantime they just need to suck it up. I wonder how that conversation would go?
> market needs to adjust down the wages
For 300 years, including between the first and second editions of Marx's, _Capital_, wages have risen. When, excepting as response to govt controls, inc/govt counterfeiting, have wages fallen?
First, I never claimed they had - I was simply responding to the quoted hypothetical that Bryan posed in his article.
Second, while it's true that wages have trended upward through the period you mention, there have been several periods of falling wages (e.g. in the U.S. 1840s, 1880s, 1907 until WW1, 1930s) during which if you were your prime working years you would have suffered. Who has ever cared that wages have been trending up for the last century when they can't feed their family?
You evade govt economic controls that decrease production. The US has ALWAYS had some controls. These are virtually always evaded. Eg, the Fed counterfeited money in the 1920s that boomed housing and stocks that then busted. FDRs massive 1930s attack on production that sustained the Gr. Depress. until the post-war decrease in controls. The 1840s and 1907 were caused by govt monetary and fiscal policies. Most online links say private banks caused the depressions but evade the cause to which banks responded. Like Putins enemies falling out of windows, true, out of context.
I'm not trying to argue the causes and establish blame. Simply that they happen.
Every allegedly neutral description is valid only within the context of a specific explanation. Knowledge is contextual. See Ayn Rand's epistemology for more.
Possibly better if that government hadn't been sucking away ~40% of their income up till the point they lost their job.