This is per capita GDP growth in America from 1810 to 2010, factored to the value of the 1990 USD.
I’d like to point out that the Gilded Age is typically said to have begun around 1866 after the Civil War ended, which allowed railroads to expand across the entire continental United States.
I’d like to point out that the chat Rcder posted has a logarithmic scale.
Also, the Gilded Age was hardly free of government intervention.
It should also be noted that this growth was completely unprecedented. From that graph it looks as if, “oh, there was some growth in the 1800, but nothing extraordinary”. But if you’d continue the graph back to say 1700, it would have been flat until the late 1700s, then shooting up in a hockey stick.
It is also interesting to look at some of the anecdotal evidence of how the 19th century was filled with innovation that made the average persons life better.
And it is important to be aware that much of the 20th centuries growth was in a way an aftereffect of inventions that were made in the 1800s, e.g. petroleum and cars.
It should also be noted that the laissez-faire era was remarkably peaceful, while the Progressive era saw this explosion of violence.
Clearly, if average GDP went up by multiples, it couldn’t just have been white people getting rich at the expense of blacks and indians. I’m not saying they weren’t disadvantaged, but their standard of living went up too. And if the lacking performance of those groups shows anything, it is that not being able to participate in the market is really bad for you.
The 19th century growth was truly staggering. We must definitely say that the standard of living rose - especially since the conditions allowed a much greater amount of people to actually live. The increased population in this period was a result of the existence of new methods with which these people could sustain themselves (‘wage slavery’ lol).
Also - as an obvious sidenote - I think the 1930-1950 period on that graph should be ignored, since the increased GDP is simply a reflection of massive increase of government spending (i.e. increased dollars without any necessary reflection of real wealth).
That’s what I was saying. But @Laotzu del Zinn changed my mind:
I think he’s right when he says: 'Even if we had replicators, in a capitalist society, the “owners” of said replicators could arbitrarily, and subject to no demcoratic control, decide who gets what and when.’ So I would say that in most cases the selling of one’s labour is a consequence of private ownership. I’m not making a deductive argument, the conclusion having to be true when the premises are true. Instead, I think most of the time we ‘have’ to sell our labour.
Technically speaking, you could argue that one’s own time and effort should be considered as part of the means of production. But I wasn’t using it so broadly. I was referring to the machines, tools, factories and so on which produce. By scarcity do you mean something which is unlimited?
This reminds me of the definition of happiness; is it the absense of pain, or the introduction of pleasure? Like with freedom of speech, the former is a negative; and the latter, like the freedom to subsistance, a positive. I understand the idea that there is no justification for obligation. For example, if I were walking along the side of swimming pool and there was a person drowning, I’m not sure if there is any obligation on myself to jump in. The parallel I can draw with the stealing of food to survive is that the person who is being stolen from is a good swimmer. However, despite the lack of apparent obligation to jump into the pool I would still argue that if I were a good enough swimmer, then I should jump in. But now we are back to subjective morality.
Yeah sure. By economic self-determination I mean the freedom to determine oneself in relation to work. By political self-determination I mean the freedom to determine one’s community in relation to social and political decisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Absolute_poverty.
I was grouping them together to show the necessity of our subsistance.
Not that it will, only that it is possible. But I don’t feel I can add anything more to that.
You two have not understood the first thing about free markets, that the outcome is systemic, not arbitrary. Owners of replicators in a free market propertarian society would be subjected to competition, and could not dispose of the output of their free will. Their products would be nearly free and they would not earn any profit except for the value they create by bringing together the necessary productive factors. They might even make a loss.
In a non-propertarian society here wouldn’t be replicators in the first place, because society couldn’t coordinate the production of such complicated machines. Again, you people treat production as if it just happens somehow, without any need for resource allocation or coordination, and the only question is how to fairly distribute the spoils. Under socialism (any brand) technology stagnates, unless it can copy from a propertarian society. What good is it if everything is free if there isn’t any stuff? It is better to have to pay for stuff that you can get than for it to be free but there isn’t any. Money is just a method of allocation, having to pay for stuff does not make us poorer, although we might abhor it psychologically.
But they don’t even have an answer for that one too.
First off, you haven’t explained why selling one’s labor is a consequence of private ownership in most cases. Second, if you’re not making a deductive argument against private ownership, then you must not be opposed to private ownership per se. So what exactly are you opposed to? Third, the “democratic control” that you and Laotzu refer to is simply substituting joint ownership for individual ownership. Either way, it’s still private (i.e. exclusive) ownership, unless every single human being is involved in the decision-making.
So you only mean external objects that can be used in production? I see no reason not to include one’s own time and effort as means of production, but that’s just me. But since you’re defining “means of production” that way, then my point about scarcity definitely holds. The issue you refer to - more people than external objects that can be used in production - is typically called scarcity in economics. However, even one’s own time and effort are scarce, because 1) they’re limited in an absolute sense, and 2) many (if not most) of the actions they can be employed in are mutually exclusive. With the latter point, an example is that you can’t go to the store and go to the park at the same time.
Yes, morality is most definitely subjective. However, I don’t think you’re defining the word “morality” quite the same way I am. For me, morality is about legitimate (acceptable) coercion. In your example of a person drowning, I don’t think it’s legitimate to coerce someone who refuses to help that person (unless they’re a lifeguard or the like). The same thing goes if A is starving and B refuses to give him food. Now, in both situations, I would strongly disapprove of the respective refusals, and I would avoid associating with the refuseniks to the fullest extent possible. But I would still not consider it okay to hurt them.
Positive rights interfere with negative rights, because the former are rights to obtain things that one doesn’t already have, while the latter are rights to keep things that one already has. Claiming a right to subsistence is a positive right - if one doesn’t currently have subsistence, it’s then okay for him to obtain it from others, irrespective of whether they consent to it, and by force if necessary. Obviously this interferes with those people’s negative rights to what is being taken from them.
I’m sorry, but I’m still confused in spite of your explanations. Namely, I’m wondering what you mean by “determine oneself in relation to work” and “social and political decisions”. I’m guessing you mean “the freedom to work however one wants” by the former, but I have really no idea what you mean by the latter.
Thanks, but I think that’s entirely beside my point, which was that “absolute poverty” doesn’t necessarily lead (either immediately or at a given point in the future) to death.
With all due respect, here you’re focusing on a single word and ignoring the wider context in which it’s used. Saying “if X, [then] Y will occur” is the same thing as saying that “Y is possible”. I did use the former construction, which you seem to have missed.