A few more words about investing. I do think that some forms of investing make sense. Basically, from the perspective of doing what’s best for society, it makes sense that some people would still accrue greater wealth than they actually need — for instance if, through their ingenuity, they were to make some part of the economic process more efficient and therefore make it so that everyone has to work less in order to produce the same amount of goods. If someone’s good idea is able to do that, great - give them a share of the new capital that’s generated. And in that case, it’s also great if that new capital is then lent to other businesses, which is the fundamental act of investing.
The question is: are people lending their additional wealth because they want to support new businesses that can help meet people’s needs, or are they doing so in order to draw some of the profits from that business? If it’s the latter, then they’re just trying to reap what they haven’t sowed. If it's the former, then their loan is not about making money for themselves and will tend in the direction of becoming a gift, of charging little to no interest on the loan.
Of course, the line between the two is drawn within the investor (it's the difference between a selfish and a selfless motivation), so it's hard for anyone else to judge. Nor do we really need to judge in any individual case. I don't think it's useful. But nonetheless, in an economy that tells everyone to get as much as they can for themselves, I think it's easy to see that this is the point of, by far, the majority of investing.
A joy to read, Seth! I was struck by the irony - for stay-at-home-(mostly)-mothers - of your question, "For instance, on this topic the main question still remaining is how do we fully separate work and income ... ?" Labors of love - physically caring for infants or ill/aging relatives - is not financially compensated. The same is true of 'starving artists'. Can we accept that crass greed and self-serving is the engine that runs capitalism? Could we also accept that crass misogyny and moral judgment is the engine that runs the 'welfare queen' meme? We call people who choose to get paid to 'fight for their country' "war heroes". At some point, dear Seth, when it fits in with a thread you're otherwise developing, I'd love to unpack this matter - the matter of uniting mother's work with income - without making baby-making a market product! :-) Many thanks for opening conversations.
Hey Joan - I've looked a little into the question of paying mothers, but not for awhile. I agree that their work should definitely be fully supported, and it would be interesting to look at the different proposals and what their effects would be. One of the ways that Steiner talks about separating work and income, for instance, is that people should just take on a position and be compensated for the work associated with it, and not be paid hourly or anything like that. Let them take up some function that's needed, and then give them the freedom as they see fit. He actually gives the example of the army - people join the army, have some rank or position and have all their needs met while they're doing the work, but they're never paid directly for the work.
"The soldier receives his maintenance, then he has to work; but he is not paid directly for his work, but because as a human being he holds a certain position. That is the point. That is the most essential social principle, that the product of labor should be completely separated from the provision of maintenance, at least in a certain sphere of social relationship... (Lecture 8 in "Historical Background for the Formation of Judgement on the Social Question.")
It's funny that the government works along such lines and not along the purely capitalist model that they otherwise promote. So it's clearly not pie-in-the-sky.
It's important to mention that this dynamic obviously shifts when it's a purely commercial setting, when it all depends on commodities being bought and sold (and of course everything constantly needs to be re-adapted to existing sensibilities and circumstances). And I'd imagine it would also shift with supporting the activities of parenting, elder care, etc, though perhaps not as dramatically as with commercial activities.
Anyways, would be happy to hear your thoughts on it if you want to share more here, or perhaps we'll get more into the nitty gritty of it in later articles. All the best.
A few more words about investing. I do think that some forms of investing make sense. Basically, from the perspective of doing what’s best for society, it makes sense that some people would still accrue greater wealth than they actually need — for instance if, through their ingenuity, they were to make some part of the economic process more efficient and therefore make it so that everyone has to work less in order to produce the same amount of goods. If someone’s good idea is able to do that, great - give them a share of the new capital that’s generated. And in that case, it’s also great if that new capital is then lent to other businesses, which is the fundamental act of investing.
The question is: are people lending their additional wealth because they want to support new businesses that can help meet people’s needs, or are they doing so in order to draw some of the profits from that business? If it’s the latter, then they’re just trying to reap what they haven’t sowed. If it's the former, then their loan is not about making money for themselves and will tend in the direction of becoming a gift, of charging little to no interest on the loan.
Of course, the line between the two is drawn within the investor (it's the difference between a selfish and a selfless motivation), so it's hard for anyone else to judge. Nor do we really need to judge in any individual case. I don't think it's useful. But nonetheless, in an economy that tells everyone to get as much as they can for themselves, I think it's easy to see that this is the point of, by far, the majority of investing.
A joy to read, Seth! I was struck by the irony - for stay-at-home-(mostly)-mothers - of your question, "For instance, on this topic the main question still remaining is how do we fully separate work and income ... ?" Labors of love - physically caring for infants or ill/aging relatives - is not financially compensated. The same is true of 'starving artists'. Can we accept that crass greed and self-serving is the engine that runs capitalism? Could we also accept that crass misogyny and moral judgment is the engine that runs the 'welfare queen' meme? We call people who choose to get paid to 'fight for their country' "war heroes". At some point, dear Seth, when it fits in with a thread you're otherwise developing, I'd love to unpack this matter - the matter of uniting mother's work with income - without making baby-making a market product! :-) Many thanks for opening conversations.
Hey Joan - I've looked a little into the question of paying mothers, but not for awhile. I agree that their work should definitely be fully supported, and it would be interesting to look at the different proposals and what their effects would be. One of the ways that Steiner talks about separating work and income, for instance, is that people should just take on a position and be compensated for the work associated with it, and not be paid hourly or anything like that. Let them take up some function that's needed, and then give them the freedom as they see fit. He actually gives the example of the army - people join the army, have some rank or position and have all their needs met while they're doing the work, but they're never paid directly for the work.
"The soldier receives his maintenance, then he has to work; but he is not paid directly for his work, but because as a human being he holds a certain position. That is the point. That is the most essential social principle, that the product of labor should be completely separated from the provision of maintenance, at least in a certain sphere of social relationship... (Lecture 8 in "Historical Background for the Formation of Judgement on the Social Question.")
It's funny that the government works along such lines and not along the purely capitalist model that they otherwise promote. So it's clearly not pie-in-the-sky.
It's important to mention that this dynamic obviously shifts when it's a purely commercial setting, when it all depends on commodities being bought and sold (and of course everything constantly needs to be re-adapted to existing sensibilities and circumstances). And I'd imagine it would also shift with supporting the activities of parenting, elder care, etc, though perhaps not as dramatically as with commercial activities.
Anyways, would be happy to hear your thoughts on it if you want to share more here, or perhaps we'll get more into the nitty gritty of it in later articles. All the best.
Maybe I was not a "stay-at-home mom" but a "starving mom-artist". :-)
Well articulated Seth!