Hi-tech and jobs
Mason Verger
become of today's still-relevant factory workers in 10 years? Will they go
on welfare, work at Wal-mart, kill themselves? I really would like to know
what happned to all those laid off steel workers.
David K
In the cold world of economic reality, they will need to adapt to the
changing industry and find a way to offer a trade that is in demand.
"Mason Verger" <mason_...@skincare.com> wrote in message
news:%v8Sa.28211$EZ2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
David Lloyd-Jones
The number of steelworkers in the US has gone from roughly 1.1
million in Truman's time, 770,000 during the period when Engine
Charlie Wilson was strutting around spluttering really insane stuff,
paticularly the "Labor causes inflation" notion (at a time when
inflation ws maybe 2% annual), and today it may have hit 200,000. If
it hsn't yet, it will son.
Mason, I'll leave the Wal-Mart question to you. Maybe every time you
go shopping, sak the greeter at the door "Are you from Bethleham?"
"Oh, Lordie me, brother,I wish I was, but now, I'm from right here
in Waxahatchie." "I meant steel." "Steal? No, brother, some of the
officers wanted us greeters to be like security guards, but Ol' Sam
when he was alive, he said anybody wants to steal from us, it's
probably because they need it. We aim to make everything cheap
enough nobody gotta steal."
I'm sure in a day or so of solid research you could find the answer
to your own question.
* * *
If you really work on it, Mason, you'll get at the Big Secret of
economics. it is roughly as follows: everything happens at the
margin, gradually, as all the margins ease up against each other.
Engrave it onyour liver: that's what it's all about.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>>As hi-tech makes more of today's manufacturing jobs obsolete,
what >>is to become of today's still-relevant factory workers in 10
>>years? Will they go on welfare, work at Wal-mart, kill
themselves? >>I really would like to know what happned to all those
laid off >>steel workers.
David K wrote:
> In the cold world of economic reality, they will need to adapt to the
> changing industry and find a way to offer a trade that is in demand.
Two fools who know no steelworkers, and neither of whom thought of
googling on {"United Steelworkers of America", pensions}.
What's the deal here? Somebody tell me. Have the schools gone all to
hell? Have these two kids spent their entire youth playing Quake?
Or have they, to the relief of all their seniors, simply absorbed a
dumbkopf Republican view of economics with the solipsist option?
-dlj.
Alex Zeng
Yeah, how to accomodate all the excessive labor? Demand, new demand. 100
years ago, it is only a richman's luxury to have someone lawn you yard.
People are imaginative creatures. They can figure out many ways to discover
"new" taste bud. Flying cars, Segway Human Transporter, time machine, maybe
better coffin to sleep before the corpse turns rotten.
You name it. Technology simply can not catch up. What the higher tech is
doing today is figure out how to fulfil yestoday's dream.
And then they can always do some cleaning. The floor might be clean now, but
not clean enough to eat your breakfast off. What about the air? To remove
irritant in the air would be a big business to come. You know mobile grocery
is back in business, it will do the grocery shopping for you for a fee. That
will pick up a load of laid-off workers. Nurses and techers are always in
shortage.
"Mason Verger" <mason_...@skincare.com> wrote in message
news:%v8Sa.28211$EZ2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Mason Verger
Alex Zeng <alex...@comcast.net> thought hard and spewed:
> And then they can always do some cleaning. The floor might be clean
> now, but not clean enough to eat your breakfast off. What about the
> air? To remove irritant in the air would be a big business to come.
> You know mobile grocery is back in business, it will do the grocery
> shopping for you for a fee. That will pick up a load of laid-off
> workers. Nurses and techers are always in shortage.
>
I suspect that laid-off factory and soon-to-be hi-tech workers(from
relocation of jobs overseas to INdia), will be too dispirited with the
downgrade in standard of living, and many may choose suicide as a viable
option.
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> I suspect that laid-off factory and soon-to-be hi-tech workers(from
> relocation of jobs overseas to INdia), will be too dispirited with the
> downgrade in standard of living, and many may choose suicide as a viable
> option.
Since the displacement of the unskilled and the wrong-skilled has
been going on steadily for maybe 40,000 years, you'd be suspecting
something new in human history.
-dlj.
jonah thomas
Would it be new? I remember my mother once opened the back of an old
painting and found some newspaper stuffed into it from the 1870's. (I
remember it as the 1870's, maybe it was the 1890's?) There was an
article talking about some unemployed people who valiantly chose to help
solve the vagrancy problem by drinking wood alcohol and killing themselves.
Do suicide rates go up in depressions? Certainly they go down in wars,
but....
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> Would it be new? I remember my mother once opened the back of an old
> painting and found some newspaper stuffed into it from the 1870's. (I
> remember it as the 1870's, maybe it was the 1890's?) There was an
> article talking about some unemployed people who valiantly chose to help
> solve the vagrancy problem by drinking wood alcohol and killing themselves.
Jonah,
It seems there were Bob Kolkers getting into print back in the 1870's.
> Do suicide rates go up in depressions? Certainly they go down in wars,
> but....
Dunno about suicide rates.
Factoid du jour: the healthiest thing that ever happened to Europe
is apparently the starvation of Amsterdam during the Allies'
invasion, Seems it cut heart disease to a nubbin for a generation.
-dlj.
Grinch
As new technology made 96% of the US's farming jobs obsolete, what
happened? Mass suicide?
Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming once, now
it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of farming
while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and higher quality.
Is the US worse off or better off for it?
Is 50% of the US population unemployed, on welfare, dead by suicide?
Exactly the same thing is happening in manufacturing.
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>
> It seems there were Bob Kolkers getting into print back in the 1870's.
Give a man a fish, you have fed him for today.
Let him starve to death, you can forget him forever.
Bob Kolker
Albert Wagner
Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming once, now
> it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of farming
> while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and higher quality.
"Technology" you say. And I thought it was agribusiness,
economy-of-scale, and all that capitialist stuff. In recent ADM ads,
they talk of "growing food where it grows best." I assume that means
some third world location. Apparently 2% isn't yet the bottom.
Albert Wagner
Not forever, Bob. Just until you die.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:22:21 -0400
>Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming once, now
>> it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of farming
>> while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and higher quality.
><snip>
>
>"Technology" you say. And I thought it was agribusiness,
>economy-of-scale, and all that capitialist stuff.
You were wrong.
>In recent ADM ads,
>they talk of "growing food where it grows best." I assume that means
>some third world location. Apparently 2% isn't yet the bottom.
At one time, getting enough food occupied over 90% of the adult
population. I like not having to do it.
-- Roy L
Grinch
wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:22:21 -0400
>Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming once, now
>> it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of farming
>> while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and higher quality.
><snip>
>
>"Technology" you say. And I thought it was agribusiness,
>economy-of-scale, and all that capitialist stuff.
Tractors and reapers are technology and "capitalist stuff" too.
If you think you'd be better off in a world without them, so that
you'd be engaged in the romantic life of subsistence farming working
behind a mule-and-plow to keep yourself alive, you are perfectly free
to move to a farm and try it out.
As Milton Friedman used to say to those who complain about how
technological advancement destroys jobs, we could end unemployment in
a day by banning technology from farms and giving everybody who wants
to eat a job digging and reaping by hand.
>In recent ADM ads,
>they talk of "growing food where it grows best." I assume that means
>some third world location.
The you'd be wrong about that as well.
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> Tractors and reapers are technology and "capitalist stuff" too.
>
During the 1930's tractors were on the the favourite subjects for
the Soviet Union's official style of art, what they called, with two
lies in the title, "socialist realism."
To truly understand the place of the tactor in the Soviet Union you
have to read the autobiography of john Schlesinger, who was Henry
Ford's top engineer during the '20's and '30's.
When Herbert Hoover, retired from the Presidency, worked in the
Soviety Union, on behalf of the Leage of Nations and United States
relief efforts, he hauled Schlesinger out of Detroit and over to
Russia to lok at the tractor situation.
Turned out that the Russians had been manufacturing what they
thought was a copy of the Ford "pigeon-toed" tractor, the machine
which had two strokes of genius about it: the two small front wheels
whih you steered down a single furrow, and the power-rake-off cast
integraly with the king spline gear which ran the read wheels when
it was not disengaged to run your sawmill, your flour mill, your
water-pump or your thresher.
The spline gear was obviously the most important part of the whole
machine, and in the Detroit metallurgy of the 1920's they hardened
it with an almost alchemical series of processes, which included
burying them for weeks in casks of hot carbon, quenching them in
vinegar, and a couple of other processes as well.
What Schlesinger found in Russia was that all those tractors weren't
sitting out in the middle of the fields to pose for pictures to be
hung in the Tretyakov Gallery, although some of them did serve this
role. They were sitting out there in the middle of the fields
because that's where they died when the Russian-made, untreated,
cast iron splines had shredded themselves.
The land was equipped from end to end with non-functioning
imitation-Ford tractors. "For want of a casting..."
* * *
Oddly, I lived through a recapitulation of this story forty years
later, when I was intriducing the coin laundry to Japan. Given the
choice of the three main makers of washing machines, Maytag, McGraw
Edison (the maker of what the public sees as Sears, Hotpoint, some
of the Westinghouses, and a bunch of other brands), and Thompson,
which was made by a section of Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge. I selected
this last a.) because their machine apparently had the simplest
design, and b.) incidentally because I'd read Si Ramo's book,
"Inertial Ballistic Guidance Systems," and worshipped the guy for
his musicianship and his managerial panache.
Bad move. Thompson machines may at one point have been simple and
reliable, but somewhere after they got merged into T-R-W they lost
track of their metallurgy, and the eccentric cam which drove the
agitator in one position, then locked in the opposite position to
make the drum spin, was no longer being made out of wrought iron or
hardened steel. It had degenerated into a soft iron casting -- just
like the bogus Russian Ford parts. Damn things stripped their teeth
in a few weeks or months, and damn near broke me as well. Thompson
folded somewhere in there, and I threw some of the machines away,
kept others running with parts scrounged on the retail repair market.
* * *
So, yeah, Jim, the capitalist tools are usually pretty good. Then
again, sometimes they get as bad as the worst of the non-capitalist
ones.
Cheers,
-dlj.
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> So, yeah, Jim, the capitalist tools are usually pretty good. Then again,
> sometimes they get as bad as the worst of the non-capitalist ones.
In many cases, a bad capitalist product is weeded out by competitive
forces in the market place. This would work for socialism just as well,
if socialist systems had the same element of competition. In "mixed
economy" socialist systems this is probably at work. In command
economies, not at all.
All things being equal, the product or service most fit for its end will
win out (well, most of the time). It may take time, but it will happen
most of the time.
What makes socialism troublesome is not the legal ownership of the means
of production. Rather it is the systme of management and its -actual-
incentives.
Bob Kolker
Albert Wagner
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:50:03 -0500, Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:22:21 -0400
> >Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming once,
> >now> it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of
> >farming> while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and higher
> >quality. <snip>
> >
> >"Technology" you say. And I thought it was agribusiness,
> >economy-of-scale, and all that capitialist stuff.
>
> You were wrong.
Just like that: "You were wrong." How persuasive. And how strange that
a "technology" could be designed to selectively drive some farmers out
of business and yet leave others prosperous. How could a tractor
possibly know who was driving it?
>
> >In recent ADM ads,
> >they talk of "growing food where it grows best." I assume that means
> >some third world location. Apparently 2% isn't yet the bottom.
>
> At one time, getting enough food occupied over 90% of the adult
> population. I like not having to do it.
That's nice. I'm sure a lot of people like the same things you you.
But what does that have to do with "technology" driving farmers out of
farming.
Albert Wagner
Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:50:03 -0500, Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:22:21 -0400
> >Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming once,
> >now> it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of
> >farming> while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and higher
> >quality. <snip>
> >
> >"Technology" you say. And I thought it was agribusiness,
> >economy-of-scale, and all that capitialist stuff.
>
> Tractors and reapers are technology and "capitalist stuff" too.
>
> If you think you'd be better off in a world without them,
Straw man. I never argued, or even implied, that.
> so that
> you'd be engaged in the romantic life of subsistence farming working
> behind a mule-and-plow to keep yourself alive, you are perfectly free
> to move to a farm and try it out.
You attack a straw man by introducing the phrase "subsistence farming
working behind a mule-and-plow." But my remarks were NOT in reply to a
condition that you introduce after the fact. I replied to your
statement:
"It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of farming."
Of course, at one time, a mule and plow were at the pinnacle of high
technology in farming. It gave a real competitive edge to anyone with
just a hoe. So your remark above is somewhat ambiguous. Are you saying
that the tractors and reapers fought some farmers yet cooperated with
others? Or that the only farmers that went out of business were the
ones too stupid to run a tractor?
> As Milton Friedman used to say to those who complain about how
> technological advancement destroys jobs, we could end unemployment in
> a day by banning technology from farms and giving everybody who wants
> to eat a job digging and reaping by hand.
This is called "from the obvious to the dubious." How, by any stretch
of the imagination, is Friedman's remark related to your statement
above?
>
> >In recent ADM ads,
> >they talk of "growing food where it grows best." I assume that means
> >some third world location.
>
> The you'd be wrong about that as well.
Another concise and well thought out reply, carefully calculated to
convince the ignorant: Just trust the Grinch.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:47:14 GMT
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:50:03 -0500, Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:22:21 -0400
>> >Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >> Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming once,
>> >now> it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of
>> >farming> while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and higher
>> >quality. <snip>
>> >
>> >"Technology" you say. And I thought it was agribusiness,
>> >economy-of-scale, and all that capitialist stuff.
>>
>> You were wrong.
>
>Just like that: "You were wrong." How persuasive.
You don't have to be persuaded. But the fact is, it's technology that
allows one modern farmer to farm five sections, where his great
grandfather couldn't farm a whole quarter.
>And how strange that
>a "technology" could be designed to selectively drive some farmers out
>of business and yet leave others prosperous.
All technologies are pretty much like that: the clever and flexible
prosper, the dull and inflexible don't.
>How could a tractor
>possibly know who was driving it?
Oh, it knows, all right. You can _see_ the difference between a
tractor that may be a little older, but is well maintained and gets a
lot of use, vs a tractor that may be new and expensive, but is poorly
maintained and mostly sits around idle.
>> >In recent ADM ads,
>> >they talk of "growing food where it grows best." I assume that means
>> >some third world location. Apparently 2% isn't yet the bottom.
>>
>> At one time, getting enough food occupied over 90% of the adult
>> population. I like not having to do it.
>
>That's nice. I'm sure a lot of people like the same things you you.
That is a very good bet, as things are in fact pretty congenial for
people like me at the moment.
>But what does that have to do with "technology" driving farmers out of
>farming.
Technology doesn't reduce the amount of work done, or the amount that
can be done by people. It just increases the amount of work that is
done more efficiently by machines.
-- Roy L
Tim Worstall
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:50:03 -0500, Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:22:21 -0400
> >Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming once, now
> >> it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of farming
> >> while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and higher quality.
> ><snip>
> >
> >"Technology" you say. And I thought it was agribusiness,
> >economy-of-scale, and all that capitialist stuff.
>
> Tractors and reapers are technology and "capitalist stuff" too.
>
> If you think you'd be better off in a world without them, so that
> you'd be engaged in the romantic life of subsistence farming working
> behind a mule-and-plow to keep yourself alive, you are perfectly free
> to move to a farm and try it out.
And of course the mule can be thought of as an evil capitalist plot as
well. Just like the terminator gene in certain biotech crops now. The
mule doesn't reporduce itself, you have to go back to the big bio (
sorry, owner of the horses and donkeys ) every few years.
And the plough ? There are those who posit that the long term ( so far
at least ) success of Anglo Saxons ( and by them I really mean that
whole group of Germanic tribes who moived into Europe around and
during the Roman Empire, western division ) was based on the iron
plough. Allowed them to farm efficiently the heavy soils that the
Celts could not.
So if you really want a no technology farming method, the mule and
plough are way to far advanced. Try the wooden plough, drawn by oxen (
yoke only, no collar ).
Then try feeding 6 billion.
Tim Worstall
Albert Wagner
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:15:52 -0500, Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:47:14 GMT
> >ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:50:03 -0500, Albert Wagner
> ><alwa...@tcac.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 23:22:21 -0400
> >> >Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> Remember, more than 50% of the US population was in farming
> >once,> >now> it is 2%. It was *technology* that drove the farmers
> >out of> >farming> while making food ever more plentiful, cheaper and
> >higher> >quality. <snip>
> >> >
> >> >"Technology" you say. And I thought it was agribusiness,
> >> >economy-of-scale, and all that capitialist stuff.
> >>
> >> You were wrong.
> >
> >Just like that: "You were wrong." How persuasive.
>
> You don't have to be persuaded. But the fact is, it's technology that
> allows one modern farmer to farm five sections, where his great
> grandfather couldn't farm a whole quarter.
Grinch argued that: "It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of
farming."
(1) The farmer wasn't in competition with his dead great-grandfather.
(2) competition wasn't mentioned as the reason for farmers leaving
farming; the reason Grinch used was "technology." Competition is
"capitalist stuff," which Grinch said was wrong. Your argument seems to
be that because a modern farmer, using technology, can farm more land
then Grinch was right in saying that technology drove the farmers out of
farming. This is a total nonsense argument considering what was being
discussed. Are you sure you read what you are replying to?
>
> >And how strange that
> >a "technology" could be designed to selectively drive some farmers
> >out of business and yet leave others prosperous.
>
> All technologies are pretty much like that: the clever and flexible
> prosper, the dull and inflexible don't.
Then it wasn't technology that drove them out of business. It was being
dull and inflexible; 96% of farmers were dull and inflexible.
>
> >How could a tractor
> >possibly know who was driving it?
>
> Oh, it knows, all right. You can _see_ the difference between a
> tractor that may be a little older, but is well maintained and gets a
> lot of use, vs a tractor that may be new and expensive, but is poorly
> maintained and mostly sits around idle.
No doubt that's correct; but it's still not addressing the issue: that
it was technology alone, it's very existence, that drove the farmers out
of farming. Or was it poor use of technology by some farmers?
<snip>
> Technology doesn't reduce the amount of work done, or the amount that
> can be done by people. It just increases the amount of work that is
> done more efficiently by machines.
So again, I don't think you realize what the issue was that you are
replying to. Was Grinch correct in saying: "It was *technology* that
drove the farmers out of farming." Is it true that 96% of farmers were
dull and inflexible? Or did the growing presence of agri-business and
government subsidies of agri-business have some little part?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
It would be difficult to conceive a more irrelevant comment.
>(2) competition wasn't mentioned as the reason for farmers leaving
>farming;
I don't know what that means. It's not competition, it's the fact
that improved technology means far fewer farmers are needed to farm
the same amount of land. Farmers competed just as much when there
were five farmers per section as they do now when there are five
sections per farmer. Subsistence farmers in Third World countries
compete, even farming just a few acres each.
>the reason Grinch used was "technology."
>Competition is "capitalist stuff," which Grinch said was wrong.
??? There was just as much competition then as now, so competition
can't be the reason for the change.
>Your argument seems to
>be that because a modern farmer, using technology, can farm more land
>then Grinch was right in saying that technology drove the farmers out of
>farming.
And which part of that do you not understand?
>This is a total nonsense argument considering what was being
>discussed. Are you sure you read what you are replying to?
?? Maybe you'd better explain what you think the issue was....
>> >And how strange that
>> >a "technology" could be designed to selectively drive some farmers
>> >out of business and yet leave others prosperous.
>>
>> All technologies are pretty much like that: the clever and flexible
>> prosper, the dull and inflexible don't.
>
>Then it wasn't technology that drove them out of business. It was being
>dull and inflexible;
Nope. Dull and inflexible worked just fine when technology was not
changing rapidly.
>96% of farmers were dull and inflexible.
No, just about 50% in each generation.
>> >How could a tractor
>> >possibly know who was driving it?
>>
>> Oh, it knows, all right. You can _see_ the difference between a
>> tractor that may be a little older, but is well maintained and gets a
>> lot of use, vs a tractor that may be new and expensive, but is poorly
>> maintained and mostly sits around idle.
>
>No doubt that's correct; but it's still not addressing the issue: that
>it was technology alone, it's very existence, that drove the farmers out
>of farming. Or was it poor use of technology by some farmers?
Of course it wasn't technology _alone_. It was the addition of
technology to the existing conditions.
><snip>
>> Technology doesn't reduce the amount of work done, or the amount that
>> can be done by people. It just increases the amount of work that is
>> done more efficiently by machines.
>
>So again, I don't think you realize what the issue was that you are
>replying to. Was Grinch correct in saying: "It was *technology* that
>drove the farmers out of farming." Is it true that 96% of farmers were
>dull and inflexible? Or did the growing presence of agri-business and
>government subsidies of agri-business have some little part?
Government does tend to reward bigness, and that may well have played
a part; but it doesn't explain how so many fewer farmers are farming
the same area. If the technology had not advanced, you'd have just as
many farmers, but working for big agribusiness companies instead of on
their own small holdings.
-- Roy L
Grinch
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:09:46 GMT
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> ......
>> You don't have to be persuaded. But the fact is, it's technology that
>> allows one modern farmer to farm five sections, where his great
>> grandfather couldn't farm a whole quarter.
>
>Grinch argued that: "It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of
>farming."
>(1) The farmer wasn't in competition with his dead great-grandfather.
Um, yes ... and neither is the manufacturing worker of course.
>(2) competition wasn't mentioned as the reason for farmers leaving
>farming; the reason Grinch used was "technology."
The reason Grinch used the word "technology" was because Albert Wagner
used the term "hig-tech" -- the "tech" being short for "technology"
one presumes -- as per...
>>> >As hi-tech makes more of today's manufacturing jobs obsolete...
... in response to which Grinch pointed out: "Exactly the same thing
is happening in manufacturing" as happened to the farmers, which it
is.
<snip>
>Then it wasn't technology that drove them out of business. It was being
>dull and inflexible; 96% of farmers were dull and inflexible.
So you are claiming here that after technology developed to let 4% of
the former number of farmers satisfy all of society's food needs,
nevertheless 100% of the farmers could still have remained as active
farmers if only 96% of them hadn't been so "dull and inflexible".
Thus, if only all the farmers had been smart and clever, we could
still today have all the former farmers still on the farm producing
25x society's total food needs.
Gee, talk about wine lakes and cheese mountains! ;-)
>...it's still not addressing the issue: that
>it was technology alone, it's very existence, that drove the farmers out
>of farming. Or was it poor use of technology by some farmers?
Well, are you saying it is high-tech *alone*, "its very existence",
that is making all those manufacturing jobs obsolete, when you
write...
"As hi-tech makes more of today's manufacturing jobs obsolete..."
... because it is the very same process as happened to the farmers. So
you decide.
>
>So again, I don't think you realize what the issue was that you are
>replying to. Was Grinch correct in saying: "It was *technology* that
>drove the farmers out of farming." Is it true that 96% of farmers were
>dull and inflexible? Or did the growing presence of agri-business and
>government subsidies of agri-business have some little part?
Well, let's put it this way:
For thousands of years of history, all over the world, the bulk of the
population -- typically 80% or 90% -- has been engaged in farming to
feed itself. Under every imaginable economic system.
Then with the introduction of *modern technology* with the Industrial
Revolution, this number falls in short order (a couple hundred years)
towards the likes of 2% of the population -- *everywhere* the
technology is introduced and *only* where it is introduced.
Is it the technology that is responsible for this change?
Or is it governments, competition, protection, subsidies, trade
groups, cartels, and all other kinds if such entities and policies --
all of which date back to the ancient Egyptians??
And, hey, why would 96% of farmers be "dull and inflexible" anyway?
Are you insulting the IQs and character of farmers?
Who don't you instead say they were "smart and alert to new
opportunity" in moving from the farm to get higher wages and an easier
life style in the new, growing industrial part of the economy?
Subsistence farming was no spring picnic you know!
Well, *whatever* you are saying about farmers, you are saying the same
thing about manufacturing workers who are finding that their jobs have
become "obsolete" due to new technology -- because the exact same
thing that happened to the farmers is happening to them.
And we are not all worse off today for it having happened to the
farmers. Far from it.
So maybe today's manufacturing workers won't need to all go "kill
themselves", as you put it, any more than the farmers did.
Albert Wagner
Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The reason Grinch used the word "technology" was because Albert Wagner
> used the term "hig-tech" -- the "tech" being short for "technology"
> one presumes -- as per...
>
> >>> >As hi-tech makes more of today's manufacturing jobs obsolete...
>
> ... in response to which Grinch pointed out: "Exactly the same thing
> is happening in manufacturing" as happened to the farmers, which it
> is.
<snip>
You have me confused with someone else. I never used the term
"hig-tech" nor "high-tech"; you were replying to Mason Verger. It was
in your reply to Mason that you stated:
"It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of farming
Albert Wagner
Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
> So you are claiming here that after technology developed to let 4% of
> the former number of farmers satisfy all of society's food needs,
> nevertheless 100% of the farmers could still have remained as active
> farmers if only 96% of them hadn't been so "dull and inflexible".
>
> Thus, if only all the farmers had been smart and clever, we could
> still today have all the former farmers still on the farm producing
> 25x society's total food needs.
You really need to re-read the thread. "Dull and inflexible" was Roy's
term when he argured that that was the reason for technology having the
effect of dislocating most of the farmers. I repeated it facetiously
and in disbelief.
<snip>
> Well, are you saying it is high-tech *alone*, "its very existence",
> that is making all those manufacturing jobs obsolete, when you
> write...
>
> "As hi-tech makes more of today's manufacturing jobs obsolete..."
I didn't write this. My name is Albert Wagner. Who do you think you
are replying to?
<snip>
> And, hey, why would 96% of farmers be "dull and inflexible" anyway?
> Are you insulting the IQs and character of farmers?
Again this was Roy, not me.
<snip>
> So maybe today's manufacturing workers won't need to all go "kill
> themselves", as you put it, any more than the farmers did.
Where in the hell did you get that? I think that was Mason, not me.
I admit, after Roy butted in the thread got confusing. But you bear
some responsibility sloppiness in attributing quotes. I am retreating
from this thread, not because you or Roy produced a convincing argument
but because you both seem to be so hopelessly confused about what the
issue under discussion was. Perhaps later.
Grinch
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:30:24 -0400
Correct. My apologies, sir.
Nevertheless, the substantive point remains.
Grinch
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:30:24 -0400
>Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
><snip>
>I admit, after Roy butted in the thread got confusing. But you bear
>some responsibility sloppiness in attributing quotes.
One quote. For which I will apologize again.
>I am retreating
>from this thread, not because you or Roy produced a convincing argument
The argument is simplicity itself:
When *technology* enabled 4% of farmers to fill 100% of society's food
needs, 96% of farmers were headed off the farm one way or another.
What *competition* and all the rest did was determine which farmers
were the 96%, how fast they would leave, and in what order.
>but because you both seem to be so hopelessly confused about what the
>issue under discussion was. Perhaps later.
Well, for clarity's sake and to be sure there is no misunderstanding,
I'll repeat some of your former comments and my response to them all
with proper attribution.
If you really find anything "hopelessly confused" in my comments
either above or below, please feel free to clarify.
~~~~~
Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
>Grinch argued that: "It was *technology* that drove the farmers out of
>farming."
>(1) The farmer wasn't in competition with his dead great-grandfather.
Um, yes ... and neither is the manufacturing worker of course.
>(2) competition wasn't mentioned as the reason for farmers leaving
>farming; the reason Grinch used was "technology."
The reason Grinch used the word "technology" was because [Mason Verger
<<-- corrected ] used the term "hig-tech" -- the "tech" being short
for "technology" one presumes -- as per...
>>> >As hi-tech makes more of today's manufacturing jobs obsolete...
... in response to which Grinch pointed out: "Exactly the same thing
is happening in manufacturing" as happened to the farmers, which it
is.
<snip>
>...it's still not addressing the issue: that
>it was technology alone, it's very existence, that drove the farmers out
>of farming. Or was it poor use of technology by some farmers?
Well, are you saying it is high-tech *alone*, "its very existence",
that is making all those manufacturing jobs obsolete....... because it
is the very same process as happened to the farmers. So
you decide.
>So again, I don't think you realize what the issue was that you are
>replying to. Was Grinch correct in saying: "It was *technology* that
>drove the farmers out of farming." Is it true that 96% of farmers were
>dull and inflexible? Or did the growing presence of agri-business and
>government subsidies of agri-business have some little part?
Well, let's put it this way:
For thousands of years of history, all over the world, the bulk of the
population -- typically 80% or 90% -- has been engaged in farming to
feed itself. Under every imaginable economic system.
Then with the introduction of *modern technology* with the Industrial
Revolution, this number falls in short order (a couple hundred years)
towards the likes of 2% of the population -- *everywhere* the
technology is introduced and *only* where it is introduced.
Is it the technology that is responsible for this change?
Or is it governments, competition, protection, subsidies, trade
groups, cartels, and all other kinds if such entities and policies --
all of which date back to the ancient Egyptians??...
Well, *whatever* you are saying about farmers, you are saying the same
thing about manufacturing workers who are finding that their jobs have
become "obsolete" due to new technology -- because the exact same
thing that happened to the farmers is happening to them.
~~~
Albert Wagner
Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
Thank you for a clarifying post. May I counter your apology and
clarification with my own apology and clarification. I apologize for
attacking a single sentence and reading more into it than was intended.
A clarification of my intended argument--
(1) A definition: I do not consider absentee owners, such as
agri-business corporations, to be farmers.
(2) I understand that the effects of technology would contribute to a
reduction of farmers.
(3) My original reaction was triggered by a single sentence: "It was
*technology* that drove the farmers out of farming." I took this to mean
that it was technology *alone* that was responsible for the replacement
of farmers by agri-business corporations and with that I do not agree.
I believe that technology alone should have left considerably more
farmers owning their own means of production, rather than becoming
merely employees of agri-business corporations. *If technology alone
had been the single force at work then, although there would have been
far fewer farmers, the ones that remained would own farms no larger than
what the new technology allowed them to service using the same labor
they contributed before the technology showed up.* In addition, because
they were owner-workers, they would have enjoyed full recompense for
their labor rather than sharing it with an employer.
David Lloyd-Jones
Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> A clarification of my intended argument--
>
> (1) A definition: I do not consider absentee owners, such as
> agri-business corporations, to be farmers.
Albert,
Surely this is running into different meanings of "absentee farmers"
at different points in history. The English lords who owned vast
stretches of Ireland were absentee farmers -- because they weren't
in fact farmers.
Coca-Cola, Archer-Daniels-Midland, or McDonald's, on the other hand
are hardly absentee -- they're ubiquitous. And McDonald's runs all
those potato farms and ranches, even when it doesn't own them.
What terminology do you think best fits these cases?
-dlj.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:30:24 -0400
>Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> So you are claiming here that after technology developed to let 4% of
>> the former number of farmers satisfy all of society's food needs,
>> nevertheless 100% of the farmers could still have remained as active
>> farmers if only 96% of them hadn't been so "dull and inflexible".
>>
>> Thus, if only all the farmers had been smart and clever, we could
>> still today have all the former farmers still on the farm producing
>> 25x society's total food needs.
>
>You really need to re-read the thread. "Dull and inflexible" was Roy's
>term when he argured that that was the reason for technology having the
>effect of dislocating most of the farmers.
?? That is a rather ingenious "misunderstanding" of what I wrote. It
also does not address Grinch's point. I would suggest that _you_
really need to re-read the thread.
>I repeated it facetiously
>and in disbelief.
But you didn't repeat the context...?
>> And, hey, why would 96% of farmers be "dull and inflexible" anyway?
>> Are you insulting the IQs and character of farmers?
>
>Again this was Roy, not me.
Liar.
>I admit, after Roy butted in the thread got confusing.
Only to those who can't handle clarity.
-- Roy L
Albert Wagner
I'm open to suggestions. In my mind a farmer is typified by a family of
real people that owns, lives on and operates the farm as their sole
means of income. I think my intent is obvious in point (3). However, I
am writing a Usenet post, not a legal document; So, my definition
probably leaks in a few places.
David Lloyd-Jones
Albert Wagner wrote:
DLJ had asked:
>>What terminology do you think best fits these cases?
>
> I'm open to suggestions. In my mind a farmer is typified by a family of
> real people that owns, lives on and operates the farm as their sole
> means of income.
I think this is what Coca-Cola and Archer-Daniels-Midland want you
to think: farmers are nice cuddly images that deserve subsidies,
tarrifs, and massive government expenditures on overseas sales
forces in every embassy and domestic help services in every university.
If you think you're giving to members of nuclear families, Coke and
ADM are happy to collect as legal persons. Your genuine people, as
opposed to persons, and their families account for a derisory
percentage of all farms, all farming, all crops. They're essentially
a memory from the past.
It seems to me that we should define "farmer" as "person operating a
farm," which for most of most crops, and most of all plots of land,
is some large corporation. Then maybe we should come up with a
different word for the image you have in mind. "Peasant," maybe?
"Occupant of shotgun shack"? "Hired tractor driver"?
One wants words to be readily understandable, after all.
-dlj.
Robert J. Kolker
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> If you think you're giving to members of nuclear families, Coke and ADM
> are happy to collect as legal persons. Your genuine people, as opposed
> to persons, and their families account for a derisory percentage of all
> farms, all farming, all crops. They're essentially a memory from the past
You hit on a good point here. The worst "welfare bums" are not
overweight black women who drive pink Cadillacs, have too many kids and
buy potato chips with food stamps. The worst welfare parasites are
heavily subsidized corporations. That is why the rich get richer.
Bob Kolker
C. P. Weidling
...<snip>...
I think the above is just a bit unfair, David. After all,
they are people still, although I agree with your main point. I would
like to put a more human face on these people than to dismiss them as
'peasants'. A _good_ novelist (in my opinion she's good anyway)
portrayed some of these farmers recently in a novel, "Prodigal Summer"
by Barbara Kingsolver. In the novel, one of the characters gets
killed in an accident while driving a truck. He's a farmer, but he
had to take a part time job as a truck driver to help make ends meet.
These are the stubborn people who are trying to make a living at it
when corporate farms are squeezing them out. Another book I've read
in recent memory that has some depiction of farmers in Iowa (though it
is only a small part of the book) is in "Jasmine" by Bharatee
Mukherjee (don't know if I've got the spelling quite right). They
seem to be a bit like the farmers described in this article about how
GPS is changing the way people do things:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/72/gps.html
There is a guy I know who was the previous boyfriend of my significant
other who took up farming in Oregon. Again, he can't make a living at
it exclusively, but he likes the life. My mother grew up on a farm in
Georgia in 1920s and she was ecstatic when we visited this guy and his
wife for a couple of days and she was able to be on a farm again.
You come from an agricultural background don't you David? Of course,
you got out, so maybe you don't have too much sympathy for those that
stay behind, or try to stay behind, or am I mixing you up with someone
else?
Yes, I agree it's like the sailors who bemoaned the glory days of
sail, or the horse soldiers who bemoaned the coming of tanks. I
suppose the Amish manage with 'traditional' farming , but I think they
must be a special case not applicable to farmers in general.
I _do_ suspect that there are some ominous, negative aspects to
corporate farming, but I can't articulate them very well, and really,
they are only suspicions.
Albert Wagner
> Albert Wagner wrote:
> DLJ had asked:
> >>What terminology do you think best fits these cases?
> >
> > I'm open to suggestions. In my mind a farmer is typified by a
> > family of real people that owns, lives on and operates the farm as
> > their sole means of income.
>
> I think this is what Coca-Cola and Archer-Daniels-Midland want you
> to think: farmers are nice cuddly images that deserve subsidies,
> tarrifs, and massive government expenditures on overseas sales
> forces in every embassy and domestic help services in every
> university.
No doubt. This discrepancy is what triggered my post to sci.econ.
>
> If you think you're giving to members of nuclear families, Coke and
> ADM are happy to collect as legal persons. Your genuine people, as
> opposed to persons, and their families account for a derisory
> percentage of all farms, all farming, all crops. They're essentially
> a memory from the past.
Giving corporations the legal status of "persons" is probably the single
most destructive thing the Supreme Court has ever done.
>
> It seems to me that we should define "farmer" as "person operating a
> farm," which for most of most crops, and most of all plots of land,
> is some large corporation. Then maybe we should come up with a
> different word for the image you have in mind. "Peasant," maybe?
> "Occupant of shotgun shack"? "Hired tractor driver"?
Yes. I tried to distinguish between them by calling ADM et al
agri-business. But perhaps you are right in that their massive amount
of PR and campaign contributions have already appropriated the classical
meaning of "farmer."
>
> One wants words to be readily understandable, after all.
Indeed.
>
> -dlj.
>
>
>
>
Albert Wagner
c...@rahul.net (C. P. Weidling) wrote:
<snip>
> I _do_ suspect that there are some ominous, negative aspects to
> corporate farming, but I can't articulate them very well, and really,
> they are only suspicions.
Trust your instincts.
Precious Pup
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> One wants words to be readily understandable, after all.
I get the feeling you've never listened to a politician speak, or whatever it is they do that sort of smells
like speech. I'm making a trip to the liquor store, you need anything?
You're welcome,
Pup
David Lloyd-Jones
> David Lloyd-Jones <da...@rogers.com> writes:
>>It seems to me that we should define "farmer" as "person operating a
>>farm," which for most of most crops, and most of all plots of land, is
>>some large corporation. Then maybe we should come up with a different
>>word for the image you have in mind. "Peasant," maybe? "Occupant of
>>shotgun shack"? "Hired tractor driver"?
>>
> they are people still, although I agree with your main point. I would
> like to put a more human face on these people than to dismiss them as
> 'peasants'. A _good_ novelist (in my opinion she's good anyway)
> portrayed some of these farmers recently in a novel, "Prodigal Summer"
> by Barbara Kingsolver. In the novel, one of the characters gets
> killed in an accident while driving a truck. He's a farmer, but he
> had to take a part time job as a truck driver to help make ends meet.
A wealthy Teamster who has a tax write-off farm on the side? Don't
we call them "hobby farmers"? :-)
Seriously, Carl, there are such poor schnooks, but they are few and
far between: they are, after all, the ragged edge of the 2% remnant.
I think your Barbara Kingsolver is living off the residual emotion
of her Woody Guthrie records, and not addressing the reality of
America, and the other advanced countries, today.
> These are the stubborn people who are trying to make a living at it
> when corporate farms are squeezing them out. Another book I've read
> in recent memory that has some depiction of farmers in Iowa (though it
> is only a small part of the book) is in "Jasmine" by Bharatee
> Mukherjee (don't know if I've got the spelling quite right). They
> seem to be a bit like the farmers described in this article about how
> GPS is changing the way people do things:
> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/72/gps.html
>
> There is a guy I know who was the previous boyfriend of my significant
> other who took up farming in Oregon. Again, he can't make a living at
> it exclusively, but he likes the life. My mother grew up on a farm in
> Georgia in 1920s and she was ecstatic when we visited this guy and his
> wife for a couple of days and she was able to be on a farm again.
I think there's a very interesting question here to speculate about:
what if Big Agriculture were not on the government tit? Obviously we
know there would be a whole lot more running room for the cotton
farmers of Africa and the soybean farmers of Brazil (although these
latter are mainly Japanese corporations who went into the soybean
business after Henry Kissinger -- for 36 hours in 1972 before the
telex machines melted down -- embargoed US soybean exports to Japan
in some fit of pique, thus destroying the US industry over the long
haul...).
There is now breathing space for skilled small farmers and gardeners
in organic vegetables, free range eggs, hormone free beef. There
would be more space for them if the majors were not using government
to shut down non-pasteurised dairy products. (And this despite the
fact that Americas right wing politics has as one of its major
financiers the main maker of non-pasteurised beer!)
Canada used to have a cheese industry, and Black Diamond, our
largest non-Kraft brand, built itself on the reputation of a family
business of the same name, which they bought out in the years of the
relentless destruction of all the local creameries by corporations
buying up their price support quotas.
If we simply killed the Federal dairy support program in Canada, we
would probably have half of France's "a country with 400 cheeses"
cachet back in ten years flat. What's ironic is, the main recipients
of the direct dairy support money (not the indirect recipients of
wealth through market restriction) are the largely fascist and
separatist farmers of the eastern Quebec North Shore.
The Feds could have reduced the Separatist vote by several pecentage
points during the 1970's and 1980's, when things were sometimes
dicey, simply by cutting all these reactionary assholes off and
paying them welfare or pogey once they hit the cities. Then they
would have woken up to the fact that the Silver Shirts died in 1938,
Maurice Duplessis in 1959, and getting a job or else voting Liberal
is the smart way to go. Instead we financed their fairly good
livings with billions in Federal money, and they replied with hatred
and contempt, voting PQ and Bloc all the way. And they made no
decent cheeses.
Back in the States in this wandering tale, note that the Federal
Extension Service, which was the salvation of the intelligent small
farmer in Lazarsfeld's day in the 1930's, is today a handmaiden of
the major seed companies (and I have no fight with the seed
companies, nor with the genetic engineerig folks, unlike many of my
fellow lefties) -- when surely they ought to be knocking themselves
out helping these people who arguably are doing so much to improve
the American diet. The quantity fight has been won long ago. Quality
food is the problem now.
> You come from an agricultural background don't you David? Of course,
> you got out, so maybe you don't have too much sympathy for those that
> stay behind, or try to stay behind, or am I mixing you up with someone
> else?
My parents farmed slightly over a quarter section until about ten
years ago. Old style mixed farming, cattle, a good half-ton sow,
400+ acres of mixed crops, and a couple of hundred acres of grazing
and hay land. It made about $14,000 a year, deferred taxes on maybe
the same again of my parents' other income, and prolonged all our
lives with the exercise.
Kept my mother alive both intellectually -- mixed farming is not a
simple proposition -- and politically: she wanted to farm sheep, but
all the enviros wanted to bring back the wolves. So she invented the
county option -- long a Canadian fixture where alcohol is concerned
-- on killing wolves.
Big moment in her life was the day her legislation went through, and
our (Conservative) Member of the Legislature had her seated in the
family gallery on the floor of Queen's Park. Pretty much everybody
in the joint knew her or me, and knew us as Socialists (and she a
frequent Federal candidate, and an elected Municipal Reeve), so
there was a bit of a frisson when the Conservative Premier, Bill
Davis, an old sparring partner of mine and a really nice guy, walked
over to welcome her to the House.
Steve Lewis was at the time Leader of the socialist New Democratic
Party in the House, and he and I have had a, uh, guarded
relationship over the years. The NDP at the time was fiercely
enviro, and hence opposed to my mother's, their own member's,
legislation, and Steve froze her out. Rather petty of him, I think.
> Yes, I agree it's like the sailors who bemoaned the glory days of
> sail, or the horse soldiers who bemoaned the coming of tanks. I
> suppose the Amish manage with 'traditional' farming , but I think they
> must be a special case not applicable to farmers in general.
Here in Ontario there are a number of Amish up Highway 8, north of
Hamilton. A surprising number of them seem to have the occasional
half-million-dollar lathe or mill out in the barn, which of course
they don't run in any modern corporation or business sense. Not like
an industry or anything. They just spend a few hours a day running
off molydenum steel flanges for Hydro's power-towers, or carving
cylinder heads for 1938 Fords out of raw stock for the hobbyist
market -- traditional handicraft occupations, you understand...
> I _do_ suspect that there are some ominous, negative aspects to
> corporate farming, but I can't articulate them very well, and really,
> they are only suspicions.
Monoculture is obviously a danger. (On the other hand it wasn't
corporate farming that caused the Dust Bowl.) I wonder, for
instance, whether commercial garlic has as much selenium in it as it
had a generation ago: are the very scientifically skilled big
farmers paying as much attention to the essential nutritional
ingredient as they are to breeding it for easier peeling and less
pungent smell? I don't know -- and I hope for government enforced
labelling, Extension Agent education, and the snapped whip of
Consumers' Union to all be on the case.
Commercial carrots seem to me more woody with every passing year --
but at the same time the market has now produced two levels of
carrots at my local No Frills: the cheap inedible ones, and some
very decent ones. The decent ones cost three times as much as the
woody ones; on the other hand this "three times as much" is still
cheap both by world standards and in comparison with real prices
twenty years ago.
Commercial tomatoes are vastly better than they used to be -- but
this may be because I live in a market where the local Dutch and
Italian gardeners would have taken over the entire market if the
industrial folks had not greatly improved.
Things will get even better when, and if, free trade moves forward,
and Africa south of the equator gets into the market. Count on
American politics to preach free trade out of one side of its mouth
while doing everything possible to stop this from happening. But
count on informed consumers and thoughtful investors to soak through.
Cheers,
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> Giving corporations the legal status of "persons" is probably the single
> most destructive thing the Supreme Court has ever done.
>
I'm not sure, but only because I don't know everything that the
scotus have done.
Kolker, in one of his few sensible moments had a ssensible
suggestion a few weeks ago, about using the German formula. I forget
what it was, and anyway it smelled about as krauty as "Homeland
Security," but in English something like "Limited Liability
Organization" would make sense to me.
I don't think it would take a Constitutional amendment, though a
very great deal of the heavy lifting would have to go on at the
State level.
* * *
Note that not all is ill at the State level. Deleware, which first
leapt into one's consciousness for responsibility, morality and
skill in the handling of the Howard Hughes will, has recently been
sniffing around all those corporations which are domeciled there on
the essential notion that it was offshore, irresponsible, and Under
the various Mys Thumbs.
American corporations can, at present, betake themselves to the
Bahamas with very little difficulty. Indeed large parts of both IBM
and US Steel have lived in Freeport, Grand Bahama, (they were the
new "city's" first two inhabitants) for a generation now, at some
cost to the American taxpayer.
Still, the rush to offshore has become so spectacular recently that
it's pretty obvious there will be a claw-back. It's so nutty it may
even be Republicans who do it, to give themselves some tattered
semblance of self-resepct. Wise corporate executives can see this,
and don't bother going to the trouble. Stupidoes, of whom there are
apparently many, line up for four more years of the dreamlike
fantasy that so threatens the foundations of their economy.
In the same sense, I think that Delaware corporations will be pulled
between the temptation to flee to sluttier climes, and the
realisation that you can run, run, run but you can not hide.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
Albert,
This is not a good rule. All mammals have come up with the same
three basic instincts: salt, fat, sex.
Only one of these is good, and I rather suggest you restrict the
range of mammals you apply it with.
-dlj.
jonah thomas
> C. P. Weidling wrote:
>> In the novel, one of the characters gets
>> killed in an accident while driving a truck. He's a farmer, but he
>> had to take a part time job as a truck driver to help make ends meet.
> A wealthy Teamster who has a tax write-off farm on the side? Don't we
> call them "hobby farmers"? :-)
> Seriously, Carl, there are such poor schnooks, but they are few and far
> between: they are, after all, the ragged edge of the 2% remnant. I think
> your Barbara Kingsolver is living off the residual emotion of her Woody
> Guthrie records, and not addressing the reality of America, and the
> other advanced countries, today.
>> These are the stubborn people who are trying to make a living at it
>> when corporate farms are squeezing them out.
Every family farmer I've gotten to know had some special angle. A
typical one is to farm close to a growing metro area. Farming is
something to do with your land while you wait for the subdividers to
reach you.
One of the big things about caving is "ridgewalking", looking for new
caves. And we often had farmers tell us areas to avoid because their
neighbors were doing something secret and didn't want anybody to blunder
into it. The implication was usually that this was marijuana, but they
were careful not to say.
David Lloyd-Jones
> David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>>One wants words to be readily understandable, after all.
>
> I get the feeling you've never listened to a politician speak,
> or whatever it is they do that sort of smells like speech.
Don't think so.
I'm a politician, and I've been one since about the age of four,
when I made my first great invention: why you go to the park by
yourself you can get people to spill their souls out to you just by
saying "What kind of dog is that?" or "What a great dog. Tell me
about her." 'Course you've got to have an early ability to sex a dog
at ten feet -- or recognise the kind of mooch who will enjoy
correcting you.
Surely the greatest politicians of the last 100 years, Churchill,
LBJ, Trotsky, Mandela, David Dellinger, built their greatness on
their command of language and their ability to state simple things
honestly and directly.
All of them were often wrong. I think that Churchill and Trotsky
would be in close competition with each other, but would leave the
rest behind, in any listing of getting the Really Big Ones wrong.
Each of them got just one Big One correct: fight indomitably! The
others were right most of the time -- but many people are. Their
greatness depends on their never being mingy, or ambiguous, os
slimy, or cheap and easy.
(Ronald Reagan's supposed greatness blew away like feathers in the
wind as it became as obvious to his supporters as it had been all
along to his opponents that he didn't mean a damn word of anything.
He was just an empty opportunist, buying popularity with the
taxpayers' money at every opportunity. He may be your idea of a
normal politician. I differ. The really good news about the human
race is that the Ronald Reagans are rare.)
>I'm making a trip to the liquor store, you need anything?
'Couple of cases of a good Beaujolais -- and a gallon of Almaden
Red, for old times' sake.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
jonah thomas wrote:
> David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> C. P. Weidling wrote:
>>> In the novel, one of the characters gets
>>> killed in an accident while driving a truck. He's a farmer, but he
>>> had to take a part time job as a truck driver to help make ends meet.
>> A wealthy Teamster who has a tax write-off farm on the side? Don't we
>> call them "hobby farmers"? :-)
>> Seriously, Carl, there are such poor schnooks, but they are few and
>> far between: they are, after all, the ragged edge of the 2% remnant. I
>> think your Barbara Kingsolver is living off the residual emotion of
>> her Woody Guthrie records, and not addressing the reality of America,
>> and the other advanced countries, today.
>>> These are the stubborn people who are trying to make a living at it
>>> when corporate farms are squeezing them out.
>
> Every family farmer I've gotten to know had some special angle. A
> typical one is to farm close to a growing metro area. Farming is
> something to do with your land while you wait for the subdividers to
> reach you.
This is a good point -- and in Jonah's usual happy-puppy way hits
several good themes at once. Just one bit that people might enjoy:
in his autobiography, the novelist "Neville Shute" reports that when
he wasn't building dirigibles he was building Spitfires, paid for by
Lady Docker, Nora Docker's mother.
The Dockers were doing exactly what Jonah points to: farming while
the cities moved out -- and moved them out. Of course it's a good
thing they farmed, because they would have needed tractors to carry
the great weight of the pelf as far as the bank.
BTW, Neville Shute, Norman Mailer, and my friend Kurt Vonnegut: all
aeronautical engineers. Have we stumbled upon the secret of the
Great American Novel?
> One of the big things about caving is "ridgewalking", looking for new
> caves. And we often had farmers tell us areas to avoid because their
> neighbors were doing something secret and didn't want anybody to blunder
> into it. The implication was usually that this was marijuana, but they
> were careful not to say.
Maybe. I think this may be overrated. But then I may live in one of
the few places on the planet where the dominant flow is white people
giving it away free to Islanders. My guess is our Caribbean
neighbours are not yet far enough up the ladder to own closets and
grow-lites yet.
Ob. economic point: marijuana is only a major agricultural crop
because of its absurd price -- which is maintained, at vast expense,
by the War on Drugs, the amusingly named "Department of Justice,"
and the even funnier State "reformatories," armed "public safety
officers," and other such loony toons.
If it weren't for government efforts which keep the price up, ganja
would be down there with parsley and dill in price per ounce.
-dlj.
Albert Wagner
David Lloyd-Jones <da...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Albert Wagner wrote:
<snip>
> > Trust your instincts.
>
> Albert,
>
> This is not a good rule. All mammals have come up with the same
> three basic instincts: salt, fat, sex.
>
> Only one of these is good, and I rather suggest you restrict the
> range of mammals you apply it with.
Cute. But, although I may share (at least) three instincts with other
mammals, there are some I do not share.
jonah thomas
> (Ronald Reagan's supposed greatness blew away like feathers in the wind
> as it became as obvious to his supporters as it had been all along to
> his opponents that he didn't mean a damn word of anything. He was just
> an empty opportunist, buying popularity with the taxpayers' money at
> every opportunity. He may be your idea of a normal politician. I differ.
> The really good news about the human race is that the Ronald Reagans are
> rare.)
A major failing of the american political system is that these rare
people rise disproportionately. Rare *voters* like that wouldn't be
much of a problem. Rare *presidents* like that would be a big problem.
And for the USA presidents like that aren't nearly as rare as they
ought to be.
Precious Pup
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> (Ronald Reagan's supposed greatness blew away like feathers in the
> wind as it became as obvious to his supporters as it had been all
> along to his opponents that he didn't mean a damn word of anything.
> He was just an empty opportunist, buying popularity with the
> taxpayers' money at every opportunity. He may be your idea of a
> normal politician. I differ. The really good news about the human
> race is that the Ronald Reagans are rare.)
Okay, maybe, I never really "got" him when he opened his mouth. But I'm not all that bright and am still
struggling with, for example, what the meaning of the word "is" is.
> >I'm making a trip to the liquor store, you need anything?
>
> 'Couple of cases of a good Beaujolais -- and a gallon of Almaden
> Red, for old times' sake.
Cool. I'll round up the chicks. This is good.
Thanks,
Pup
sometimes cynic
sometimes optimist
Lewis Mammel
Mason Verger wrote:
>
> As hi-tech makes more of today's manufacturing jobs obsolete, what is to
> become of today's still-relevant factory workers in 10 years? Will they go
> on welfare, work at Wal-mart, kill themselves? I really would like to know
> what happned to all those laid off steel workers.
The irony of hi-tech, which the farm analogy fails miserably to express,
is that it has extinguished its own flame. Consider, "Lucent Technologies
and Bell Labs Innovations" Bwahahahahaha!!!! The transistor - Bwahahahahaha!
fiber optics- Bwahahahahaha! Especially fiber optics, it's what provides
the bandwidth for overseas operations of all kinds.
"Just tell 'em Lew sent ya."
Lew Mammel, Jr.
jonah thomas
> Grinch <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Thank you for a clarifying post. May I counter your apology and
> clarification with my own apology and clarification. I apologize for
> attacking a single sentence and reading more into it than was intended.
> A clarification of my intended argument--
<snip>
I've very rarely seen this happen in sci.econ. Two arguers actually
start to make sense to each other and come to a degree of agreement, and
clarify their positions.
Somebody ought to look back and see what you guys did right. It might
be repeatable.
Jim Blair
.....
>
>(3) My original reaction was triggered by a single sentence: "It was
>*technology* that drove the farmers out of farming." I took this to mean
>that it was technology *alone* that was responsible for the replacement
>of farmers by agri-business corporations and with that I do not agree.
>I believe that technology alone should have left considerably more
>farmers owning their own means of production, rather than becoming
>merely employees of agri-business corporations. *If technology alone
>had been the single force at work then, although there would have been
>far fewer farmers, the ones that remained would own farms no larger than
>what the new technology allowed them to service using the same labor
>they contributed before the technology showed up.* In addition, because
>they were owner-workers, they would have enjoyed full recompense for
>their labor rather than sharing it with an employer.
>
Hi,
A point I think you are missing: Technology ALONE. Technology is not ALONE
but is linked by feedback to social and political structures. Changes in
technology induce changes in society.
In the case of agriculture, when the technology moved from low capital to
much more efficient machines that require much more capital and farm much
larger plots, small "family farms" give way to larger corporate farms.
Of course some farm corporations are just family farms that have
incorporated for tax reasons. And even some small "family farms" hire
migrant labor during harvest time, and have for decades. So your
"owner-worker vs. employee" has been there for a long time. Remember
HARVEST OF SHAME from the 1960's?
As in car making: once done in small shops by a few skilled workers (often
the shop owner), after Ford and the assembly line, cars became made in
large factories by wage earners. Because technology made that more
efficient. Both the UAW and General Motors are products of that
technology.
Also an often missed point. Farmers (in the US at least) were not so much
"driven off the land" by more efficient production as "given a chance to
escape" from the farms to the cities, I grew up in Iowa during the 1930's
and listened to my relatives talk. They were eager to get jobs in the
"big cities" (Des Moines, Cedar Rapids) where life was more exciting.
There was even concern after WW I that not enough soldiers would be
willing to return from the war to farming to grow the food. A common
expression was "how we gonna get them back on the farm after they have
seen Paree?" (Paree was the way we pronounced Paris)
I'll attach this: my reply to an editorial in our local paper that claimed
that NAFTA is BAD because it is driving poor Mexican and American farmers
out of business by reducing food prices. The paper fancies itself to be
Progressive.
EDITOR:
I think you are correct to "blame" NAFTA for lower food prices in
both Mexico and the USA.
Of course food prices in the US have been falling since the country
was founded, and as an ever smaller fraction of the population works
in agriculture, growing ever more and cheaper food using ever less
human labor. This is usually called "Progress" and is the result
of technology- both mechanical (machinery) and biotechnology (new
crops from selective breeding, and now radiation induced mutations
and genetic engineering).
I find it strange that some people (some of who fancy themselves to
be "Progressive", others more nearly correctly call them selves
Conservative) oppose this process and want to either slow it down
or even reverse it. Reactionary is closer to the truth.
Of course progress (or any change) causes problems for some people,
especially those who are unwilling to adapt to changing conditions
and want to cling to the past. During the last several hundred
years in the US the fraction of the population living on the farms
has dropped from about 90% to under 3%: "driven from the land" as
the Reactionaries say. And the same transition is happening now
in Mexico, as well as in many other "developing countries"
That is WHY they are "developing".
When the "poverty line" was established in the US during the 1960’s
people were assumed to need about one third of their income for food.
Today they spend about 10% on food, and if the same criteria were
to be used today, almost no one would be classified as "poor". I see
cheaper food as a GOOD THING, and don’t understand the common opinion
expressed in your FORUM that the problems of the world can be cured
by higher food prices.
But I do remember the 1930’s when the FDR "brain trust" decided that
the Great Depression should be treated by burning the crops and
killing the livestock. But no matter how much food was destroyed,
people still went hungry, and the government "experts" just could
not figure out why.
You see the problems of the small farmers in Mexico and the US who
can no longer make a good living when food prices are falling because
of greater productivity. But do you recognize that there are lots
of people in both countries who EAT food and benefit from the lower
prices?
I also remember during the 1960’s when experts such as Paul Ehrlich
were predicting massive famine and world wide starvation (even in
the USA) by the 1990’s because food production would not be able
to keep up with population growth. He was wrong mostly because
he did not factor in the Green Revolution, biotechnology, genetic
engineering and Industrial Corporate Agriculture.
I say the world is better off because he was wrong. Making food
too expensive for the poor will not save the world.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Peter Lawrence
>
> Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> .....
> >
> >(3) My original reaction was triggered by a single sentence: "It was
> >*technology* that drove the farmers out of farming." I took this to mean
> >that it was technology *alone* that was responsible for the replacement
> >of farmers by agri-business corporations and with that I do not agree.
> >I believe that technology alone should have left considerably more
> >farmers owning their own means of production, rather than becoming
> >merely employees of agri-business corporations. *If technology alone
> >had been the single force at work then, although there would have been
> >far fewer farmers, the ones that remained would own farms no larger than
> >what the new technology allowed them to service using the same labor
> >they contributed before the technology showed up.* In addition, because
> >they were owner-workers, they would have enjoyed full recompense for
> >their labor rather than sharing it with an employer.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> A point I think you are missing: Technology ALONE. Technology is not ALONE
> but is linked by feedback to social and political structures. Changes in
> technology induce changes in society.
If you look at the changes of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, you
will see counterexamples everywhere. The crucial thing is that until the
social changes were complete, nearly all the enabling technological changes
weren't "made in Britain", just adopted there (and not adopted where and
when they were invented, often but not always France).
>
> In the case of agriculture, when the technology moved from low capital to
> much more efficient machines that require much more capital and farm much
> larger plots, small "family farms" give way to larger corporate farms.
You should look at the related financial developments, and the distortions in
places like the USA that prevented European capital from owning large estates
and providing those efficiencies directly in the old landlord-tenant way.
.
.
.
> Also an often missed point. Farmers (in the US at least) were not so much
> "driven off the land" by more efficient production as "given a chance to
> escape" from the farms to the cities, I grew up in Iowa during the 1930's
> and listened to my relatives talk. They were eager to get jobs in the
> "big cities" (Des Moines, Cedar Rapids) where life was more exciting.
It's always important to look at the whole statistical base. Precisely
because the drift to the cities won out, we don't get easy feedback from
those who didn't do so or else didn't do so willingly. One common pattern is
for the young to migrate to the towns willingly, and leave the rest behind.
The older groups find they have invested in the land but can't get back their
investment since there is nobody to pass it on to.
>
> There was even concern after WW I that not enough soldiers would be
> willing to return from the war to farming to grow the food. A common
> expression was "how we gonna get them back on the farm after they have
> seen Paree?" (Paree was the way we pronounced Paris)
>
> I'll attach this: my reply to an editorial in our local paper that claimed
> that NAFTA is BAD because it is driving poor Mexican and American farmers
> out of business by reducing food prices. The paper fancies itself to be
> Progressive.
>
> EDITOR:
>
> I think you are correct to "blame" NAFTA for lower food prices in
> both Mexico and the USA.
.
.
.
> I also remember during the 1960’s when experts such as Paul Ehrlich
> were predicting massive famine and world wide starvation (even in
> the USA) by the 1990’s because food production would not be able
> to keep up with population growth. He was wrong mostly because
> he did not factor in the Green Revolution, biotechnology, genetic
> engineering and Industrial Corporate Agriculture.
>
> I say the world is better off because he was wrong. Making food
> too expensive for the poor will not save the world.
You must have missed those posts where I pointed out that this reasoning
about the benefits of "progress" only applies in developED sectors, that
developING sectors aren't cash-oriented but subsistence-oriented. For them,
there is a painful or even destructive transition. But I won't repeat myself,
just ask you to search recent archives for a description. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.
Jim Blair
>> Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>> .....
>> >
>> >(3) My original reaction was triggered by a single sentence: "It was
>> >*technology* that drove the farmers out of farming." I took this to mean
>> >that it was technology *alone* that was responsible for the replacement
>> >of farmers by agri-business corporations and with that I do not agree.
>> >I believe that technology alone should have left considerably more
>> >farmers owning their own means of production, rather than becoming
>> >merely employees of agri-business corporations. *If technology alone
>> >had been the single force at work then, although there would have been
>> >far fewer farmers, the ones that remained would own farms no larger than
>> >what the new technology allowed them to service using the same labor
>> >they contributed before the technology showed up.* In addition, because
>> >they were owner-workers, they would have enjoyed full recompense for
>> >their labor rather than sharing it with an employer.
>> >
>Jim Blair wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A point I think you are missing: Technology ALONE. Technology is not ALONE
>> but is linked by feedback to social and political structures. Changes in
>> technology induce changes in society.
Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>
>If you look at the changes of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, you
>will see counterexamples everywhere.
Hi,
Er, what would be a "counterexample" of technology changing society? A
technology that has no effect on society? Or a societal change creating
a new technology?
If the latter, you mean like John K Galbraith's claim in American
Capitalism that the modern corporation (1950's remember) was the ideal
mechanism to promote new technology? Society created the "corporation"
and corporations create new technology.
>...The crucial thing is that until the
>social changes were complete, nearly all the enabling technological changes
>weren't "made in Britain", just adopted there (and not adopted where and
>when they were invented, often but not always France).
That is one feature of technology: it can be employed anywhere, not just
where it was "invented". Like gunpowder or movable type printing, or the
magnetic compass. All invented in China but not used much until the ideas
spread to Europe.
jeb:
>>
>> In the case of agriculture, when the technology moved from low capital to
>> much more efficient machines that require much more capital and farm much
>> larger plots, small "family farms" give way to larger corporate farms.
>
>You should look at the related financial developments, and the distortions in
>places like the USA that prevented European capital from owning large estates
>and providing those efficiencies directly in the old landlord-tenant way.
I suppose you could call capital markets a form of technology. A way to
fund new capital intensive ways of doing things.
jeb:
Peter Lawrence
.
.
.
> >Jim Blair wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> A point I think you are missing: Technology ALONE. Technology is not ALONE
> >> but is linked by feedback to social and political structures. Changes in
> >> technology induce changes in society.
>
> Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >If you look at the changes of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, you
> >will see counterexamples everywhere.
>
> Hi,
>
> Er, what would be a "counterexample" of technology changing society? A
> technology that has no effect on society? Or a societal change creating
> a new technology?
I meant, if you look at what happened there/then, you will see that
practically all the social changes came first, and also that many of the
technological discoveries were actually made elsewhere and merely got adopted
in Britain - AFTER the social changes, which opened the door to adopting and
implementing the technological changes. So we have counterexamples to the
proposition that the technological changes produced the social changes.
.
.
.
> jeb:
> >>
> >> In the case of agriculture, when the technology moved from low capital to
> >> much more efficient machines that require much more capital and farm much
> >> larger plots, small "family farms" give way to larger corporate farms.
>
> >
> >You should look at the related financial developments, and the distortions in
> >places like the USA that prevented European capital from owning large estates
> >and providing those efficiencies directly in the old landlord-tenant way.
>
> I suppose you could call capital markets a form of technology. A way to
> fund new capital intensive ways of doing things.
Again, the wrong way around. There was actually nothing wrong with large
enterprises that weren't corporate; it's just that sovereign risk cut in and
drove out the individual Europeans who wanted to set up large estates. That
favoured US small farmers in the short term, but since those were
under-capitalised in terms of what they needed, that left them vulnerable to
US corporate finance. But European landowners weren't vulnerable to US
corporate finance, and they weren't driven under by it - just by the way the
USA and its states changed the rules on foreigners.
You can actually find a vignette on all that in looking at the range wars,
when you see what Billy the Kid had pulled out from under him. He had been
working for one of those foreigners and got turned loose when the landowner
went under.
I've seen it suggested that the wealth transfers from Europe to the USA in
the 19th century, that got transferred to US ownership from the sovereign
risk rule changes, exceeded the reverse wealth transfer under the Marshall
Plan. Unfortunately I don't recall a reference off hand. PML.
Jim Blair
>Jim Blair wrote:
>.
>.
>.
>> >Jim Blair wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> A point I think you are missing: Technology ALONE. Technology is not ALONE
>> >> but is linked by feedback to social and political structures. Changes in
>> >> technology induce changes in society.
>>
>> Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >If you look at the changes of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, you
>> >will see counterexamples everywhere.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Er, what would be a "counterexample" of technology changing society? A
>> technology that has no effect on society? Or a societal change creating
>> a new technology?
>
>I meant, if you look at what happened there/then, you will see that
>practically all the social changes came first, and also that many of the
>technological discoveries were actually made elsewhere and merely got adopted
>in Britain - AFTER the social changes, which opened the door to adopting and
>implementing the technological changes. So we have counterexamples to the
>proposition that the technological changes produced the social changes.
Hi,
About half of my last reply got cut off :-( And I don't have time to
try it again now. But I can't picture a society changing to adjust to a
new technology BEFORE the new technology happens.
Like people would move from city to suburbs, and build gas stations and
highways, and then hope that someone would invent the automobile? So they
would have something to put the gasoline into to commute from their new
house to their job in the city on those roads?
PS Note that I changed the email address in my posts in an attempt to
reduce my spam.
Peter Lawrence
No, that doesn't happen any more than a random mutation happens "in order to"
push evolution in a particular direction - but, in retrospect, the selection
makes it look a little that way. Rather than the changes being designed for
the technology they merely enabled it; in Britain certain social changes
happened, things like the Enclosure of the Commons and a general loosening of
mediaeval approaches, and the results of those just happened to be in place
like fuel awaiting a spark. Result: agricultural then industrial revolution.
To give a specific example, the Highland Clearances pushed people into
factories (the opposite of the pull process you described, which also
happened in other times and places). But the Highlands were really cleared
for sheep, with an increase in factory labour being an incidental byproduct.
>
> Like people would move from city to suburbs, and build gas stations and
> highways, and then hope that someone would invent the automobile? So they
> would have something to put the gasoline into to commute from their new
> house to their job in the city on those roads?
Have a look at what came first, in which parts of the world. US patterns
involved many towns following transport, but in Europe transport followed
what was there already.
>
> PS Note that I changed the email address in my posts in an attempt to
> reduce my spam.
I spotted that, a bit too late in one reply. PML.
jonah thomas
> Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>>I meant, if you look at what happened there/then, you will see that
>>practically all the social changes came first, and also that many of the
>>technological discoveries were actually made elsewhere and merely got adopted
>>in Britain - AFTER the social changes, which opened the door to adopting and
>>implementing the technological changes. So we have counterexamples to the
>>proposition that the technological changes produced the social changes.
> About half of my last reply got cut off :-( And I don't have time to
> try it again now. But I can't picture a society changing to adjust to a
> new technology BEFORE the new technology happens.
In evolution, typically successful changes happen in organisms that are
"preadapted". The ones that are well set up to take advantage of the
new change are the ones that take over the niche.
That could happen even easier in economies, where a new method created
one place can spread easier than genes spread between species. So for
example the chinese used gunpowder for a long time mostly to frighten
horses. The europeans started using it to knock down walls. This may
be partly because the chinese tended not to fight people who had walls
to knock down, they tended to be the ones with the walls that they
didn't want knocked down. But the technology wasn't enough by itself to
change things around. It takes gunpowder *and* people who want to knock
down walls.
Jim Blair
>> Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>I meant, if you look at what happened there/then, you will see that
>>>practically all the social changes came first, and also that many of the
>>>technological discoveries were actually made elsewhere and merely got adopted
>>>in Britain - AFTER the social changes, which opened the door to adopting and
>>>implementing the technological changes. So we have counterexamples to the
>>>proposition that the technological changes produced the social changes.
>Jim Blair wrote:
>
>> About half of my last reply got cut off :-( And I don't have time to
>> try it again now. But I can't picture a society changing to adjust to a
>> new technology BEFORE the new technology happens.
jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>
>In evolution, typically successful changes happen in organisms that are
>"preadapted". The ones that are well set up to take advantage of the
>new change are the ones that take over the niche.
Hi,
Yes. But that is a different situation. The species has the POTENTIAL to
adapt. Like an air sac for buoyancy becoming a lung, or wings for balance
and feathers for warmth changing to wings for flight.
>
>That could happen even easier in economies, where a new method created
>one place can spread easier than genes spread between species.
I agree. The limiting factor is the willingness to USE a new technology.
And THEN society will adjust to its new use.
>...So for
>example the chinese used gunpowder for a long time mostly to frighten
>horses. The europeans started using it to knock down walls. This may
>be partly because the chinese tended not to fight people who had walls
>to knock down, they tended to be the ones with the walls that they
>didn't want knocked down. But the technology wasn't enough by itself to
>change things around. It takes gunpowder *and* people who want to knock
>down walls.
>
>
Back to American Capitalism: in the 1950's "Progressives" knew that
corporations were a mechanism to promote technology, and they saw new
technology as GOOD. Galbrath was considered a Liberal.
Today it is people who call themselves "Progressive" (at least around here
in Madison) who oppose corporations and who think new technology is BAD.
(and you can include globalization and trade in with technology: they are
equivalent).
I agree that all of these (technology, globalization, trade) do cause some
problems for some individuals and BIG PROBLEMS for some "groups" (buggy
whip makers), but that on balance the good that comes from them is much
greater than the bad. Especially after society adjusts to it.
Peter Lawrence
>
> >> Peter Lawrence <pet...@netlink.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>>I meant, if you look at what happened there/then, you will see that
> >>>practically all the social changes came first, and also that many of the
> >>>technological discoveries were actually made elsewhere and merely got adopted
> >>>in Britain - AFTER the social changes, which opened the door to adopting and
> >>>implementing the technological changes. So we have counterexamples to the
> >>>proposition that the technological changes produced the social changes.
>
> >Jim Blair wrote:
> >
> >> About half of my last reply got cut off :-( And I don't have time to
> >> try it again now. But I can't picture a society changing to adjust to a
> >> new technology BEFORE the new technology happens.
>
> jonah thomas <j2th...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> >
> >In evolution, typically successful changes happen in organisms that are
> >"preadapted". The ones that are well set up to take advantage of the
> >new change are the ones that take over the niche.
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes. But that is a different situation. The species has the POTENTIAL to
> adapt. Like an air sac for buoyancy becoming a lung, or wings for balance
> and feathers for warmth changing to wings for flight.
That's taking the analogy beyond where it breaks down; it is best just for
illustration.
>
> >
> >That could happen even easier in economies, where a new method created
> >one place can spread easier than genes spread between species.
>
> I agree. The limiting factor is the willingness to USE a new technology.
> And THEN society will adjust to its new use.
WRONG.
That is projecting things like "willingness" to societies. In the particular
British example I gave, it actually WAS a change in social institutions that
came first, that enabled technology to find real applications. Things like
people being driven off the land, and wealth in land becoming more fluid and
deployable towards factories and the like. There were social changes later,
things like slums, but they came after the technological ones - they didn't
enable them, they were responses.
.
.
.
> I agree that all of these (technology, globalization, trade) do cause some
> problems for some individuals and BIG PROBLEMS for some "groups" (buggy
> whip makers), but that on balance the good that comes from them is much
> greater than the bad. Especially after society adjusts to it.
There are several objections to that:-
- It's a cost of doing it that way, but nothing says you have to do it that
way at all.
- On balance and the good of society as a whole don't cut it, what counts is
the "who/whom question", what happens to the individuals and groups
themselves. A loser is perfectly entitled to throw a spanner in the works,
and the only way any aggregate gain is going to persuade him not to is if he
really does get compensated. Anything else just gives you the effects of the
enclosures and the clearances, let alone Luddism.
- No, you don't get an eventual improvement unless things really do settle
towards an equilibrium; another very real behaviour is what you get in a
shock wave - or at least a shock wave lasting into the long term. That didn't
happen last time, but it might happen this time. And of course survivor bias
always makes changes look better by leaving the losers out.
Have a look at some of the materials on my publications page (see link in
signature below), particularly the letter to the AFR on benefits to people in
poor countries and the letter to the New Scientist. PML.