Heinlein The Economist

[Rand]

{omitted} It's hard to imagine that happening with other Heinlein books such as The Puppet Masters, Double Star, Space Cadet, Tunnel in the Sky, Starship Troopers, etc.

Seems like your thoughts were focusing on his early work and his juveniles, essentially pre or non philosophical works. I was thinking more along the lines of Farnham's Freehold, Time Enough For Love, I Will Fear No Evil, The Number Of The Beast, and other later works where he spouts opinions about everything under the sun, in this dimension or the next. That goes a long way toward explaining why our opinions are so different.

-- And, actually, I just feel compelled to add that this was in the context of the thread. It's easy to get bogged down in philosophical aspects of Heinlein and lose sight of the most important thing: that he was a Damn Fine Writer, which is the main reason he deserves to be read extensively.

Agreed on both points.

Hence what could be considered the summary of Heinlein's economic position, TANSTAAFL.

That's how I was thinking of it. No socialism, no handouts, no bailouts, no government provided old age pensions. If a company is failing, then they find a way out of it on their own or they can go bankrupt. If a person is broke, then he needs to get himself back on his feet through his own devices or feel free to starve. Economically, that seems like a strong American conservative republican policy, although some forms of libertarianism also have a very similar stance to the republican one and do tend to be more elitist - one of the few things about Heinlein that I'm not especially fond of.

 

[J-Sun]

This could be appended to many threads or start one of its own, but I figure it's relevant here. I haven't read the Doctorow story (and won't listen to a podcast) so know nothing about it but the article has some interesting bits aside from that and maybe podcast listeners would be interested. Discusses Heinlein's importance, specifically of Starship Troopers and the more proper juveniles, and takes a particularly economic slant in "arguing" with him - continuing the internal science fictional debate - with Haldeman's (much more than) "response" to ST and now Cory Doctorow's response to Farmer in the Sky.

Arguing with Heinlein

 

[Erling]

Has anyone tried to analyse Heinlein's criticism of marxism, which we can see at first chapters of Starship Troopers?
His arguments claim to be groundbreaking, but indeed they only show that Heinlein hasn't ever try to analyse marxism unbiased.

Example:
"Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value".

But Marx has never confirmed that totally uneffective labour creates value:

"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value". Das Kapital, chapter 1, section 1.

 

[Nightspore]

From what I've read about him and seen reflected a little bit in his stories is that he was, like several other science fiction writers, a proponent of libertarian ideology and free markets.

I tend to agree, he was a libertarian to the point of being utilitarian.

 

[Nightspore]

Has anyone tried to analyse Heinlein's criticism of marxism, which we can see at first chapters of Starship Troopers?
His arguments claim to be groundbreaking, but indeed they only show that Heinlein hasn't ever try to analyse marxism unbiased.

Example:
"Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value".

But Marx has never confirmed that totally uneffective labour creates value:

"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value". Das Kapital, chapter 1, section 1.

I don't think that Heinlein had a very accurate view of Marxism.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think Heinlein was not simple minded enough to be a Libertarian. In For Us, the Living and Beyond this Horizon Heinlein recognized that technology would continuously change the economy. He also made remarks about the auto industry in the year 2000 in The Door into Summer.

It is 44 years after the Moon landing and what do Libertarians say about planned obsolescence? Citizens of the US and every other country lose how much on the depreciation of automobiles every year? Oh, the entire economics profession forgets to mention that every year.

But Heinlein said that a competent man should know how to do accounts. I asked a Libertarian what he thought of mandatory accounting in the schools. He said nothing should be mandatory. But a socialist came up with a different excuse. He said the math in accounting would make capitalism seem logical.

So most talk about economics is really people rationalizing their personal philosophy. The Laws of Physics does not care. Machines wear out everywhere.

But Heinlein somewhat came off the soapbox after Beyond this Horizon and For Us, the Living wasn't published until 2003. It is intellectually interesting if not very entertaining. Libertarians mostly mention The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. But now we do have the problem of what tablet technology can/will do to us. We could have had a National Recommended Reading List decades ago. If teachers don't want to make such a list then why should we expect good recommendations for content to put on these tablets. The technology does not decide what to do with itself.

 

[j d worthington]

Actually, a lot of the answers to these questions can be found in the Heinlein biography by William Patterson*, which shows his evolving views on such matters. He certainly wasn't a libertarian of the modern stripe, but he was very much a libertarian in the older sense, and in various ways, helped formulate that party's views. However, they've taken certain things so far right that he would have little use for many of their current positions, I think....

*Robert A. Heinlein in Dialogue with His Century. Unfortunately, only the first volume (Learning Curve) has been published so far, but it is a fascinating read....

 

[psikeyhackr]

I reread the Door into Summer a while back. This refreshed my memory about Heinlein on cars in the year 2000.

First you must remember that the story was written in 13 days and published as a serial in 1956. The setting of the story was 1970 and the year 2000.

Heinlein writes that in 2000 many cars are manufactured to be destroyed, but since they are being deliberately destroyed most are not even well made. It is make work to keep people busy for the sake of the so called economy.

The play Death of a Saleman came out in 1949 and the movie in 1951.

But even today most economists do not talk about planned obsolescence. I would think at least since the Moon landing that people would figure out that all discussion of economics without including that factor is nonsense. I think we should have had a 3-day work week by 1990 and 80+ percent of Americans should have had their home paid for.

But this system depends on artificial competition. I am supposed to care that my car is better than yours and not think of all of them as useless variations in technologically obsolete junk. There was a movie in the 1960s about turbine cars. A turbine car almost won the Indy 500 in 1968. Then turbines were banned. To this day I don't really know why. Or why we never got turbine cars.

Funny how they seem to work so well in airliners. We don't have rustproof cars either.

http://www.unmuseum.org/notescurator/b3heinlein.htm

psik

 

[Fried Egg]

It is 44 years after the Moon landing and what do Libertarians say about planned obsolescence? Citizens of the US and every other country lose how much on the depreciation of automobiles every year? Oh, the entire economics profession forgets to mention that every year.

I think this conspiracy of silence that you seem to believe applies to libertarians and the economics profession in general on the subject of planned obsolescence exists largely in your own mind. It does not take long to google up any number of economic papers and articles on the subject if one is so inclined. The truth is, it's just not that important an issue in economics. There are far bigger problems that they are wrestling with.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

I'm not too sure about Heinlein, but according to "Prophets of Science Fiction" off of the Science Channel, Heinlein was a strong Republican (60's style) that was pretty freaked out by the hippies camping out in his lawn after 'A Stranger in a Strange Land' came out. Also, according to the show, he was a 'sink or swim' practitioner.


On a personal note, I'm glad that accounting wasn't included as a mandatory class in High School. I'm pretty bad at math, and I'd still be stuck in school now.


I don't mind people having paid off their houses, but if it's the government doing the paying, well there's a reason that rent houses aren't kept in the best condition. People tend to not respect something that they were given, or own out-right.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It does not take long to google up any number of economic papers and articles on the subject if one is so inclined. The truth is, it's just not that important an issue in economics. There are far bigger problems that they are wrestling with.

Lots of things are easy to Google, especially if you already know about them.

Stay Free! Daily: Are consumer products made to break? An interview with author Giles Slade

Try finding it in an economics textbook used in a school.

Name a couple of these far bigger problems. If Demand Side Depreciation is never computed and reported then how can we know how big it is? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1995. At $1,500 in depreciation per car per year, that is $300,000,000,000 per year just for the United States and only for cars. What are you suggesting is bigger?

Heinlein's economics also comes up in Citizen of the Galaxy, but it is a rather different perspective.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Also, according to the show, he was a 'sink or swim' practitioner.

On a personal note, I'm glad that accounting wasn't included as a mandatory class in High School. I'm pretty bad at math, and I'd still be stuck in school now.

I don't mind people having paid off their houses, but if it's the government doing the paying, well there's a reason that rent houses aren't kept in the best condition.

I think Heinlein was a lot more complicated than people who want to use him to push their ideology want to portray him. In 1934 he worked to get Upton Sinclair elected as governor. When he ran for political office and lost he was not running as a Republican. His first novel that went unpublished for decades, For Us the Living, does not seem very Republican. Being able to do accounts was part of his definition of a competent human being.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

I think that is a bit much, but double-entry accounting is 700 years old. I have an accounting book that sold for $100. I didn't pay that. But it does not have the basic accounting equation until page 46. Depreciation does not turn up until beyond page 400. What is rather simple but tedious without a computer is made to look complicated.

psik

 

[Fried Egg]

Name a couple of these far bigger problems. If Demand Side Depreciation is never computed and reported then how can we know how big it is? There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1995. At $1,500 in depreciation per car per year, that is $300,000,000,000 per year just for the United States and only for cars. What are you suggesting is bigger?

I'm happy to discuss this with you but I worry that doing so will take this thread too far off topic. Another thread in an appropriate forum and I'll be there!

 

[JoanDrake]

For years I thought this quote: "Authors have a term for those who think that their character's opinions must be exactly the same as the author's. That term is 'idiot'" was Heinleins, but lately I hear it is Niven's and some even attribute it to Orson Scott Card. Nonetheless, it applies to Heinlein awfully well. He was fully as skillful as George Martin in making his characters do the unexpected and always keeping you guessing as to what he would write next.


I've always understood, to keep the Martin comparison going, that he didn't think the libertarian, sink or swim conditions he described a lot were so much what he advocated as what he thought would have to evolve given Space exploration.


Heinlein's heroes are...well...heroic. They're also often so goddam smug about it that they're generally completely insufferable as human beings. I find this a major flaw in his work but it's a major flaw in a lot of writers and fairly easy to overlook once you let yourself get caught up in the sense of wonder and the scientific accuracy of his stuff.


I think it comes from the fact that a lot of his stuff was "juvenile" literature, and very tightly regulated by his editors strictly for an audience of 1950's teenagers. Once he started writing for adults his protagonists rather slowly became a lot more human.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Libertatian?

Indeed, Heinlein's famed libertarianism had limits, moderated and enriched by compassion, pragmatism and a profound faith that human beings can improve themselves, gradually, by their own diligence and goodwill. A libertarianism of the compassionately practical variety preached by Adam Smith and the American Founders, not by psychopathic lunatics like Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand.

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2015/01/robert-heinlein-and-looking-beyond-this.html

psik

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Thanks for that link, psik! Toward the end, there, it's exactly how I've always felt about Heinlein -- people say he preached, but I've always felt that urge to argue in him, instead. He argued with himself frequently, after all. I always see a lively mind behind his books, just waiting for a good debate.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Here is some info on Heinlein in 1941 and what he thought of Science Fiction.

http://home.windstream.net/dwrighsr/General Semantics/Compare GOH SPEECH-04.pdf

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

I find this really funny considering that so many Libertarians hold Heinlein up as a Libertarian icon.

A libertarian think tank just gave up on libertarianism
A libertarian think tank just gave up on libertarianism

My reading of Heinlein leads me to think that he was smarter and more practical than most people who call themselves Libertarian.

 

[Mirannan]

Regarding Heinlein's position on incest: He pretty much explicitly said that (for his characters, at least) the incest taboo was reasonable - in primitive societies with no birth control and no genetic counseling, anyway. However, if birth control is taken care of and/or genetic compatibility is assured, then some at least of the reason for that taboo goes away.

Various royal families in Europe tried to "keep it in the family" with predictable results. Again as Heinlein said, inbreeding as a way of improving the breed actually works - but only if the defectives are culled, as most certainly did not happen among European royals. BTW culling does not mean having to kill the defectives - but it does mean not letting them breed.

Incidentally, something like this (but less extreme) seems to apply to first cousin marriage as well. We can see this from British NHS statistics, where children of such marriages (common in the South Asian community) are ten times as likely to have "special educational needs" than others. This impacts social policy, detrimentally.

 

[Parson]

Interesting discussion that I missed the first time around. I feel that part of Heinlein's objective in writing about incest was to shock people of conventional convictions into thinking about the source and logic of the conventional conviction. I also suspect that on some level he wanted to justify some of his inclinations and possibly some of his actions. I LOVED his stuff as an adolescent but as an adult when I acquired some more critical analysis skills I started find him to be an entertaining but preachy in a dangerous way morally and socially. Things I glibly accepted at 18, I now see to be seriously misguided. I want a kinder and gentler society than the one Heinlein seemed to promote.