How to explain intellectuals' millennia-long disdain for commerce?

[The Very Man Himself]

Anyone know if, or think that the disdain is reciprocated, or is the merchant class simply preoccupied with other matters? Or, are non-intellectuals uninterested in matters of hierarchy?

[jertheber]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

It's not all of academia, I mean there are business schools.

I actually think it's a minority of rabble rousers, who are louder than others. However I also think it's fair to say that Marxism has been kept alive in the west since 1991 by university faculty.

I'm more curious why commerce is seen as dirty by so many, especially those who are well educated and probably know more about the economy than the average person. We all want and need the things commerce provides. Why is providing them dirty?

I'll chime in with the observation that millions of Americans think of the early day mercantile class as the progenitor of a modern corporatocracy that has replaced a large portion of our democracy. That corporate cabal has been able to influence our government policies through the use of their wealth, totally circumventing any of that pesky democratic process. While the commoners vote, the wealthy pay to play. This long running theme in US politics has been the reason for most of the corporate criticism among those who have known the truth regarding the plutocratic tendencies in American government policies.

To say that this criticism is exclusively leveled by the "intellectual" class seems to be countered by the fact that Trump managed to coalesce a very vocal choir of dissent with regard to US corporate power undermining the US labor force, all the while painting the Dems and GOP as nothing more than corporate lackeys. His outlier status was bolstered by the notion that he couldn't be "bought" by special corporate interests. These Trump supporters were actually in the anti intellectual camp, fitting in with the facade of Trump as the aw shucks Maverick of US politics.

Marxism: Marx was an early critic of the crude collective of capitalists and the Russian brutish oligarchs that were prominent in his lifetime, that Marx and Engels met in 1844 should be a first clue as to their relevance in these modern times. Today we see the truth of corporate power in government, and we can see it plainly without ever reading as much as one word of Marx and Engels' writings. As for jealousy, there is undoubtedly some human emotion surrounding the reality of living in a have-and-have not society, but after the 2016 election I'd have to say it looks more like righteous anger than anything remotely connected with jealousy..

On a side note: In speaking with old friends who are college educated, I have never heard any reference to Marx or Engels, but dredging up those guys to make one's point is a popular meme among those who assume a flawless American capitalistic construct--as a reality. It's corporatism that gets the attention of the average American, they hate the idea that our government can be just another corporate acquisition. I don't see much animosity toward the small companies or family enterprises, again, it's big business and their tendency toward monopoly that is in the sights of American malcontents.

[HJ99]

Originally Posted by sheena12

I see absolutely no connection between Intellectuals, tradesmen, and farmers. Do you? Where does real estate go on this spectrum? Law? Medicine? Why does work have to be with one's hands for it to be valid?

Because middlemen offer little increase in value, they take percentage for facilitation.... Workers produce, leaders lead. Middlemen just take a cut of the profits. "Telephone sanitizers" at their finest.

Unfortunately we are evolving to where work is looked down upon, the "smart people" disdain getting their hands dirty and just want a slice of the pie for facilitation and their false sense of entitlement cause of their outwitting the peasants. Alas just like not everybody can be an Indian chief, not everybody can be a facilitator.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by Avondalist

I don't know how far back never extends for you but I don't think this is true.

There was no shortage of societies that elevated the landlord-tenant relationship or other oppressive arrangements, above say your small-time shopkeeper trying to eke out a living.

You see this even today, with investors generally being higher status than businesspeople, and among those who make distinctions between "finance" and "industry", to say nothing of small business. I don't think it's just that people's activities may oppress the poor. There's also an element of having to work in the trenches that is distasteful to some.

If work is novel or complicated it will attract intellectuals, even if it's exploitative. However honest work that is dull will be looked down on.

You've kind of bounced around a lot of ways, but haven't addressed the issue that several people have brought up in varied terms: Fundamentally, it's about honesty and integrity in business dealings in what is essentially a balance of power situation. When commerce gets out of balance between one side to a transaction and the other, that's where the issue lies. When one side can essentially issue a "take it or leave it" deal, it's out of control.

That's the issue you need to address.

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

Anyone know if, or think that the disdain is reciprocated, or is the merchant class simply preoccupied with other matters? Or, are non-intellectuals uninterested in matters of hierarchy?

In the US? Intellectuals are looked at not just with disdain, but outright hostility and sometimes hatred. All the terms we use daily -- bookworm, ivory Tower, nerd, heck even the word "intellectual" itself is used in a manner dripping with disdain in this country.

[Avondalist]

Originally Posted by tnff

You've kind of bounced around a lot of ways, but haven't addressed the issue that several people have brought up in varied terms: Fundamentally, it's about honesty and integrity in business dealings in what is essentially a balance of power situation. When commerce gets out of balance between one side to a transaction and the other, that's where the issue lies. When one side can essentially issue a "take it or leave it" deal, it's out of control.

That's the issue you need to address.

Let's take a situation where a merchant has a warehouse and stores up foodstuffs for later. Then a famine occurs.

The popular take is that the merchant should charge the same price as during a normal season, and raising prices would be price gouging.

But from the merchant's perspective, others could have salted away for such an event but chose not to. The merchant, whether by foresight or luck, has successfully smoothed out supply shocks and allowed others to survive. He has husbanded resources when others were consuming and prevented a catastrophe from being worse. And by husbanding resources, he was adding information to the market that was good information.

Is the merchant in the wrong for charging higher prices during a famine? Had the merchant not stored away a surplus, the price of food during the fat years would have been even lower owing to the greater supply. Society doesn't complain when the merchant lowers prices during times of plenty, but they do complain when he raises prices during lean times. The merchant and his customers are both responding to the exogenous event of the famine, only the merchant is responding more wisely. He should be rewarded for that. Some merchants would try to abuse this power, but most would probably increase prices somewhat but not to the maximum they could get away with.

I do agree that monopoly or cartel behavior is a social transgression and is worthy of regulation. I'm not a laissez faire libertarian. If a supplier can corner the market and set prices, that is bad.

Using a more contemporary example, I remember coworkers of mine bashing Uber surge pricing. They said that's the inevitable result of an unregulated taxi industry. Regulations against surge pricing and surge pricing are just different ways of rationing a scarce good however. The first uses a lottery (first person to hail a cab wins) while the second uses ability to pay as the rationing mechanism. The illusion is that without surge pricing the traditional taxi industry would not be rationing. Rather you just wouldn't be able to hail a cab and would blame bad luck. But with surge pricing you can get a cab if you really want one, you'll just have to pay more. That is a more transparent way of communicating the shortage to consumers and allowing them to make an informed decision. I think it's a superior mechanism.

Many people see the higher price and think "price gouging" when really Uber is just rationing a scarce resource. Suppliers get blamed when supply runs short even if they have no control over supply shocks or demand shocks. That is why much of the criticism of merchants is unfair. The accusations of collusion and price fixing always fly fast when what's really happening is probably just a rational supply-demand adjustment.

Changing gears, I would also like to point out that taxation and rent are take it or leave it proposals with even more dire consequences for leaving the deal than going without a tradable good. And historically taxation was probably a bigger burden on the populace than price gouging by merchants. Merchants get a bad reputation because you can badmouth them with relatively few consequences. Try badmouthing the king and his taxes.

[rwocmo]

My teacher in college, a fearsome intellect and one of the greatest violinists and teachers in the world (and with a global reach of influence), asked me why I was spending my time taking professional orchestra auditions.

I answered, Because I needed a job, and the money that went with it.

“Money!!?” he shouted, “What do you need with money!? Some of the most successful people I’ve known never made any money!” (yes, he was extraordinarily high-energy).

And for the record, he grew up in extreme wealth. His family emptied their fortune escaping Berlin in the late 1930s. Even as a youth, though, he held the intellectual/artistic life to be of paramount importance.

[Jewel City Joe]

Earlier in post #17 I mentioned the book "The Ecology of Commerce". There wasn't much of a waiting list for it at my public library. Amazing book that any one in business should be required to read, if they can just quit ringing their cash register long enough.

The other day the library called and a book I've been waiting on for months for was finally waiting for me to pick up. "Nomad Land". (yeah yeah...I know...there is always going to be poor people.....as the Great Reagan once said in one of his famous mis-quotes of Adam Smith......"People are poor cause they choose to be". Smith said , "People are poor because of the choices they make".....not that choosing to deliberately be poor was what he, "Smith", had in mind when he spoke of errant choices.)

"Nomad Land" became a Movie and swept the awards recently. It is timely and if you only read into the first
100 pages you'll be able to see why. In recent decades business & commerce has enjoyed good fortune and glory and that may be seen as the above water part of the iceberg. Nomad Land will take you on a tour of the underwater part of that iceberg. It's interesting to see how some of our new Billionaire rocket boys have made the money for their new toys. It's done with a High Tech Dystopian business model where before long even the non Intellectual's will come to disdain commerce. It's happening now with this new wave of young digital nomads who have developed a strong sense of distrust for conventional commerce. And as "Boomers" fade from existence, the "this is the way we've always done it commerce crowd" may find themselves confronted with a new kind of "wage slave" resistant work force. (who may have read both of these books I've listed)

Remember, in past decades (prior to 1995, there was no internet where young people could talk and read about this stuff. Those born after 1995, the "iGen" kids, are now in mid 20's and with an increasing disdain
for the "Greedy Geysers" they see as only wanting to systematically exploit them. Just look at all the "Now Hiring" signs and big sign on bonuses being offered while employers complain to News Camera people that "people just don't want to work today". In the end these iGen kids may become the new Bohemians who go their own way and leave so many in traditional commerce lost and confused. Corporate growth & retention will likely become a criteria investors use in making their decisions. This will have considerable impact on access to money business can borrow if they can't keep an organization together.

[Listener2307]

How to explain intellectuals' millennia-long disdain for commerce? (military, economic, education)

Indicating intellectual status for yourself seems to require that you hold virtually everything in contempt. Except for your own ideas, of course. Your ideas, if implemented, would solve all problems.