Comments on: A Turkey of an Economic System http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html where orders emerge Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:56:26 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: martinbrock http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-72748 martinbrock Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:23:15 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-72748 Entitling farmers to fruits of their labor on a parcel, including a market in any surplus (beyond a farmer's own consumption), is a very admirable system, but the rationale given here is less admirable.<br><br>"... young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense."<br><br>With parcels granted, do these young men later complain when other men's children pay rents to them? These rents are not simply yields of the parcels, much less a yield of the owner's labor. The rents are also yields of the fathers' (and mothers') investment in the labor of their children, insofar as the parents' parcels lack sufficient marginal value to employ their children's (and grandchildrens') labor and parcel grants are exhausted, an inevitable outcome ultimately.<br><br>The childless landlords invest nothing for this yield. They're simply entitled to it by forcible propriety, but rather than acknowledge this forcible entitlement, they construct some bastard, royalist theory of "natural rights" conflating the marginal value of their labor (Lockean propriety) with other values. Entitling farmers to fruits of their labor on a parcel, including a market in any surplus (beyond a farmer's own consumption), is a very admirable system, but the rationale given here is less admirable.

“… young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.”

With parcels granted, do these young men later complain when other men's children pay rents to them? These rents are not simply yields of the parcels, much less a yield of the owner's labor. The rents are also yields of the fathers' (and mothers') investment in the labor of their children, insofar as the parents' parcels lack sufficient marginal value to employ their children's (and grandchildrens') labor and parcel grants are exhausted, an inevitable outcome ultimately.

The childless landlords invest nothing for this yield. They're simply entitled to it by forcible propriety, but rather than acknowledge this forcible entitlement, they construct some bastard, royalist theory of “natural rights” conflating the marginal value of their labor (Lockean propriety) with other values.

]]> By: martinbrock http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-72260 martinbrock Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:23:15 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-72260 Entitling farmers to fruits of their labor on a parcel, including a market in any surplus (beyond a farmer's own consumption), is a very admirable system, but the rationale given here is less admirable.<br><br>"... young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense."<br><br>With parcels granted, do these young men later complain when other men's children pay rents to them? These rents are not simply yields of the parcels, much less a yield of the owner's labor. The rents are also yields of the fathers' (and mothers') investment in the labor of their children, insofar as the parents' parcels lack sufficient marginal value to employ their children's (and grandchildrens') labor and parcel grants are exhausted, an inevitable outcome ultimately.<br><br>The childless landlords invest nothing for this yield. They're simply entitled to it by forcible propriety, but rather than acknowledge this forcible entitlement, they construct some bastard, royalist theory of "natural rights" conflating the marginal value of their labor (Lockean propriety) with other values. Entitling farmers to fruits of their labor on a parcel, including a market in any surplus (beyond a farmer's own consumption), is a very admirable system, but the rationale given here is less admirable.

“… young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.”

With parcels granted, do these young men later complain when other men's children pay rents to them? These rents are not simply yields of the parcels, much less a yield of the owner's labor. The rents are also yields of the fathers' (and mothers') investment in the labor of their children, insofar as the parents' parcels lack sufficient marginal value to employ their children's (and grandchildrens') labor and parcel grants are exhausted, an inevitable outcome ultimately.

The childless landlords invest nothing for this yield. They're simply entitled to it by forcible propriety, but rather than acknowledge this forcible entitlement, they construct some bastard, royalist theory of “natural rights” conflating the marginal value of their labor (Lockean propriety) with other values.

]]> By: indianajim http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71990 indianajim Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:53:12 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71990 I'm not as old as Methuselah, but I'm working on it. I'm not as old as Methuselah, but I'm working on it.

]]> By: Methinks1776 http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71930 Methinks1776 Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:51:09 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71930 Please refrain from picking fights with Danny. He can't understand why you would disagree with him since he made a completely innocuous and clearly pointless observation. Also, no more and dragging out tired old Soviet examples. Like...Dude...how OLD are you? OMG LOL LMAO Please refrain from picking fights with Danny. He can't understand why you would disagree with him since he made a completely innocuous and clearly pointless observation. Also, no more and dragging out tired old Soviet examples. Like…Dude…how OLD are you? OMG LOL LMAO

]]> By: Caleb Cangelosi http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71885 Caleb Cangelosi Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:21:31 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71885 There is also a book entitled, Puritan Economic Experiments, by Gary North. From the back cover: "When the Puritans got off the Arabella and waded ashore to Massachusetts in 1630, they carried a heavy intellectual burden with them: five hundred years of accumulated unsound economic doctrines. This system of thought is today called scholastic economics. Actually, the later Spanish scholastic economists who were contemporaries of the Puritans had adopted free market views, but he Puritans had never heard of them. So, a series of disastrous economic experiments began in New England. <br>"The Pilgrims had been compelled by prior contract to set up a basically socialist system in 1620 - the common storehouse - and had come very close to starving as a result. They dropped this practice within two years, long before the arrival of their neighbors, the Puritans. The Puritans did not make the same mistake. But they made others: extensive publicly owned lands for grazing, controls on who was allowed to buy and sell land, price and wage controls, quality controls, public guilds and monopolies, and controls on people's fashions. They learned first-hand what government controls produce: conflict and shortages.<br>"For almost half a century, the Puritans ran the experiment. They served as willing guinea pigs. Eventually, they learned. Anyway, their children learned. In 1675, the great Indian war broke out - King Philip's War. The politicians tightened controls on the economy, and it began to break down. By the time the war was over a year later, the Puritans had learned their lesson. They abolished economic controls for good, and the economy boomed.<br>"This is the story of nearly half a century of Puritan experiments with government controls, all in the name of Christian ethics, and why those experiments were finally abandoned as a failure. The Puritans learned from experience. Not until the American Revolution broke out a century later did American colonists again attempt to impose a comparable system of economic controls, and the result of those controls was the near-starvation of Washington's army at Valley Forge in 1777. Similar experiment - similar result." There is also a book entitled, Puritan Economic Experiments, by Gary North. From the back cover: “When the Puritans got off the Arabella and waded ashore to Massachusetts in 1630, they carried a heavy intellectual burden with them: five hundred years of accumulated unsound economic doctrines. This system of thought is today called scholastic economics. Actually, the later Spanish scholastic economists who were contemporaries of the Puritans had adopted free market views, but he Puritans had never heard of them. So, a series of disastrous economic experiments began in New England.
“The Pilgrims had been compelled by prior contract to set up a basically socialist system in 1620 – the common storehouse – and had come very close to starving as a result. They dropped this practice within two years, long before the arrival of their neighbors, the Puritans. The Puritans did not make the same mistake. But they made others: extensive publicly owned lands for grazing, controls on who was allowed to buy and sell land, price and wage controls, quality controls, public guilds and monopolies, and controls on people's fashions. They learned first-hand what government controls produce: conflict and shortages.
“For almost half a century, the Puritans ran the experiment. They served as willing guinea pigs. Eventually, they learned. Anyway, their children learned. In 1675, the great Indian war broke out – King Philip's War. The politicians tightened controls on the economy, and it began to break down. By the time the war was over a year later, the Puritans had learned their lesson. They abolished economic controls for good, and the economy boomed.
“This is the story of nearly half a century of Puritan experiments with government controls, all in the name of Christian ethics, and why those experiments were finally abandoned as a failure. The Puritans learned from experience. Not until the American Revolution broke out a century later did American colonists again attempt to impose a comparable system of economic controls, and the result of those controls was the near-starvation of Washington's army at Valley Forge in 1777. Similar experiment – similar result.”

]]> By: Caleb Cangelosi http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71855 Caleb Cangelosi Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:21:31 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71855 There is also a book entitled, Puritan Economic Experiments, by Gary North. From the back cover: "When the Puritans got off the Arabella and waded ashore to Massachusetts in 1630, they carried a heavy intellectual burden with them: five hundred years of accumulated unsound economic doctrines. This system of thought is today called scholastic economics. Actually, the later Spanish scholastic economists who were contemporaries of the Puritans had adopted free market views, but he Puritans had never heard of them. So, a series of disastrous economic experiments began in New England. <br>"The Pilgrims had been compelled by prior contract to set up a basically socialist system in 1620 - the common storehouse - and had come very close to starving as a result. They dropped this practice within two years, long before the arrival of their neighbors, the Puritans. The Puritans did not make the same mistake. But they made others: extensive publicly owned lands for grazing, controls on who was allowed to buy and sell land, price and wage controls, quality controls, public guilds and monopolies, and controls on people's fashions. They learned first-hand what government controls produce: conflict and shortages.<br>"For almost half a century, the Puritans ran the experiment. They served as willing guinea pigs. Eventually, they learned. Anyway, their children learned. In 1675, the great Indian war broke out - King Philip's War. The politicians tightened controls on the economy, and it began to break down. By the time the war was over a year later, the Puritans had learned their lesson. They abolished economic controls for good, and the economy boomed.<br>"This is the story of nearly half a century of Puritan experiments with government controls, all in the name of Christian ethics, and why those experiments were finally abandoned as a failure. The Puritans learned from experience. Not until the American Revolution broke out a century later did American colonists again attempt to impose a comparable system of economic controls, and the result of those controls was the near-starvation of Washington's army at Valley Forge in 1777. Similar experiment - similar result." There is also a book entitled, Puritan Economic Experiments, by Gary North. From the back cover: “When the Puritans got off the Arabella and waded ashore to Massachusetts in 1630, they carried a heavy intellectual burden with them: five hundred years of accumulated unsound economic doctrines. This system of thought is today called scholastic economics. Actually, the later Spanish scholastic economists who were contemporaries of the Puritans had adopted free market views, but he Puritans had never heard of them. So, a series of disastrous economic experiments began in New England.
“The Pilgrims had been compelled by prior contract to set up a basically socialist system in 1620 – the common storehouse – and had come very close to starving as a result. They dropped this practice within two years, long before the arrival of their neighbors, the Puritans. The Puritans did not make the same mistake. But they made others: extensive publicly owned lands for grazing, controls on who was allowed to buy and sell land, price and wage controls, quality controls, public guilds and monopolies, and controls on people's fashions. They learned first-hand what government controls produce: conflict and shortages.
“For almost half a century, the Puritans ran the experiment. They served as willing guinea pigs. Eventually, they learned. Anyway, their children learned. In 1675, the great Indian war broke out – King Philip's War. The politicians tightened controls on the economy, and it began to break down. By the time the war was over a year later, the Puritans had learned their lesson. They abolished economic controls for good, and the economy boomed.
“This is the story of nearly half a century of Puritan experiments with government controls, all in the name of Christian ethics, and why those experiments were finally abandoned as a failure. The Puritans learned from experience. Not until the American Revolution broke out a century later did American colonists again attempt to impose a comparable system of economic controls, and the result of those controls was the near-starvation of Washington's army at Valley Forge in 1777. Similar experiment – similar result.”

]]> By: danielkuehn http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71801 danielkuehn Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:31:12 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71801 If you don't find it interesting, why comment?<br><br>Some of us do. If you don't find it interesting, why comment?

Some of us do.

]]> By: danielkuehn http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71800 danielkuehn Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:30:44 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71800 I've never disputed the fact that individual food production was more efficient - I'm not sure what your obsession about my point is, indianajim. You always seem to want to invent a disagreement with me. The fact is Plymouth Colony was a joint stock company - it recognized private property rights from the very beginning. Somehow over the years, that joint stock company has been morphed into a commune set up. I'm not sure how that distortion happened. I've never disputed the fact that individual food production was more efficient – I'm not sure what your obsession about my point is, indianajim. You always seem to want to invent a disagreement with me. The fact is Plymouth Colony was a joint stock company – it recognized private property rights from the very beginning. Somehow over the years, that joint stock company has been morphed into a commune set up. I'm not sure how that distortion happened.

]]> By: MWG http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71798 MWG Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:59:27 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71798 Mental masturbation. You should move to Mexico and sell tickets. Mental masturbation. You should move to Mexico and sell tickets.

]]> By: indianajim http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71789 indianajim Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:03:35 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71789 You "MADE" exactly my point? No.<br><br>My allusion to food production in the former USSR was inappropriate? No.<br><br>The point, again, is that communal control of food production and allocation in Plymouth and the former USSR reduced "industriousness" relative to circumstances in each case where greater individual control of food production and allocation occurred. You are smart enough to see the point, but for some reason you seem to want to blur it with talk of "good private" vs "bad private" and suggestions that the USSR's experience is a tired old example that all should ignore. You “MADE” exactly my point? No.

My allusion to food production in the former USSR was inappropriate? No.

The point, again, is that communal control of food production and allocation in Plymouth and the former USSR reduced “industriousness” relative to circumstances in each case where greater individual control of food production and allocation occurred. You are smart enough to see the point, but for some reason you seem to want to blur it with talk of “good private” vs “bad private” and suggestions that the USSR's experience is a tired old example that all should ignore.

]]> By: danielkuehn http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71767 danielkuehn Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:52:14 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71767 Thank you - I thought it was pretty interesting too. My use of the word "hierarchy" was just borrowing the language of Oliver Williamson.<br><br>In the case of Plymouth, the immediate boss - Bradford - actually recognized the problem and helped move them to a system of private plots. But I think your experience still rings true for Plymouth - it was the ultimate bosses of the joint stock company in London that kept sending over non-shareholding colonists, putting so much pressure on the organization at Plymouth.<br><br>I don't know how far we can take causality here. The first several years of a colony's existence were always very hard. I'm personally sure that moving to private plots helped considerably, but I'm not sure the corporate structure that existed before the private plots was so damaging that we can attribute all their hardships to it (and all their thriving to it's end). It's not always the best form of organization, but it often is. The point is, these colonists were always freely contracting, private individuals - from the beginning. And they did what freely contracting private individuals do best - they voluntarily tried several forms of social organization, they innovated, and they found what works best for them. Thank you – I thought it was pretty interesting too. My use of the word “hierarchy” was just borrowing the language of Oliver Williamson.

In the case of Plymouth, the immediate boss – Bradford – actually recognized the problem and helped move them to a system of private plots. But I think your experience still rings true for Plymouth – it was the ultimate bosses of the joint stock company in London that kept sending over non-shareholding colonists, putting so much pressure on the organization at Plymouth.

I don't know how far we can take causality here. The first several years of a colony's existence were always very hard. I'm personally sure that moving to private plots helped considerably, but I'm not sure the corporate structure that existed before the private plots was so damaging that we can attribute all their hardships to it (and all their thriving to it's end). It's not always the best form of organization, but it often is. The point is, these colonists were always freely contracting, private individuals – from the beginning. And they did what freely contracting private individuals do best – they voluntarily tried several forms of social organization, they innovated, and they found what works best for them.

]]> By: danielkuehn http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71766 danielkuehn Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:43:32 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71766 Far from missing that point, I actually MADE that point ("It was just a bad a private arrangement. "). I just wanted to additionally make the point that Plymouth Colony was more akin to IBM and General Electric than it was to your Soviet Union example. But of course, the inclination to compare everything to the Soviet Union still holds true. Far from missing that point, I actually MADE that point (“It was just a bad a private arrangement. “). I just wanted to additionally make the point that Plymouth Colony was more akin to IBM and General Electric than it was to your Soviet Union example. But of course, the inclination to compare everything to the Soviet Union still holds true.

]]> By: danielkuehn http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71764 danielkuehn Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:52:14 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71764 Thank you - I thought it was pretty interesting too. My use of the word "hierarchy" was just borrowing the language of Oliver Williamson.<br><br>In the case of Plymouth, the immediate boss - Bradford - actually recognized the problem and helped move them to a system of private plots. But I think your experience still rings true for Plymouth - it was the ultimate bosses of the joint stock company in London that kept sending over non-shareholding colonists, putting so much pressure on the organization at Plymouth.<br><br>I don't know how far we can take causality here. The first several years of a colony's existence were always very hard. I'm personally sure that moving to private plots helped considerably, but I'm not sure the corporate structure that existed before the private plots was so damaging that we can attribute all their hardships to it (and all their thriving to it's end). It's not always the best form of organization, but it often is. The point is, these colonists were always freely contracting, private individuals - from the beginning. And they did what freely contracting private individuals do best - they voluntarily tried several forms of social organization, they innovated, and they found what works best for them. Thank you – I thought it was pretty interesting too. My use of the word “hierarchy” was just borrowing the language of Oliver Williamson.

In the case of Plymouth, the immediate boss – Bradford – actually recognized the problem and helped move them to a system of private plots. But I think your experience still rings true for Plymouth – it was the ultimate bosses of the joint stock company in London that kept sending over non-shareholding colonists, putting so much pressure on the organization at Plymouth.

I don't know how far we can take causality here. The first several years of a colony's existence were always very hard. I'm personally sure that moving to private plots helped considerably, but I'm not sure the corporate structure that existed before the private plots was so damaging that we can attribute all their hardships to it (and all their thriving to it's end). It's not always the best form of organization, but it often is. The point is, these colonists were always freely contracting, private individuals – from the beginning. And they did what freely contracting private individuals do best – they voluntarily tried several forms of social organization, they innovated, and they found what works best for them.

]]> By: danielkuehn http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71762 danielkuehn Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:43:32 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71762 Far from missing that point, I actually MADE that point ("It was just a bad a private arrangement. "). I just wanted to additionally make the point that Plymouth Colony was more akin to IBM and General Electric than it was to your Soviet Union example. But of course, the inclination to compare everything to the Soviet Union still holds true. Far from missing that point, I actually MADE that point (“It was just a bad a private arrangement. “). I just wanted to additionally make the point that Plymouth Colony was more akin to IBM and General Electric than it was to your Soviet Union example. But of course, the inclination to compare everything to the Soviet Union still holds true.

]]> By: Justin P http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71751 Justin P Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:47:54 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71751 We have to have ideological pure educators right? <br><br><a href="http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/70662162.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr" rel="nofollow">http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/7...</a> We have to have ideological pure educators right?

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/7...

]]> By: Randy http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71752 Randy Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:31:54 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71752 <i>Re; "privately determined hierarchies"</i><br><br>That's an interesting point. My experience with problem organizations, though, is often the communitarian instincts of the boss, not the existance of a hierarchy. A typical example, and one I've seen quite often, is the boss who calls for "teamwork", which boils down to an ineffective leader who hasn't got the guts to hold people responsible for doing the jobs they were hired to do. The result, much as in the Plymouth example, is an organization full of people who specialize in creating plausible excuses for avoiding responsibility. Re; “privately determined hierarchies”

That's an interesting point. My experience with problem organizations, though, is often the communitarian instincts of the boss, not the existance of a hierarchy. A typical example, and one I've seen quite often, is the boss who calls for “teamwork”, which boils down to an ineffective leader who hasn't got the guts to hold people responsible for doing the jobs they were hired to do. The result, much as in the Plymouth example, is an organization full of people who specialize in creating plausible excuses for avoiding responsibility.

]]> By: Justin P http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71739 Justin P Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:47:54 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71739 We have to have ideological pure educators right? <br><br><a href="http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/70662162.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr" rel="nofollow">http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/7...</a> We have to have ideological pure educators right?

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/7...

]]> By: Andrew_M_Garland http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71703 Andrew_M_Garland Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:35:28 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71703 Can anyone in the Government teach fishing? Oh well, nevermind. Can anyone in the Government teach fishing? Oh well, nevermind.

]]> By: LowcountryJoe http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71702 LowcountryJoe Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:49:15 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71702 Redistribute the fish and feed him from breadline...maybe. Redistribute the fish and feed him from breadline…maybe.

]]> By: Andrew_M_Garland http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/a-turkey-of-an-economic-system.html/comment-page-1#comment-71692 Andrew_M_Garland Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:35:28 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7411#comment-71692 Can anyone in the Government teach fishing? Oh well, nevermind. Can anyone in the Government teach fishing? Oh well, nevermind.

]]>