I am no fan of Michael Moore. He is like flies on crap in my opinion.
Agreed. He's nothing more then the Left's Rush Limbaugh.
Agreed. He's nothing more then the Left's Rush Limbaugh.
Given the coercion in the labour contract, referring to 'free exchange' in capitalism is always going to be dodgy territory (and inconsistent with both economic history and modern economic theory).
There's no denying that the current system is capitalist. The only issue is how firm organisation has evolved and how that has changed the requirements of interventionism (which is required to ensure the reproduction of capitalist profit)
Why is the utilisation of such monetary mechanisms used everywhere? Its merely an application of rationality, particularly where market concentration tends to accentuate the consequences of demand-side shocks
Can you elaborate?
There is, and for the reasons I provided. The question cannot be one of semantics at this stage, because I've defined what I mean by "capitalism".
The current system is predatory and corporatist.
I think you still need to justify why a free trade of labor for a wage and benefits is coercive.
I think it's a lot simpler than that. The state benefits enormously from controlling the currency.
We could go all Marxist in our analysis, but there's actually no point. We merely have to refer to the existence of economic rents. Such rents assuredly inform us of coercion in the labour contract. This isn't surprising, given labour theory predicts it as the norm: e.g. monoposony power created by labour market frictions; discrimination; hierarchy and the use of internal labour market to magnify underpayments.
Try something like the Penrosian approach to firm growth. This informs us that, unlike the economies of scale approach to the optimal firm in Economics 101, there will always be a tendency for firm growth: both in terms of market share and also in terms of diversification. End result? The profit motive in capitalism will lead to predatory and corporatist outcome. You're basically arguing that capitalism doesn't exist as you find a characteristic of capitalism less than agreeable.
So you're going for some conspiracy theory that involves some ruling elite?
There is no coercion just by a person agreeing to work for a wage. I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Also, are you making an argument based on the labor theory of value?
Nope. My argument can be used within a neoclassical context. The point is simple: economic rents are inconsistent with a labour contract associated purely by exchange. We know, however, those rents exist. Indeed, we cannot understand the labour market without modelling them (as the examples in my previous post describes)
When I meant elaborate, I meant provide an argument for your position, not to restate your position - I understand it.
I define force as violence, or the threat of violence, used to compel individuals to act in a certain way. In what way does force arise when one individual decides, by his own will and voluntary consent, to work for another individuals in exchange for a pre-decided wage?
If you don't think force, as I've defined it, arises in this situation, then please define what you mean by "coercive", and elaborate on that.
The question isn't whether capitalism leads to predatory and/or corporatist outcomes here, it is whether or not the current system is capitalist. Referring to the definition I provided above, which I suspect most free-market capitalists would agree with, the system cannot be capitalist because of state control on the monetary system. If you're going to ignore that point, that is to conflate rape with love making.
I haven't espoused a theory at all. It is empirically true that the state benefits from controlling the currency. Fiat currency enables the state to grow without bound, because it is no longer restrained by limited tax reserves. Probably the most glaring example of this is the perpetual war the U.S. has willingly put itself in.
