The Minimalist
Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 35
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
There is a moment in Forrest Gump in which a lucky storm destroys every shrimp boat save our simple protagonist's, which he'd bought with money from a ping pong endorsement, giving him a shrimp monopoly lasting enough to ultimately make him filthy rich. Perhaps I've erred in choosing a beloved character to represent injustice, but what's done is done. The question: should this feeb's fortune be seized? My answer, as I'll explain, is yes.
It's not about uncompetitive markets
Monopoly pricing is unnecessary to explain Gump's windfall. The storm multiplied the number of shrimp (and thus the profit) Gump netted per haul (and thus per contribution of labor) by the factor by which it reduced the number of shrimp boats. That would be a bonanza even if price didn't change and indeed even if some other boats remained.
It's not about incomplete markets
As the storm did not increase the rate of shrimp depletion, it didn't increase the marginal social cost of shrimping, meaning the factor by which Gump's profits increased would be no lesser if he were made to pay that cost.
It's about volatile markets
Every shrimp boat, for all we know, was bought with the wages of labor, perhaps even labor as noble as ping pong, and had the same expected value. Far from predicting the storm and thus the true value, Gump was retarded. And yet he reaped it, while his unfortunate competitors received less than the expected value, despite presumably being of normal intelligence. Furthermore, the storm did not change the value of Gump's past, ping pong labor or present, shrimping labor. It thus increased the value of Gump's capital, relative to the value of his labor, however defined, while decreasing the value of his competitors' capital, relative to the value their labor.
The Galt test
In my view, no entitlement is stable unless it passes the Galt test, which is to say that the entitled can force it by threatening to withdraw what he's entitled to or whatever is supposed to have earned it. An entitlement to one's living labor, though perhaps redundant, passes the test, because one's living labor is integral to oneself and thus it itself can be withheld at will. But when one converts that labor into capital, one is no longer integral to it and thus no longer more capable of withdrawing it from the industrial process than others. One can perhaps threaten to withhold future labor if one isn't entitled to past labor's wages in the form of capital, but that threat only has weight to the extent that one's labor retains its value relative to one's capital. To the extent that the value of one's capital loses its relation to the value of one's labor, like Gump's shrimp company did, one's threat to go Galt if one isn't entitled to it is no more credible than any threat by any madman who makes demands disproportionate to his contributions.
The remedy
Rather than remunerate labor with capital and wait for their values to diverge until capital is seized suddenly, collectivize the means of production once and for all, and remunerate consumable labor with consumable goods. That is the crux of collectivism, and this has been the Forrest Gump argument.
It's not about uncompetitive markets
Monopoly pricing is unnecessary to explain Gump's windfall. The storm multiplied the number of shrimp (and thus the profit) Gump netted per haul (and thus per contribution of labor) by the factor by which it reduced the number of shrimp boats. That would be a bonanza even if price didn't change and indeed even if some other boats remained.
It's not about incomplete markets
As the storm did not increase the rate of shrimp depletion, it didn't increase the marginal social cost of shrimping, meaning the factor by which Gump's profits increased would be no lesser if he were made to pay that cost.
It's about volatile markets
Every shrimp boat, for all we know, was bought with the wages of labor, perhaps even labor as noble as ping pong, and had the same expected value. Far from predicting the storm and thus the true value, Gump was retarded. And yet he reaped it, while his unfortunate competitors received less than the expected value, despite presumably being of normal intelligence. Furthermore, the storm did not change the value of Gump's past, ping pong labor or present, shrimping labor. It thus increased the value of Gump's capital, relative to the value of his labor, however defined, while decreasing the value of his competitors' capital, relative to the value their labor.
The Galt test
In my view, no entitlement is stable unless it passes the Galt test, which is to say that the entitled can force it by threatening to withdraw what he's entitled to or whatever is supposed to have earned it. An entitlement to one's living labor, though perhaps redundant, passes the test, because one's living labor is integral to oneself and thus it itself can be withheld at will. But when one converts that labor into capital, one is no longer integral to it and thus no longer more capable of withdrawing it from the industrial process than others. One can perhaps threaten to withhold future labor if one isn't entitled to past labor's wages in the form of capital, but that threat only has weight to the extent that one's labor retains its value relative to one's capital. To the extent that the value of one's capital loses its relation to the value of one's labor, like Gump's shrimp company did, one's threat to go Galt if one isn't entitled to it is no more credible than any threat by any madman who makes demands disproportionate to his contributions.
The remedy
Rather than remunerate labor with capital and wait for their values to diverge until capital is seized suddenly, collectivize the means of production once and for all, and remunerate consumable labor with consumable goods. That is the crux of collectivism, and this has been the Forrest Gump argument.