Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)
mrzine.monthlyreview.org
mrzine.monthlyreview.org
This essay also overlooks the problem with the government's ability to efficiently allocate capital, or to do so more efficiently than the market itself does, given that the market is ultimately self-correcting, with few exceptions that we can legislate against.
This essay is largely devoid of academic meaning. It's full of conjectures and extrapolations and lacking any bona fide empirical basis.
Not to mention it is guilty of the seemingly undying habit of the left to posit that those in favor of business hold their beliefs solely because it benefits them, and not because they genuinely want what's best for the whole of society.
I'm glad to see you write that; it's an uncommon and unpopular view, despite the fact that really many people -- perhaps most -- would love to be liberated from a requirement to perform what fits into the social definition of "work".
Yet in a modern economy "work" fills several roles: access to resources of course (i.e. paycheck) but social ties and perhaps most importantly social status. This latter in particular is a modern invention of the Industrial Age yet, as people's lifespans are shorter than the epochs, it is assumed to be part of the natural order of things.
We can hope that in a future roboticised world where the marginal cost of production approaches nil, that the idea that your "job" determines your status can fade away.
It's literally the definition of business. Otherwise they would be charities and non-profits.
He simply genuinely believes allowing the market to operate as close to freely as possible is what generates the greatest amount of prosperity for everyone. The fact that the U.S. is the world's strongest economy by far should be proof enough, but apparently people still prefer to hate success
My point is that to think that one knows what is best for society is similar to thinking that one knows how best to allocate goods. It just isn’t possible to know. Any capitalist will surely agree that value is purely subjective.
The capitalist believes the exact opposite – that he can never claim to be a better planner than "nature itself" so we should admit defeat and let things transpire naturally while we each focus on our individual lives and businesses, which presumably we know how to live or run better than the state.
>"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief."
Keeping diligent idiots out of the economy by paying them to stay at home would be far more economically beneficial than a drive to bring about full employment.
I don't even think it's about keeping idiots out of the economy. I think that there are a lot of harmful incentives like retirement that keep people doing things they don't like, and then they do poorly at them... they aren't idiots because if they were they would just retire. They have an incentive to stick with a dysfunctional position because there isn't an alternative.
In any event, Japan, in the 80s, was pretty much near full-employment. I don't think many economists or government officials would argue that was "bad". Perhaps industrialists who could not find labor might have thought it was "bad".
They may not be paid to stay home, but they are paid to stay the hell out of the way of anything that could affect the smooth running of the business.