RSAnimate is here with another anti-freedom YouTube video. As expected, it's factually incorrect and absurd. These videos are obviously a great hit with the anti-market masses.
According to Salecl, supermarkets and the choices they offer make us feel "horrified." Imagine that from tomorrow onwards every supermarket had 80% less choices. It's a safe bet to say that then we'd actually be horrified.
The Causes of Anxiety
1. We choose what other people are choosing. Choice is a very social matter.
We often do choose the same things as others, but this doesn't mean we choose these things because others have chosen them. That's a complete non sequitur. Even when our choices are affected by the choices of others, I fail to see how this is a bad thing. I sure as hell am going to see what computer processors others have bought before choosing which one to buy. Salecl is partly right; we do indeed communicate things about ourselves through the choices we make. The possibility of doing this should be seen as a great aspect of our society, not some kind of evil.
2. We try to make an ideal choice. And yet we're always dissatisfied.
Both of these things have to be true for there to be any human action. These tautologies don't prove a god damn thing.
Every time we act we make a choice. By definition we choose the highest-ranked("ideal") option available. Without dissatisfaction, there can be no action(and thus no choosing). If there was no dissatisfaction, then why would you act? Acting and choosing means you want to change how things currently are. You wouldn't do that if you had achieved perfect satisfaction.
3. Choice always involves a loss.
Wow, Salecl has discovered opportunity cost! Another fact of life that has to be true by definition. This is supposed to prove what exactly?
Ideology of Choice
...which forces us to perceive ourself being guilty for the failures in our life, especially professional life.
This is an amazing claim. I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that people delegate guilt all the time as a psychological defence mechanism. This contradicts all my experiences and all I've heard on this; so unless someone can point to some sort psychological studies confirming Salecl's claim, I'm going to say this is BS.
We also feel ashamed for being poor...
This tendency has certainly decreased over the decades, as people have become accustomed to thinking that society owes them something(the "right" to welfare and other nonsense). But I don't exactly see what the controversy here is. You fail at being a successful member of society; why shouldn't you be ashamed of yourself(not counting the obvious exceptions)?
...even [though] decades ago, there was some kind of identification with being working class, now it's more the feeling of inadecacy, of not making it.
What a subtle way to conflate "poor" and "working class."
Capitalism is a system ... we work longer hours, we are rushing around and we are constantly consuming.
We don't work longer hours. One of the glorious consequences of capitalism has been the rise in productivity that has allowed for more and more leisure. We aren't "rushing." We simply economize time more than before. And why would we do this? Probably because wasting time has a higher opportunity cost than before. And why is the opportunity cost higher? Probably because we have so many choices in front of us(just think of everything you could do right now if you weren't reading this...). And yeah, we get to consume stuff. That's a good thing.
The subject starts believing that he is not simply a proletarian slave, but that he is a master. The belief that you are actually in charge, although you aren't; it's a very important belief.
Apparently I'm a proletarian slave, too. Maybe I should quit my job. But wait! I thought a part of being a slave was the inability to quit...
Salecl's ideas were stupid and boring, but the real culprit is RSAnimate. Without institutions like RSAnimate, bad ideas would never spread as effectively as they do.
2011-06-27
On Ideologies
The Internet is probably the best example of how freedom works and it is probably also the greatest weapon available to those who want to promote freedom. Different theories and ideologies now have a more even battlefield, as anyone can fact-check pretty much anything and alternative views can't be hidden by the gatekeepers in society.
The great debates of the world aren't taking place in the halls of Congress, not the Eduskunta, the House of Lords or any such place. The debaters aren't politicians or other men of great influence. The debates take place on forums, blogs, YouTube, the comments section of reviews on Amazon.com and everywhere else. The debaters are normal people.
No one can escape the influence of a prevailing ideology.
~Ludwig von Mises
At the end of the day what matters is the dominant ideology among the public. At the very least, a state must have the passive support of its people, otherwise it will crumble, no matter what it does. Intellectual leaders promote their ideas, but it is up to the people to choose the ideology they wish to follow. And it doesn't end there; the intellectual battle must not be left to the intellectuals alone. The people themselves must engage in the ideological struggle of the day, unless they wish to see their ideology disappear or become marginalized.
Most people do not consciously do this. They promote their ideology of ignorance through casual conversations, through the votes they cast and their acceptance of the current situation. They do not have any well-defined principles, they often rely on pseudo-scientific utilitarianism, they make excuses for current policies and are anti-radical.
Ideology of ignorance: People don't know society works. Frédéric Bastiat wondered How Paris Gets Fed, and we may ask the same question still today. People know very little about economics, yet they still offer opinions on things that would require economic analysis to understand. As Bryan Caplan has observed, people are biased in their worldviews and do not let their ignorance get in the way.
Principles: The lack of principled stances is best seen in how often people define right and wrong based on lawfulness. Delegating responsibility and critical thinking to the legislative body of the government is the lazy way out of serious issues.
Utilitarianism: Utility is subjective and you can't make interpersonal utility comparisons. People ignore this, because they in fact do not respect the choices others make.
You don't have to smoke. Others can't force you to smoke. So what gives you the right to restrict others from smoking(unless they're on your property)? The answer will of course rely on health(which is "good") and maybe the medical costs("bad") society will have to pay for(you see when the opponents of socialism said that socialized medicine will eventually lead to the socialization of human bodies; they were right). If the purpose of life was to live healthily, then everyone would already do so.
Pseudo-science: Simply watch DiLorenzo's speech. It is possibly the best illustration of what I'm talking about.
No one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result.
~Ludwig von Mises
After all this gloom and doom, you would think that all is lost. The masses do not resist when freedom is being restricted. They do not oppose interventionism and even have a strong anti-market bias. But they also aren't committed ideologues. Their minds can be changed by a vocal minority, even though in the current environment it is unlikely that this will happen. If people weren't ignorant and still held the beliefs they hold, we'd be in much more trouble.
So do not stand aside with unconcern. Many people during the latter half of the 19th century probably did. Classical liberalism was going to produce peace, prosperity and freedom for all. And it would have, had it survived. What followed was a century of nationalism, totalitarianism, socialism, war and democide.
Ideas have consequences.
The great debates of the world aren't taking place in the halls of Congress, not the Eduskunta, the House of Lords or any such place. The debaters aren't politicians or other men of great influence. The debates take place on forums, blogs, YouTube, the comments section of reviews on Amazon.com and everywhere else. The debaters are normal people.
No one can escape the influence of a prevailing ideology.
~Ludwig von Mises
At the end of the day what matters is the dominant ideology among the public. At the very least, a state must have the passive support of its people, otherwise it will crumble, no matter what it does. Intellectual leaders promote their ideas, but it is up to the people to choose the ideology they wish to follow. And it doesn't end there; the intellectual battle must not be left to the intellectuals alone. The people themselves must engage in the ideological struggle of the day, unless they wish to see their ideology disappear or become marginalized.
Most people do not consciously do this. They promote their ideology of ignorance through casual conversations, through the votes they cast and their acceptance of the current situation. They do not have any well-defined principles, they often rely on pseudo-scientific utilitarianism, they make excuses for current policies and are anti-radical.
Ideology of ignorance: People don't know society works. Frédéric Bastiat wondered How Paris Gets Fed, and we may ask the same question still today. People know very little about economics, yet they still offer opinions on things that would require economic analysis to understand. As Bryan Caplan has observed, people are biased in their worldviews and do not let their ignorance get in the way.
Principles: The lack of principled stances is best seen in how often people define right and wrong based on lawfulness. Delegating responsibility and critical thinking to the legislative body of the government is the lazy way out of serious issues.
Utilitarianism: Utility is subjective and you can't make interpersonal utility comparisons. People ignore this, because they in fact do not respect the choices others make.
You don't have to smoke. Others can't force you to smoke. So what gives you the right to restrict others from smoking(unless they're on your property)? The answer will of course rely on health(which is "good") and maybe the medical costs("bad") society will have to pay for(you see when the opponents of socialism said that socialized medicine will eventually lead to the socialization of human bodies; they were right). If the purpose of life was to live healthily, then everyone would already do so.
Pseudo-science: Simply watch DiLorenzo's speech. It is possibly the best illustration of what I'm talking about.
No one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result.
~Ludwig von Mises
After all this gloom and doom, you would think that all is lost. The masses do not resist when freedom is being restricted. They do not oppose interventionism and even have a strong anti-market bias. But they also aren't committed ideologues. Their minds can be changed by a vocal minority, even though in the current environment it is unlikely that this will happen. If people weren't ignorant and still held the beliefs they hold, we'd be in much more trouble.
So do not stand aside with unconcern. Many people during the latter half of the 19th century probably did. Classical liberalism was going to produce peace, prosperity and freedom for all. And it would have, had it survived. What followed was a century of nationalism, totalitarianism, socialism, war and democide.
Ideas have consequences.
2011-06-02
Reflections On My First Blog Post
This post won't be of much use if you do not already understand the concept of marginal utility.
My first post Some Thoughts On Money was in retrospect a pretty good post, but it didn't deal with why the ideas expressed were important. I dealt with how money originally emerged in the marketplace. So what's the big deal here?
The Marginal(ist) Revolution
Classical economists had some pretty good ideas about economics, but their cost-theory of value was seriously flawed. It wasn't until the 1870s that the concept of subjective marginal utility came and gave us a comprehensive and logically coherent theory of value.
A small problem remained, however. What about the value of money? Let me quote Robert Murphy to illustrate the problem:
2) And how do people estimate the marginal utility of money(i.e. how do they decide their current demand for money)? By looking at expected prices of course(i.e. the expected value of money).
3) How do people form expectations about the value of money? By looking at the past value of money of course. People have memories. So people value money(i.e. they give money its purchasing power) because money has purchasing power(i.e. it is valued by people).
4) So the value of money in time t(now) is determined by the expected value of money in time t+1(future). The value of money in time t-1(the past) was determined by people's expectations of the value of money in time t(now). And the value of money in time t-2(even further into the past) was determined by people's expectations of the value of money in time t-1(the past). And so on...
But isn't this an infinite regress? Can't we just go back in time in perpetuity and never solve the problem of how money has value? No, this isn't the case. At this point it's important to remember how money was initially created in the marketplace. This means that if we go back in time long enough, we will eventually hit a point at which the monetary unit ceases to be money. It's just another good.
And there's no problem with explaining the value of "just another good" with marginal utility analysis.
[1] Robert Murphy The Origin of Money and Its Value
My first post Some Thoughts On Money was in retrospect a pretty good post, but it didn't deal with why the ideas expressed were important. I dealt with how money originally emerged in the marketplace. So what's the big deal here?
The Marginal(ist) Revolution
Classical economists had some pretty good ideas about economics, but their cost-theory of value was seriously flawed. It wasn't until the 1870s that the concept of subjective marginal utility came and gave us a comprehensive and logically coherent theory of value.
A small problem remained, however. What about the value of money? Let me quote Robert Murphy to illustrate the problem:
But many felt that a marginal utility explanation of money demand would simply be a circular argument: We need to explain why money has a certain exchange value on the market. It won't do (so these economists thought) to merely explain this by saying people have a marginal utility for money because of its purchasing power. After all, that's what we're trying to explain in the first place—why can people buy things with money?[1]1) Why is the value of money what it is? Because of marginal utility of course.
2) And how do people estimate the marginal utility of money(i.e. how do they decide their current demand for money)? By looking at expected prices of course(i.e. the expected value of money).
3) How do people form expectations about the value of money? By looking at the past value of money of course. People have memories. So people value money(i.e. they give money its purchasing power) because money has purchasing power(i.e. it is valued by people).
4) So the value of money in time t(now) is determined by the expected value of money in time t+1(future). The value of money in time t-1(the past) was determined by people's expectations of the value of money in time t(now). And the value of money in time t-2(even further into the past) was determined by people's expectations of the value of money in time t-1(the past). And so on...
But isn't this an infinite regress? Can't we just go back in time in perpetuity and never solve the problem of how money has value? No, this isn't the case. At this point it's important to remember how money was initially created in the marketplace. This means that if we go back in time long enough, we will eventually hit a point at which the monetary unit ceases to be money. It's just another good.
And there's no problem with explaining the value of "just another good" with marginal utility analysis.
[1] Robert Murphy The Origin of Money and Its Value
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
