market ness____________ adding page this day (via peter):
Peter Joseph (@ZeitgeistFilm) tweeted at 1:02 PM on Thu, Jan 09, 2020: Tired of these seemingly progressive economists talking about social woes; yet they are still loyal to the religion of market economics. Can anyone here name one economist that actually understands what the word means? That doesn’t skirt around the fact markets are anti-economy? https://t.co/tZj7Agfu8Z (https://twitter.com/ZeitgeistFilm/status/1215363186569834496?s=03)markets are anti econ
markets are anti econ
from 7 min clip – Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (The Market)
@Truthdig @RBReich If you don’t see this 7 minute video, you will still believe the capitalist bs.
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/wladflores/status/1215529897021648896
john mcmurtry: so one might ask where did it all begin .. what we have today.. this world state of cumulative collapse.. jm: started wth john locke intro’s property.. provisos: 1\ must be enough left over for others.. 2\ must not let it spoil 3\ must mix your labor with it… locke gives powerful defense of private private.. once money came in .. 3 provisos are erased.. ie: money buys labor.. no longer consideration of if it spoils or if any leftover for other..property ness
jm: adam smith adds religion to this.. not only question of private property.. it’s a given.. 4 min – jm: one of central notions of econ – how to bring supply and demand into equilibrium.. and smith says it’s the invisible hand of the market.. god is imminent.. system itself as god.. smith – on elimination of children of poor.. inherent racism built in here.. he thought that was how to make supply meet demand and demand meet supplyeconomy ness and have/need ness the equilib we need is in getting back/to an undisturbed ecosystem ‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows
5 min – pj: original intent of market was based around real, tangible, life supporting goods for trade.. adam smith never fathomed that the most profitable econ sector on the planet would eventually be in the arena of fin trading.. investment.. where money is gained by the movement of other money.. in an arbitrary game which holds zero productive merit to society.. regardless of (smiths) intent.. door wide open.. money treated as a commodity in and of itself.. pj: today in every econ of the world.. regardless of the social system they claim..money is pursued for the sake of money and nothing else.. 6 min – jm: there’s a complete confusion in econ doctrine between those two sequences.. they think that the money sequence of value delivers the life sequence of value.. that’s why they say more goods are sold if more gdp’s rise and so forth.. therefore more well being.. take gdp to be basic indicator of social health.. dealing with a structured delusion that becomes more and more deadly as the money sequence decouples from producing anything at all.. so it’s a system disorder and the system disorder seems to be fatallet’s try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting) as the planned obsolescence ie: ubi as temp placebo.. get us back/to us __________ from ff&a page – via michel fb share.. about commoning.. and market ness:
David Bollier and Silke Helfrich’s book on the Commons have been getting a lot of positive reviews, no doubt deserving. I have not read it myself, since I have read too many general books on the commons. BUT, it is important to realize that this view of the commons as *totally separated from the market, is not the one that I and the P2P Foundation have defended. Sure, it is in many contexts interesting to keep the commons separate from the market, as it avoids crowding out effects. BUT, it is also very unrealistic and it keeps the commons marginal vis a vis from mainstream society.
*i didn’t read f f & a as totally free from market.. ie: 14 – reciprocation; 16 – managed pool resources, monitoring, compliance; 48 – order; et al..
and even if their view is/was separate.. you’re both right.. and what we need then is a means to transition.. to no market.. we have to design for market ness to be the planned obsolescence ie: ubi as temp placebo.. graeber bi law.. et alkevin on anarchism w/o adj:
15 min – i guess my primary objection to the market anarchist label.. getting back to the whole problem of monolithic orgs is that the word market itself carries strong connotations of the cash nexus.. when i called myself a market anarchist i would put in the asterisk that believing in free markets doesn’t mean you want the cash nexus or market exchange to be hegemonic (ruling/dominant) social model.. it can coexist w the society where a plurality/majority of production takes place outside the money econ in direct social production.. but that just seemed to fall increasingly flat .. even with me because the very word market itself.. mercatu, mercatus, in its very roots means marketplace.. place where people engage in money exchange.. so referring to it as market anarchism had a lot of the same problems as referring to a market econ as capitalism.. privileging one factor of production.. i just finally decided there were more drawbacks to the term than there were benefits..The word ‘market‘ has been derived from the Latin word “Mercatus” which means to trade, merchandise or a place where business is transacted. When used in general sense, market means a place where goods and services are purchased and sold. Thus buyers and sellers meet in the market for buying and selling the goods market ness marsh exchange law
16 min – i don’t reject horizontal planning outside the cash nexus at hand.. i’m pretty agnostic on the feasibility of that vs markets.. but getting back to what set me off on this.. the people who totally reject markets vs the people who lionize them.. 17 min – i guess i take graeber’s position.. in that i’m open to anything that face to face groups of people decide to work out between themselves from a position of equality when there’s no state and no armed enforcers at anyone’s back *imposing their will on anyone elsemutual exchange symposium – kevin on 100 flowers *telling people what to do
i really can’t see *markets not being part of the mixbut what if *that idea/calculation of exchange is the very thing that keeps us from *not imposing..(meaning it keeps us imposing) what we need is an ue: in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows
what i really can’t imagine is pretty much what graeber himself said he couldn’t imagine and that’s the majority of people in society recognizing someone else’s decision to just draw a line around on a map and fence off an area they claim for themselves and demand that anyone who works that piece of ground.. give them a portion of the product of their labor in return for their right to work it.. i just don’t see a robinson crusoe scenario working like that in any case where robinson is not the only person on the island w a gun.. i think people will just ignore the absentee property titles.. knock the fences down.. start planting turnips..i agree.. but i don’t think that’s legit commoning if we were legit commoning.. we wouldn’t be drawing lines et al.. and we wouldn’t be calculating who worked enough to get products et al _____________ ______________ ______________ market\ing ness econ ness ____________