Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Key Vindicators

This is a failure of our basic institutions of production. The job of the market is to bring together willing buyers with willing sellers in order to produce value. This is not happening and as a result literally trillions of dollars in value are not being produced.

Let me say that again because I think it fails to sink in – literally trillions of dollars in value are not being produced. Not misallocated. Not spent on programs you don’t approve of or distributed in tax cuts you don’t like. Trillions of dollars in value are not produced at all. Gone from the world entirely. Never to be had, by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Pure unadulterated loss.

-Karl Smith of Modeled Behaviors
When people say that the job, purpose, goal, intent, etc. of something is to do something entirely different and often at near total odds with what it actually does, because someone once proclaimed these unsubstantiated and never-happening outcomes to be the job, purpose, goal, intent, etc., it calls into question their analytic framework. When someone says that the drug war is a failure because instead of stopping drug use, it destabilizes narco-producing regions of the world, brutalizes the underclass, perpetuates inequality, and foments the expansion of the police-prison state, then that person has mistaken a slogan for a product. When someone muses that our "strategy" in Iraq or Afghanistan is a failure because it is not producing "a durable, non-violent resolution to . . . political conflicts", then that person is a fool. And when someone says that late, post-industrial capitalism fails to "bring together willing buyers with willing sellers in order to produce value," then I wonder in what idealized world of pure form and meaning has this man been living, because obviously, if you consider the current American economy and the global system in which it is embedded, the production of "value" is incidental to the continued concentration of material wealth and political influence. That is the point. It isn't a failure of the system. It is the system. You can look at America and say:
We have very low capacity utilization (75%) and very high unemployment (10%).

That is, we have factories sitting idle for lack of workers – low capacity utilization. At the same time we have workers sitting idle for lack of factories – high unemployment.

There are machines waiting to be worked and people waiting to work them but they are not getting together. The labor market is failing to clear.
And you can be very worried and confused by this. It might strike you as unsustainable. Politically destabilizing. Socially disloacting. Deeply inequitable. Harmful to the long-term project of republican governance.

Which, I'd say, is precisely the point. Cui bono, motherfuckers? Last time I checked, there were still some fuckers getting rich. Meanwhile, the American citizen is increasingly a cash-poor, at-will worker whose docility is enforced by his total dependence on the whims and good will of his employer. Capitalism! Ain't it grand?

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cui bono?

Also, if it's illegal for me to do business without paying the government, informing the government, seeking license from the government, etc, etc, I question what the fuck kind of capitalism this might be.

Leonard said...

So this guy, this "Karl Smith of Modeled Behaviors", is smarter than the market! He knows that it should be producing, and it isn't. Therefore, the market is wrong and Karl Smith is right! Plato... Aristotle... Socrates... morons!

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say that there is a wonderful factory out there, right now, capable of producing 10 prefab houses per week. It is sitting idle just now, for some inexplicable reason. Probably because the evil owners hate the workers and want them to suffer. Anyway, there are many noble workers nearby, unemployed. Aha! We can improve on capitalism simply by nationalizing the factory, stripping it away from its irrational, hateful, and foolish owners, and running it full-tilt. Houses get built (and we trivially sell them for top dollar), value is created! Workers get jobs! Evil capitalists are ruined! Win/win/win!

GCU Prosthetic Conscience said...

That'd be "actually-existing capitalism", Nonny. The Rothbard-fanboi kind is purely imaginary.

Anonymous said...

Qui Bono would be Bono Vox. For example.

Cui bono, perhaps?

Great post. Disemployment is not a bug, but a feature.

IOZ said...

I corrected it. Sorry. Franchooziche.

Anonymous said...

"low wages are the new reality if we want to compete at all"

Anonymous said...

strangely I read this about 2 minutes ago. and my reaction was-- on what planet are factories in the U.S. sitting idle for lack of workers? I mean, that's crazy-talk. He doesn't even bother to defend the premise.

¯\(°_0)/¯ said...

Who's the real John Galt here?

two to the fighting eighth power said...

In all fairness, Mister Smith is not the first one to be confused about this. A lot of people who considered themselves (and were, unfortunately, also considered by others) to be the foremost Marxist theoreticians of their time thought that the purpose of Capitalism was "producing value", "making ever more and better products", "maximizing efficiency", "developing the productive forces" and so on - and who were genuinely confused as to why it had apparently stopped doing all these things (Antonio Gramsci, still venerated today by all kinds of "radical" academics, was one of these people)

Michael said...

It seems like IOZ is engaging in some sloganeering himself. Tell me about how this happens, not just that it happens.

You can't ignore boom periods either. The same mindset and the same people were more or less in charge of things back in the late 90's, when unemployment was 4-5%, basically low enough to imply that everyone who wanted a job had one. Did something drastically change in the motivations of the elite, or are there (shocker) actual macroeconomic factors at play here?

Given a choice between stupidity and evil as explaining the current state of the economy, hell even the World as We Know It, I'm inclined to go with stupidity.

Also, you say that something is "harmful to the long-term project of republican governance" like it's a bad thing.

fish said...

Did something drastically change in the motivations of the elite, or are there (shocker) actual macroeconomic factors at play here?

During the boom time the elites got disproportionately rich on a business model they knew was unsustainable. During the recession, the elites got disproportionately rich via a massive wealth transfer that they know is unsustainable. Not sure there is such a drastic change there...

Anonymous said...

It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh...

Michael Dawson said...

Preach on, IOZ!

Anonymous said...

The Monsieur appears to have fallen under the spell of Hildy Johnson, fast-talking reporter!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTHyJEvIIRw&feature=related#t=6m9s

It's all about production-for-use!!

Enron said...

"You can't ignore boom periods either." Even strip mining pays dividends for a time.

Goldhorder said...

You are what you put your energy into. The American economy moved well enough on its own with little competition since the end of WW2. Sure the Japs and Koreans made some moves but they were client states. Our elite has taken it for granted that it will always be that way. They have been beating the goose to lay more and more to fulfill their dreams of a global empire. Military bases circling the Earth and complete control of the financial markets. It was moving along well enough until the BRIC countries began feeling their oates. When China stopped purchasing US treasuries this crap came to a grinding halt. Now everybody is staring at each other wondering who is going to make the next move. The BRIC countries are the producers. The US is the global cops and financier. The BRIC countries want a bigger piece of the pie... The US says make a move and the whole thing comes crashing down on everyones head. America embraced empire. There is no turning back. All we can do is prepare to rebuild when the collapse comes. Don't worry though... Britian and Russia muddled along OK. We will to I assume.

Anonymous said...

China's still buying Treasuries.

almostinfamous said...

@ fish - not to rib on a perfectly valid point, but if they're still getting rich - then they've found something sustainable, right?

NutellaonToast said...

Holy shit is Occam's Razor getting dull.

Gridlock said...

Is he advocating the workers take control of the means of production? Excellent.

The Mathmos said...

Is he advocating we more or less stop producing crap we don't need, like management handbooks, canned bread and marketing jobs, and slow down the rate at which we're vaporizing the earth crust from under our very feet? Genius.

Ethan said...

I would miss management handbooks.

Soj said...

Not that I know the author but in all fairness his blog IS named "Modeled Behavior".

Scats said...

...and all the means of production will look up and shout "Work us!"... and the workers will look down and whisper "No."

TGGP said...

I second Michael (the first one). There's no particular reason to consider the span of time from 2008 from now to be typical when describing "the system" rather than the time before then. I would have said that nobody seems to have benefited, since the super-rich were certainly earning more before, but Andy Harless makes the think I should have been thinking in terms of sectors rather than income brackets.

Michael Dawson, are you same person whose blurb is on the back of Venkatesh' "Off the Books"?

TGGP said...

Leonard, my guess is that Karl thinks there is a coordination problem caused an insufficient supply of money to meet the demand.