Mises: Commerce and Civilization

[shanek]

This is by far one of the best artices I've read on the Iraq situation, and how it affects those who have to live there:

Haydar Hussain, the third-generation owner of a butcher shop in Baghdad, isn't much interested in politics. He doesn't care whose statue appears in the public square. He didn't like Saddam but doesn't like his replacement either. He has his personal religious views, but will gladly sell to Sunni, Shiite, Christian, or Jew. In fact, his interests are not complicated. He wants to protect his property, to be free to serve others through exchange, and to otherwise be left alone.

In the days before the war, his shop was full: beef, lamb, and chicken in every cut imaginable. He did his best to work around sanctions, despotism, inflation, and a thousand other barriers that conspired against commerce. Somehow he managed, and, like thousands of other heroic merchants in that country, kept the people fed by means of trade.

After the war, he only had a bit of hamburger to sell, but his doors were open, unlike the other 95 percent of businesses that had closed for lack of products and fear of looters (official and unofficial). How did he do it? He provided his own protection and worked extremely hard. All of Iraq suffered, but slightly less so because of his efforts.

It was often said in the days after the war that Iraq had descended into a state of "anarchy," but that's not the best word to describe war between two states. Any merchant in that country will testify that the problem he faces is not lack of government but government itself: first Saddam and then those who displaced Saddam. Both represented a form of official violence and disorder that makes doing business difficult.

To hear U.S. officials talk, the key to restoring livable economic conditions is the military working with regulatory agencies, international governmental bodies like the World Bank, and billions in tax dollars. That’s not true, of course. If Iraq is to be rebuilt into a functioning society again, it will be through the efforts of Haydar Hussain and others like him. In the end, it will be commerce and the merchant class that will provide, and they will have to go it alone, without the help of superpowers.

What motivates them? The prospect of profit, yes, but there is more to it than that. What these people have is a drive to serve, combined with an amazing survival instinct. When others are destroying and looting, they are busy trying to create, protect, and provide, always ready to strike a deal of some sort.

The merchant class has been the most reviled in the history of political thought. Their very existence sticks in the craw of those who, like Marxists and modern-day militarists, believe that history should be about great conflicts, and winners and losers. Why? Because the merchant class views history in a more mundane way: as a series of small steps by which people are provided the goods and services they need to overcome the great economic problem of scarcity.

It is a simple idea, one that is immediately clear to the mind not mired in ideological dreams of a society managed from the top down. The market itself has always been with us as the source of civilization, but it took economists to provide the explanation concerning why. The result was the flowering of economic science that continued through the centuries—the discipline that works out the full implications of the meaning of exchange in a world of scarcity.

The advent of economic science and the liberal social philosophy generally laid the foundation for political events that secured liberty (such as the American Revolution) and the astonishing improvements in human well being that we've seen in the last several centuries.

Is it surprising that economic science was so late in its development? Perhaps not, given all the forces in society so naturally allied against its insights. A free-market economy is incompatible with a state that intervenes to manage people's property or otherwise circumscribe their liberty. It rules out the imposition of central plans, social engineering, wealth redistribution schemes, plunder and looting, and imperial wars. In short, it rules out anything that would disturb peaceful trade among individuals.

Who wants to destroy peace and enterprise? Those who benefit from conflict and war, namely, the state, as well as intellectuals who see the state as the vehicle for the realization of their plans. In our own time, the insights of great liberals of old are considered outmoded by thinkers left and right, as the advocates of collectivism push for more government power and the promoters of unending war herald the glories of destruction as essential and uplifting.

But collectivism and war create nothing; they only smash wealth and leave misery and despotism in their wake. They solve no human problem; they only create more of them. War, in particular, is the very opposite of free enterprise. "Peace and not war is the father of all things," wrote Mises.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1242

 

[Malachi151]

Oh lord, what a load fo crap. It reads like "The Watchtower". Make a few relavent observations and draw completely irrational conclusions.

You're definately a religious capitalist.

Phrases like "to be free to serve others through exchange", are a dead giveaway to propaganda. Capitalism is not about serving others, its about serving self interests. Trying to make a job community service is quite dishonest, which is not to say that a few poeple don't do their job with that view, but that's not the principle that the free-markets work on.

 

[no one in particular]

Make a few relavent observations and draw completely irrational conclusions.

Which must be strange to you, since you are used to make irrational conclusions based on irrelevant observations, huh?

 

[crackmonkey]

 

[Frank Newgent]

What these people have is a drive to serve, combined with an amazing survival instinct.

If you hope and expect that your regular customer today will still be that a year from now you have to have him leave the place happy. Sometimes that means not making much on the deal. But calling that a drive to serve is crackers.

This might be further obscured with a pointless sports analogy:

http://www.velocityracquetball.net/Quizes/Drive Serve Multiple Choice.htm

3. The wrong mentality of the drive (to) serve:

a) Develop a rhythm by a set routine
b) Elicit a weak return
c) Go for an ace every time
d) There is no wrong mentality
e) None of the above
f) All of the above

 

[Luke T.]

Shanek, you are familiar with the deprivations suffered by our U.S. merchants and the horrific state or our economy at the conclusion of our war of independence, aren't you? Should they not have gone to the trouble?

This is normal stuff happening, dude.

 

[Malachi151]

like Marxists and modern-day militarists, believe that history should be about great conflicts, and winners and losers. Why? Because the merchant class views history in a more mundane way: as a series of small steps by which people are provided the goods and services they need to overcome the great economic problem of scarcity.

Marxists are not against the merchant class at all. Capitalsits and merchants are two different things totally. Capitalists are those that control mechanists of socialized production, i.e. factories, individuals who put large numbers of people out of business and then employ them back at lower rates. Its all part of progress for sure, but without some safeguards it puts too much control in the hands of a few people.

Small businessmen like this guy are not "capitalists, and Marx had nothingwhatsoever agianst these types of businessmen, thats who Marx was in favor of trying to protect. Marxism is the recognition of the conflict between workers and small businessmen and capitlaists, i.e. big businessmen, and stands of the side of workers and independant businessmen. Of course Marx recognizes that small businesses eventually produce big businesses and then cause problems.

The "merchant class" doesn't view history at all. Merchants are out to make a buck, period. They aren't it in to build some grand society, they are just trying to put bread on the table and live. The guy is full of crap and probably never ran his own business in his life.

A free-market economy is incompatible with a state that intervenes to manage people's property or otherwise circumscribe their liberty.

A free-market economy is economic anarchy. Sure it works great as a starting point, but quickly rules need to be developed in order to keep things fair and equitable. Its like the difference between back yard football and pro-football. Yeah, you can get buy with no refs in backwayrd football, but then the level of play is increased you need solid rules and refs to make the game work.

The market itself has always been with us as the source of civilization

Civilization is marked by a long history of conflict and war, which is exactly what Marxism intends to put a stop to. All of civilization is built on disparity, conflict, war, and oppression. Name ANY significant civilization that existed without those things. Look at the Egytian pyramids. We call that a great accomplishment, yet obviously they were built through a means of oppression. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Americans, etc all had massive slave popualtions, and all had many conflicts and wars which all contributed to the economy and built civilization. Civilization is built of conflict.

But collectivism and war create nothing; they only smash wealth and leave misery and despotism in their wake. They solve no human problem; they only create more of them. War, in particular, is the very opposite of free enterprise.

This guy is an idiot. Free enterprise is behind almost all war. Neither collectivism nor war create nothing, they both can, and do create wealth. War more so, which is why war is done. If war were not economically beneficial it would never take place. Most wars occure for economic reasons. The guy obviously knows nothing about imperialism or economics .

 

[Mike B.]

Which must be strange to you, since you are used to make irrational conclusions based on irrelevant observations, huh?

friggin' hilarious

 

[Mike B.]

This guy is an idiot. Free enterprise is behind almost all war.

Care to explain.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
Marxists are not against the merchant class at all.

Of course not. Most marxists are the spoilt offspring of upper class parents. It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds you. I shudder to think what might have happened had any of the Socialist Workers Party in my college been forced to do some actual work.

A free-market economy is economic anarchy. Sure it works great as a starting point, but quickly rules need to be developed in order to keep things fair and equitable. Its like the difference between back yard football and pro-football. Yeah, you can get buy with no refs in backwayrd football, but then the level of play is increased you need solid rules and refs to make the game work.

Hence the desire of capitalists for limited government. The football analogy is a good one. Of course a good game of football requires prudent refereeing and rules, lest no football is played at all due to the game being constantly held up for infringements.

Free enterprise is behind almost all war.

Actually the opposite is true. "Red" Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, made a similar claim along the line of capitalism being responsible for millions of deaths. The problem is that the regimes he had in mind, most notably Nazi Germany, had very little attachment to free market capitalism. Corporatism was the economic cornerstone of fascism, not the free market.

If war were not economically beneficial it would never take place./QUOTE]

Wars in Europe took place mainly because the most agressive and well armed nation in Europe had the habit of giving autocratic powers to mad little men. The nation in Europe that had relied most heavily on trade, Britain, remained detached from European affairs for most of the time in question, preferring "splendid isolation" to permanent conflict on the continent.

 

[Malachi151]

Care to explain.

See:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

Free enterprise is behind expansionism, imperialism, etc. Free enterprise is what was behind Columbus' Voyage of Discovery and the enslavement of millions of natives for mining gold and gems, etc. Free-enterprise was behind the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, etc.

Free enterprise was behind the expansion of the Roman Empire, Egyptian Empire, Sumeria, etc.

Its both a productive force and a creator of problems. All these people try to demonize something, Marxism, collectivism, war, free-enterprise, etc. None of these things are purely wrong or bad though, each have pros and cons. There is no magic bullet.


The idea that free-enterprise solves everything is as stupid as the idea that collectivism solves everything.

The idea that free-enterprise and government are separable is ludicrous, or that without government some other power structure would not be formed to take its place. Without government, i.e. public, control of things like transportation and military, and police forces, and business laws, you would just have powerful individuals or corporations in charge in which case no one has any say other then the entity with power.

Government is the means through which people collectively share power to keep one entity or small groups of entities from having it all. Even with government that can still happen, and it does happen and it is happening in America today, but without government you are straight to totalitarianism of the wealthy.

How do you even define what free-enterprise is? There is really no such thing. If there are not rules imposed by a government then businesses themselves devleop their own framework of arrangements based on self interest and their power to get their way, i.e. the leverage of capaital.

Of course not. Most marxists are the spoilt offspring of upper class parents. It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds you. I shudder to think what might have happened had any of the Socialist Workers Party in my college been forced to do some actual work.

Meaningless statement.

Hence the desire of capitalists for limited government. The football analogy is a good one. Of course a good game of football requires prudent refereeing and rules, lest no football is played at all due to the game being constantly held up for infringements.

Yes, thats correct. A limited governemtn has nothing to do with that though, but effencient rules for business do. Yes, obviously the rules for business should always be as effecient as possible.

Actually the opposite is true. "Red" Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, made a similar claim along the line of capitalism being responsible for millions of deaths. The problem is that the regimes he had in mind, most notably Nazi Germany, had very little attachment to free market capitalism. Corporatism was the economic cornerstone of fascism, not the free market.

Capitalism was behing the virtual extinction of the natives of the Americas. Capitalism was behind WWI. Capitlaism was behind the conflicts with China, capitalism was behind the Spanish-American War, War of 1812, the wars in Nicoragua, Venezuela, Panama, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, etc.

The issue is that its both a productive force and a destructive force. You just have to see both sides of it and acknowledge that in the process of some people becomign wealthy other are killed.

Wars in Europe took place mainly because the most agressive and well armed nation in Europe had the habit of giving autocratic powers to mad little men. The nation in Europe that had relied most heavily on trade, Britain, remained detached from European affairs for most of the time in question, preferring "splendid isolation" to permanent conflict on the continent.

None of that refutes what I said. Wars are profitable for the victor and/or for some participants. War is a business. There is no way to deny this, the financials prove it out. Some entities make money off war, again, see the link I included. The reality is that "making money" is seldom a benign process, often someone somewhere gets hurt along the way.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
Capitalism was behing the virtual extinction of the natives of the Americas. Capitalism was behind WWI. Capitlaism was behind the conflicts with China, capitalism was behind the Spanish-American War, War of 1812, the wars in Nicoragua, Venezuela, Panama, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, etc.

How is this demonstrable? Any history book I've studied lists multiple factors that lead to WWI, such as colonial rivalry, convoluted diplomacy, ethnic tensions and arms races. I've never once seen capitalism cited.

Its both a productive force and a creator of problems. All these people try to demonize something, Marxism, collectivism, war, free-enterprise, etc. None of these things are purely wrong or bad though, each have pros and cons. There is no magic bullet.

There is a difference. Regimes that were Marxist or collectivist (or at least aspired to be) could only remain in place by means of oppression. When given the choice, people don't choose collectivism. You could never claim there was an equivalence between FDR's America and Stalin's Russia.

The idea that free-enterprise and government are separable is ludicrous, or that without government some other power structure would not be formed to take its place. Without government, i.e. public, control of things like transportation and military, and police forces, and business laws, you would just have powerful individuals or corporations in charge in which case no one has any say other then the entity with power.

Who's made these arguments? The debate is about the role and scope of government, not whether it's existence is desireable.

The issue is that its both a productive force and a destructive force. You just have to see both sides of it and acknowledge that in the process of some people becomign wealthy other are killed.

BS. I fail to see how an increase in someone's wealth has to come at the suffering or death of someone else.

None of that refutes what I said.

Yes it does.

Wars are profitable for the victor and/or for some participants.

Nonsense. WWI was decidedly unprofitable for Britain. It lost it's overseas markets, and because of the high cost of the war turned from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. In the 1930's Mussolini led Italy on some victorious military campaigns against some fairly soft opponents, and wrecked the Italian economy iin the process.

The reality is that "making money" is seldom a benign process, often someone somewhere gets hurt along the way.

Care to tell me who got hurt in Ireland?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If you hope and expect that your regular customer today will still be that a year from now you have to have him leave the place happy. Sometimes that means not making much on the deal. But calling that a drive to serve is crackers.

This might be further obscured with a pointless sports analogy:

http://www.velocityracquetball.net/Quizes/Drive Serve Multiple Choice.htm

Having played racquetball for about 17 of the last 24 years, I would say C.

 

[Malachi151]

I don't have much time so I have to stick to quick anwsers here:

How is this demonstrable? Any history book I've studied lists multiple factors that lead to WWI, such as colonial rivalry, convoluted diplomacy, ethnic tensions and arms races. I've never once seen capitalism cited.

Yeah right, like they are going to site that. Textbooks are nest to useless for learning anything significant, thats just stupid drivel for the masses.

There is a difference. Regimes that were Marxist or collectivist (or at least aspired to be) could only remain in place by means of oppression. When given the choice, people don't choose collectivism. You could never claim there was an equivalence between FDR's America and Stalin's Russia.

There are elements of collectivism even in America. PURE collectivism, yes, thats problematic, but used when appropriate its works well and has been widely usede by a variety of cultures throughout history. It is more productive, its just counter to human instinct many times, people are just too stupid to see the big picture.

BS. I fail to see how an increase in someone's wealth has to come at the suffering or death of someone else.

It does not HAVE to, but it often HAS. Hell, look at Iraq! Thousands of people killed, and some American companies are going to make millions or even billions from the situation. Americans arms makers have made bilions over the past 20 years and been the leading arms dealers in the world most of that time, even selling to Saddam.

Look at the Spanish Empire. They made trillions of dollars and killed millions of people in the process. The money they made was directly realted to the deaths of people.

The early Americna economy was dependant on slavery and killing of natives, thousands of slaves died in the process, making money for the whites in a "free-market" slave trade system.

Again:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

“In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.”

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. "

- General Smedley Butler.

Nonsense. WWI was decidedly unprofitable for Britain.

WWI and WWII were decidedly profitable for America, America was the winner both times. Its typically only profitable its its offensive and you win. No, defensive war isn't going to be profitable, nor a failed offensive war.

 

[shanek]

Oh lord, what a load fo crap. It reads like "The Watchtower". Make a few relavent observations and draw completely irrational conclusions.

You're definately a religious capitalist.

Phrases like "to be free to serve others through exchange", are a dead giveaway to propaganda. Capitalism is not about serving others, its about serving self interests. Trying to make a job community service is quite dishonest, which is not to say that a few poeple don't do their job with that view, but that's not the principle that the free-markets work on.

Wonderful.

Now, would you actually care to do something useful, like, oh, I don't know...respond to the actual data, rationale, and arguments, instead of just hurling insults and hyberbolae?

 

[shanek]

Shanek, you are familiar with the deprivations suffered by our U.S. merchants and the horrific state or our economy at the conclusion of our war of independence, aren't you? Should they not have gone to the trouble?

This is normal stuff happening, dude.

I don't think anyone said that this was anything new.

BTW, the biggest reason for the bad economy after the Revolutionary War was because the government funded it with a fiat currency, much like we have today. This led to an economic panic in 1780. How did they fix it? They left the economy alone! Even the strong central Federalist Alexander Bidlack—er, I mean, Hamilton—understood that the merchants could increase the wealth of society on their own. He wanted the government to control the money supply (in fact, one of the big reasons they got into that mess in the first place was that Hamilton issued the bonds with no commodity backing them up), but not the individual businessmen.

 

[Skeptic]

Marxists are not against the merchant class at all.

Of course not; their merchant parents are paying their college tuition, after all. Besides, SOMEBODY needs to give them a job once they graduate, at least while they're waiting for the revolution...

 

[shanek]

Of course not. Most marxists are the spoilt offspring of upper class parents. It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds you. I shudder to think what might have happened had any of the Socialist Workers Party in my college been forced to do some actual work.

Heh heh. So true. You just reminded me of the Oingo Boingo song "Capitalism":

There's nothing wrong with making some profit
If you ask me, I will say it's just fine
There's nothing wrong with wanting to live nice
I'm so tired of hearing you whine
About the revolution, of bringing down the rich
When was the last time you dug a ditch?

You're just a middle class socialist brat
From a suburban family, and you never really had to work
And now you tell me that you've got to get back
To the struggling masses, whoever they are
You talk, talk, talk about the suffering and pain
Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain
What the hell would you know about suffering and pain?

I think that song could have been written for Malachi...

Hence the desire of capitalists for limited government. The football analogy is a good one. Of course a good game of football requires prudent refereeing and rules, lest no football is played at all due to the game being constantly held up for infringements.

And notice that the rules are voluntarily agreed upon by both teams, who both realize they're better of with the rules than without them. Nothing has to be forced on them.

 

[shanek]

Free enterprise is behind expansionism, imperialism, etc. Free enterprise is what was behind Columbus' Voyage of Discovery and the enslavement of millions of natives for mining gold and gems, etc. Free-enterprise was behind the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, etc.

I just know you can support this.

The free market is what largely freed the slaves, not what enslaved them to begin with. The free market made them obsolete. This happened in almost every industrialized nation, and was in the process of happening in America at the time of the Civil War.

The War of 1812 was an extension of the Revolutionary war. The Spanish-American War started with the sinking of the Maine, nothing at all to do with Free Enterprise. Those wars were all because of governments.

If the rest of your history is this faulty, it's no wonder you have such a screwed up notion of what free enterprise is.

Free enterprise was behind the expansion of the Roman Empire, Egyptian Empire, Sumeria, etc.

Again, support this.

The idea that free-enterprise solves everything is as stupid as the idea that collectivism solves everything.

Agreed. Now all you have to do is show where anyone said that free enterprise solves everything.

Capitalism was behing the virtual extinction of the natives of the Americas. Capitalism was behind WWI. Capitlaism was behind the conflicts with China, capitalism was behind the Spanish-American War, War of 1812, the wars in Nicoragua, Venezuela, Panama, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, etc.

Support, please.

 

[shanek]

How is this demonstrable? Any history book I've studied lists multiple factors that lead to WWI, such as colonial rivalry, convoluted diplomacy, ethnic tensions and arms races. I've never once seen capitalism cited.

Actually, the main trigger for all of this was the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand by ethnic Serbs in Austria, and Austria decided to go to war with Serbia as a result. The political ties and treaties of countries allied with Austria and Serbia brought them all in against each other, and poof! Instant world war.

What that has to do with capitalism completely escapes me.

BS. I fail to see how an increase in someone's wealth has to come at the suffering or death of someone else.

It doesn't. Malachi, like all Marxists/socialists/whatever, think of wealth as a limited pool, and anyone who takes from the pool leaves less for everyone else. But it doesn't work that way. The potential for wealth is unlimited; and the creation of wealth in the economy invariably leads to the creation of more wealth.

Nonsense. WWI was decidedly unprofitable for Britain. It lost it's overseas markets, and because of the high cost of the war turned from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. In the 1930's Mussolini led Italy on some victorious military campaigns against some fairly soft opponents, and wrecked the Italian economy iin the process.

Actually, history has shown that war is very, very bad for an economy, even if you're the victor. Whenever there appears to be an exception to this, there's always another reason. For example, it wasn't World War II per se that brought us out of the Great Depression; it was that the Government demand for money to make the war machines pressured the Federal Reserve into releasing its stranglehold on the money supply, which is what created the Depression and kept it going in the first place.