NAFTA: Bad for Health
stephenh
Health Report Weighs Against NAFTA
In spite of pre-NAFTA promises, birth defects along the southern border
have increased. Some blame a deterioration of the post-NAFTA environment.
EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT
BY JAMES P. TUCKER JR.
January 29, 1996
The incidence of neural tube birth defects has not improved along the border
of Texas and Mexico -- as promised -- since the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) took effect, according to a new study.
"I've seen the babes born with birth defects; the NAFTA package
gives us the ability to assure that [those problems] will be addressed,"
said Lloyd Bentsen, then treasury secretary, in November of 1993.
But the new study, conducted by Public Citizen in Washington in collaboration
with the Red Mexicana de Accion Frente Al Libre Comercio in Mexico City,
found that incidents of birth defects may actually be increasing.
"Cameron County (Texas), the location of the pre-NAFTA anencephaly
cluster, reported 15 cases in 1994, up 33 percent from 1993 when 11 cases
were reported," said the study entitled *NAFTA's* *Broken* *Promises:* *the*
*Border* *Betrayed*.
Anencephaly is one of a category of neural tube birth defects that includes
spina bifida. It prevents a full-term baby from forming a complete brain
and/or skull.
"In early 1995, a new post-NAFTA anencephaly cluster was identified
in Eagle Pass, Texas and Piedras Negras, Mexico," the report said. "In
all of 1992, only two cases were reported in the Texas county in which
Eagle Pass is located. In 1993, four cases were reported. In December, 1994
through February, 1995, three cases were reported per month."
The causes of anencephaly are unknown, but scientists suspect such factors
as air and water pollution and dietary deficiencies due to poverty,
conditions which NAFTA supporters argued, during congressional hearings
and debates, would be addressed by the trade accord.
"The promise of improved public health and a cleaner environment
relied on three things: a decrease in the concentration of [industry
pollution], wealthier citizens and state and local governments
and strong NAFTA institutions to improve the enforcement of environmental
laws," Public Citizen said in a statement accompanying the report.
"NAFTA has intensified severe problems of water and air pollution,
hazardous waste dumping and increased the incidence of certain diseases
and birth defects in the border region," said Joan Claybrook, president
of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group.
From 1986 through 1991, Cameron County recorded 68 cases of severe
neural tube defects, including spina bifida, for a rate of 18.9
per 10,000 births, compared to an average national rate of 6.2 per
10,000 births, according to the study.
"Moreover, the rate of neural tube birth defects has been declining
in many parts of the world," the report said. "In the United States,
rates have declinde considerably in the past 20 years, from about
20 per 10,000 births in the late 1960s to about eight per 10,000
births in the late 1980s."
There is evidence from both U.S. and Mexican public health records
that the rate of neural tube birth defects, such as anencephaly,
have been increasing on both sides of the border prior to NAFTA, particularly
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the study found.
"Rates of anencephaly in the Mexican border city of Matamor@Xos,
Tamaulpias increased from three per 10,000 births in 1987 to 15
per 10,000 births in 1992," the report said.
"In Cameron County, the location of Matamoros' sister city of
Brownsville, Texas, the number of anencephaly cases increased from
8.1 per 10,000 live births in 1986 to 20.6 per 10,000 live births
in 1991."
A 1995 epidemiological study "found an interesting correlation" between
the level of industrial activity and the neural tube birth defect rate,
the report said.
The unpublished study was conducted by physicians at the University of
Texas and the University of Indiana, among others.
The study found "a strong correlation between the anencephaly rate
in Cameron County increasing and decreasing as the level of industrial
activity in the nearby Matamoros maquiladoras [industrial] zone increased
and decreased," the report said.
"Meanwhile, the anencephaly rate in two counties with similar population
demographics, but located farther away from the Matamoros maquiladora zone--
Hidalgo and Nueces counties-- did not show such a correlation,"
the report said.
Copyright by The SPOTLIGHT Newspaper
Liberty Lobby, Inc.
300 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
Subscription: 800 522 6292
Craig Nordin
"Do not blame something because of the actions of its friends."
Badly paraphrased but true.
The claims by NAFTA proponents were trying to sway opinion by
promising something that NAFTA couldn't deliver.
Before anti-NAFTA folk gloat, you might check out your closest
TV preacher, christian-coalition politician, or budget-slashing
republican before you get too far along. They are all selling
their "product" the same way.
"Increase your wealth when you invest in God!"
"Make this land the pure land it was"
"It won't hurt society at all to cut out this money"
The original poster can conduct his little anal-retentive study
on these claims and come up with the same pre-digested hogwash.
Nevertheless, NAFTA is a great thing and maybe one of the last
sane things accomplished before the politicians are forced to
simply do only the "populist thing".
Free trade between nations contributes to the long-term stability
and prosperity of the world at large. Free trade is always messy
and never the friend of dictators and those who get their power from
hatred and xenophobia.
But we have too many problems now to worry about did NAFTA work or
not. We *are* committed to fair and free trade.
Just my "stenkin' opinion"
--
cno...@vni.net Fly VNI: Send E-Mail to in...@vni.net
pomi
:
: Nevertheless, NAFTA is a great thing and maybe one of the last
: sane things accomplished before the politicians are forced to
: simply do only the "populist thing".
How about some CONCRETE EXAMPLES of how and why NAFTA is great thing.
:
: Free trade between nations contributes to the long-term stability
: and prosperity of the world at large. Free trade is always messy
: and never the friend of dictators and those who get their power from
: hatred and xenophobia.
How about some EVIDENCE that free trade between natioins contributes
to the long-term stability and prosperity of the world at large.
Exactly where and when has this claimed fact come pass?
John Monroe
pomi (p...@clark.net) writes:
>
>
> How about some EVIDENCE that free trade between natioins contributes
> to the long-term stability and prosperity of the world at large.
>
> Exactly where and when has this claimed fact come pass?
Western Europe
Last 40 years
Jay Hanson
-> :
-> : Nevertheless, NAFTA is a great thing and maybe one of the last
-> : sane things accomplished before the politicians are forced to
-> : simply do only the "populist thing".
Craig, it sounds like you much prefer Capitalism (one-dollar-one-vote)
instead of Democracy (one-person-one-vote or that "populist thing").
Jay
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Point your web browser here:
gopher://csf.Colorado.EDU:70/I9/environment/authors/Hanson.Jay/yourhere.gif
stephenh
: "Do not blame something because of the actions of its friends."
: Badly paraphrased but true.
Well, how about blaming something by its delivered results to date???
cut
: Nevertheless, NAFTA is a great thing and maybe one of the last
: sane things accomplished before the politicians are forced to
: simply do only the "populist thing".
Populist-- a dirty word in the thinking of oligarchists
and economists. See second-class citizen, patriot.
: Free trade between nations contributes to the long-term stability
Like the Zapatista rebellion and the resultant oppression of the natives
by Chase Manhattan and the Mexican Federales???
: and prosperity of the world at large.
In particular, the folks at Chase Manhattan and Goldman Sachs.
And their politician and economist suck-ups.
: Free trade is always messy
: and never the friend of dictators and those who get their power from
: hatred and xenophobia.
Tell that to the families of the innocent victims of the crushing of the
Zapatista uprising. Anyway free trade a la NAFTA seems quite tidy
from the board rooms of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and Chase Manhattan.
One gets the feeling it is a matter of perspective. But I'm sure
the poster would agree that several hundred thousand US jobs lost,
millions of dollars of wages lost or unrealized, and hundreds of lives
lost in atrocities deep in the jungles of Mexico are worth the extra
20% returns to the types who sit back on their leather chairs
and make the really big deals with OPM, not to mention other people's
lives (and their childrens', and so forth).
: But we have too many problems now to worry about did NAFTA work or
: not. We *are* committed to fair and free trade.
Yeah, just lie back and enjoy it (I think this can become the new
American national anthem). We, the people, were never given
a say compared to the multinationals. But not to worry. They,
the multinationals, *are* committed to free trade. And fair trade
-- for multinationals.
: Just my "stenkin' opinion"
And it indeed "stenks."
Steve
Markku Stenborg
writes:
>Craig, it sounds like you much prefer Capitalism (one-dollar-one-vote)
>instead of Democracy (one-person-one-vote or that "populist thing").
Don't we all?
[Let's vote who can wear blue jeans, who black jeans and who must wear a
leisure suit; let's vote who gets to drive a BMW and who gets a VW; who
becomes a PhD in Physics and who a carpenter; lets vote who gets what
salary and which level of wealth; heck, lets vote who gets a breast
implant and who gets dentures; 馨
Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
Take my advice, I have no use for it
Key fingerprint = 0C D5 B6 5D E8 9E 01 C0 4C 8F 7A 60 A9 A7 BA B1
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/M/SS d-(++)@ s+:+(++)>++ a C++ UC>++ P+? L>++ !E !W++() N+++(+)@ o+
!K--? w(+) !O M+(-) V PS(++)@ PE++() Y+ PGP++ !t-- 5? X-- !R-* tv++()@
b+++()@>$ DI- !D- G+ e++++$ h--- r+++ y+++*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Steve Conover
>to the long-term stability and prosperity of the world at large.
>
>Exactly where and when has this claimed fact come pass?
Did you take econ 101? In econ 101 you learn how free trade ALWAYS
benefits ALL parties involved. Mexico produces what it's best at producing,
and we produce what we're best at producing and then we trade. Here's a
better analogy. I hear people say "Buy American" all of the time, when
buying American just because of the fact that the product is American is
extremely harmful to our economy. Why shouldn't I just "Buy Austin"? Or
in the same sense why don't I just "Buy Steve"? Because it would be
ludicrous for me to try and produce everything I consume. I, along with
everyone else, specialize (I am an MIS consultant) in what I do and then
trade my skills with the rest of the world (via money) so that I can buy
products in which other people specailized. My lowest oppurtunity cost
job with the resources I have available (my education) is for me to work
in the MIS field. It would be stupid for me to try to learn how to grow
everything I eat, produce the pencils I use, build my own car, etc. It's
exactly the same way in trade between countries.
-Steve
Jay Hanson
>
> >How about some EVIDENCE that free trade between natioins contributes
> >to the long-term stability and prosperity of the world at large.
> >
> >Exactly where and when has this claimed fact come pass?
>
> Did you take econ 101? In econ 101 you learn how free trade ALWAYS
> benefits ALL parties involved. Mexico produces what it's best at producing,
If that is what you learned in econ 101, I suggest you apply
for a refund. It is not even interesting fiction.
If you want to actually learn something about economics,
here are three books that will help:
#1 INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL: THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY
from the International Society for Ecological Economics
http://kabir.umd.edu/ISEE/ISEEhome.html
#2 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND POLICY
#3 A SURVEY OF ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Available from Island Press http://www.islandpress.com
1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164
Jay
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU! (Point your web browser here:
gopher://csf.Colorado.EDU:70/I9/environment/authors/Hanson.Jay/yourhere.gif
Steve Conover
>for a refund. It is not even interesting fiction.
Excuse me, but the point I made about free trade is a basic tenet
of economics. Mabye you should read it again. Economists may
argue over many, many issues but they ALL agree that free trade
benefits all parties involved.
>If you want to actually learn something about economics,
>here are three books that will help:
>
>#1 INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL: THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY
> from the International Society for Ecological Economics
> http://kabir.umd.edu/ISEE/ISEEhome.html
>#2 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND POLICY
>#3 A SURVEY OF ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
>Available from Island Press http://www.islandpress.com
>1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164
I'll certainly take a look at them if they're in the library.
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
hani, hani http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~boyd/
come and dance with me...(DMB, #36)
=====================================================================
Jay Hanson
>
> Excuse me, but the point I made about free trade is a basic tenet
> of economics. Mabye you should read it again. Economists may
> argue over many, many issues but they ALL agree that free trade
> benefits all parties involved.
I don't mean to be hard on you Steve, but the Econ 101 you
must have taken was evidently neoclassical economics (which
I call "Econosaurus Rex" or "E-Rex" for short). It is well
known that E-Rex is premised on an number of peculiar myths.
[ See for example,
ENERGY AND THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY,
John Peet, p.p. 129-144; Island Press, 1992. ]
IMHO, the most outlandish E-Rex myth of all, is the myth of
"infinite earth". Did your E-Rex 101 teacher say anything
about the maximum scale of the human economy? See what I mean?
[ In case of any lingering doubt, remember when we saw the
earth from space? It was ROUND! A ROUND earth is, by
definition, finite. True? ]
Since the major premise of T-Rex (a FLAT earth) has now been
falsified, all claims made by the critter are now suspect.
Ecological Economics is slated to replace E-Rex as the
dominant economic theory because it, unlike E-Rex, is based
on the biophysical laws of the home planet. <G>
But back to the issue of Free Trade. Here, I can do no
better that to quote Paul Ekins (who, BTW, is an economist):
---------------------------------------------------------------
BASIC TRADE THEORY
In most recent discussions of international trade, free
trade has been incorrectly assumed to be an unequivocally
superior choice, regardless of the circumstances involved. A
reexamination of basic trade theory, however, reveals that
current discussions of the superiority of free trade are more
dogmatic then scientific.
The theory of trade originated with the nineteenth century
classical economist David Ricardo. The principal tenets of his
theory were based on the distinct notions of specialization and
comparative advantage. Individuals, firms, and nations all have
the choice to produce smaller quantities of a diverse array of
goods, or to specialize in the production of greater quantities
of a few goods that they produce well (because of talent,
geographic location, economies of scale, historical
circumstances, etc.). With specialization, surpluses of the
goods can be traded for those goods that either cannot be
produced or that are not produced because of specialization.
Thus, specialization tends to increase the number, variety, and
value of goods and services. Lower overall costs of production
in some area may be said to give a country an absolute advantage
in that area; however, it is not necessary for a country to have
an absolute advantage in any area for it to benefit from trade.
The theory of comparative advantage suggests that, in a
situation with two countries and two goods, if each country
chooses to specialize in the production of that good which has
the greatest relative cost advantage compared to another
country, then both countries will gain from trade between them.
This conclusion is held to be valid for multi-good,
multi-country situations.
The theory of comparative advantage rests on assumptions
which include:
(1) No externalities: If costs of production are externalized,
a product will be underpriced and appear to have more of a
comparative advantage then it really does.
(2) Stable prices: Several countries may assume that they have
a comparative advantage in a certain good and increase its
supply substantially. However, if demand for these goods is
inelastic, the market could be "flooded" and prices would fall,
changing the distribution of comparative advantages.
(3) Equally dynamic comparative advantages: Some types of
production have more dynamic comparative advantages than others,
for example, production of chemicals versus bananas. Countries
with less dynamic comparative advantages (banana producers) may
not be able to exercise much range in innovation and could
become "locked into economic stagnation" and inequality.
(4) International immobility of factors of production: Inherent
in Ricardo's theory is the assumption that a country's capital
and labor will stay within its borders to produce according to
the country's comparative advantage. If they become mobile,
trade will increasingly be based on absolute rather than
comparative advantage. In the effort to remain competitive,
countries will experience pressure on wages, environmental laws,
and working conditions.
---------------------------------------
from A SURVEY OF ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, p.p. 306-307;
Island Press, 1995. This is part of a essay by Paul Ekins --
there is much, much more.
Island Press 800-828-1302, 707-983-6432, Fax 707-983-6164,
http://www.islandpress.com
Jay
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!! (point your web browser here)
gopher://csf.Colorado.EDU:70/I9/environment/authors/Hanson.Jay/yourhere.gif
Mason A. Clark
>Excuse me, but the point I made about free trade is a basic tenet
>of economics. Mabye you should read it again. Economists may
>argue over many, many issues but they ALL agree that free trade
>benefits all parties involved.
Sorry, Steve, it's not true. Economist do NOT all agree on anything,
and certainly not on free trade. I don't have references at my finger
tips this instant but there was a good article in the Atlantic Monthly
discussing this in detail. If you wish I'll find it for you. Notable
was the work of economist List but there's modern ideas too. Japan
is perhaps the best recent example of controlled trade successful.
The United States history is another. Pure free trade is like pure
capitalism - good if you follow the doctor's orders but fatal if taken
in indiscriminate doses.
Mason A. Clark
Alex
>
> Steve Conover wrote:
> >
> > >How about some EVIDENCE that free trade between natioins contributes
> > >to the long-term stability and prosperity of the world at large.
> > >
> > >Exactly where and when has this claimed fact come pass?
> >
> > Did you take econ 101? In econ 101 you learn how free trade ALWAYS
> > benefits ALL parties involved. Mexico produces what it's best at producing,
>
> for a refund. It is not even interesting fiction.
>
> here are three books that will help:
>
> #1 INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL: THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY
> from the International Society for Ecological Economics
> http://kabir.umd.edu/ISEE/ISEEhome.html
> #2 TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: CONCEPTS, METHODS, AND POLICY
> #3 A SURVEY OF ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
>
> Available from Island Press http://www.islandpress.com
> 1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164
>
This is for the protectionist. Comparitive advantage is what Steve was
trying to explain. How can you say comparitive advantage is fiction? Do you know
what comparitive advantage is? If you did I think you would feel differently. How
do you explain how we fell DEEPER into the Depresion of the 1930's after we raised
tarrifs to 'protect' our country from imports. We need free trade to keep our
economy from becoming stagnant.
Aware Consulting
[snip]
>Japan is perhaps the best recent example of controlled trade successful.
>
I think that might depend on whether you were living in Japan, and
getting to pay several times the possible free trade price for things
like meat, rice, textiles, and a whole host of other items that are
*controlled*. If that's a success story I think I can do without it.
The Japanese are also learning new rules to the game from several of the
other emerging producers/exports in the Pacific rim.
When you're running a race the trick to winning is to run faster and
further than the competition. Stopping to build a wall, hoping that it
will delay your opponent, is not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| aw...@annap.infi.net | The justification for profit is profit. |
| http://www.infi.net/~aware/ | - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #202. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Briones
Received: from cash.wharton.upenn.edu (CASH.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU [130.91.160.43]) by futures.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA11696 for <jos...@futures.wharton.upenn.edu>; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 12:24:05 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cash.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) id MAA19513 for jos...@futures.wharton.upenn.edu; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 12:24:05 -0500
Received: from ttown.apci.com (ttown.apci.com [204.27.156.3]) by cash.wharton.upenn.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA19501 for <jos...@wharton.upenn.edu>; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 12:23:59 -0500
Received: (from brioneja@localhost) by ttown.apci.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA10702; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 12:16:14 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 12:16:14 -0500 (EST)
X-PH: V4...@cash.wharton.upenn.edu
From: JB <brio...@ttown.apci.com>
To: wharton me <jos...@wharton.upenn.edu>
Subject: Mexico2000 list FAQ
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.95121...@ttown.apci.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
> LIST MEXICO2000:
> List established to discuss the political transitions in
> Mexico--Assasination, Elections, political parties, corruption,
> prospects for democracy, narcopolitics.
> Social changes and economic consequences of government
> policies, NAFTA, Exchange rates, Mexican economy and industry, Peso
> Devaluation.
> A search for alternative solutions and proposals for the current
> mexican problems is encouraged.
> Both academic papers and personal accounts or statements are welcome.
>
> Also includes informal Mexican news services provided by list members
>
> Discussion of the current murder investigations, corruption or
> narcopolitics, money laundering and the merging of the drug money
> and the mexican financial system. Also social issues like minimum salary,
> distribution of income, the informal economy, etc.
> MEXICO 2000 IS An uncensored forum where the country's problems are
analyzed and
> discussed, including the complex interelationships between them. The
> search for solutions and constructive proposals will be encouraged with
> a view to what programs,social, economic, political should be implemented to
> start addressing the medium and long term problems of the nation.
>
> Discussion of the current economic, political and social issues in Mexico
> but focused to the search for a consensus on possible solutions or
> estrategies to apply during the changeover to a democratic system and to
> address the country's development without neglecting social needs and
> income distribution.
>
> News postings are used to enhance and complement the discussion, and
> keep list members of the ongoing situation in Mexico.
>
> Do not be shy about sending messages that do not have Mexico as a
> central issue but are nonetheless related. For example,news on problems
> in other latinamerican economies due to the problems in the Mexican
> economy are good complement to the disscussion in Mexico2000
> >>> Discussions limited to subjects covered by forum<<<.
For Example,> While immigration to the U.S. is certainly a topic of
importance in
> Mexico, it is best that postings exclusively related to the discussion of
> U.S. law and proposals such as 187 be sent to the forum
> fron...@profmexis.dgsca.unam.mx
INSTRUCTIONS FOR MEXICO2000
These instructions are exclusively for mexic...@mep-d.org (or
<an41...@anon.penet.fi> for anonymous messages **)
NOTE ON SPECIAL SPANISH CHARACTERS AND SYMBOLS: While our software
correctly handles the ISO-8859-1 Latin-1 character set, some subscribers
have not configured their settings to deal with special characters, and
they will receive practically unreadable messages. It is up to the
subscribers to set their software correctly, as we do not alter any
messages in any way.
To subscribe to mexico2000 SEND A MESSAGE TO MAJO...@MEP-D.ORG (or
<an41...@anon.penet.fi> for anonymous subscriptions **) with the Subject:
SUBSCRIBE MEXICO2000
The currently accepted commands by majo...@mep-d.org are the following and
each of them MUST be the *SUBJECT* of a different message message. To send
multiple commands, you must send as many messages as commands you wish
majordomo to process, the message body is ignored.
SUBSCRIBE mexico2000
Subscribes you to mexico2000.
UNSUBSCRIBE mexico2000
Unsubscribes you from mexico2000. ***THE UNSUBSCRIBE COMMAND
MUST BE ISSUED FROM THE SAME ELECTRONIC ADDRESS FROM WHERE YOU ORIGINALLY
SUBSCRIBED TO TAKE EFFECT****
REVIEW mexico2000
Shows the list of users currently subscribing to the list.
FOR SECURITY REASONS, AND TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE SUBSCRIBERS, THIS
OPTION HAS BEEN DISABLED FOR MEXICO2000.
HELP
Sends this message.
INFO mexico2000
Sends this message
SET mexico2000 OPTION
Set your subscription parameters to OPTION
Currently available options are:
(default options are indicated)
ACKN : Confirms that you sent a message to the list.
NOACKN : No Acknowledgment is sent (YOU STILL GET A COPY OF YOUR MESSAGE
WHEN THE LIST DISTRIBUTES IT)
[Default].
ACTIVE : Makes your subscription active
[Default]
INACTIVE : Suspends your subscription until the next
ACTIVE command. ***ONLY VALID IF SENT FROM THE SUBSCRIBED ADDRESS***
DIGEST : Sends daily digests rather than individual messages
MAIL : Sends you individual messages.
[Default].
REPRO : Send a copy of the message to the sender when the list is
distributed
[Default]
The next six options are largely experimental, they are not available for
Digest subscribers, and may not prevent all unwanted traffic from reaching
your mailbox:
NONOTICIAS: To PREVENT receiving news in Spanish.
NONEWS: To PREVENT receiving news in English.
NOCOMMENT: To PREVENT receiving comments from the participants.
NOTICIAS: To receive ONLY news in Spanish.
NEWS: To receive ONLY news in English.
COMMENT: To receive ONLY comments from the participants.
NOTE: This server processes messages and commands through several different
mailhosts, on a first available basis; however, you MUST only send commands
to <majo...@mep-d.org> or <an41...@anon.penet.fi> and messages to
<mexic...@mep-d.org>, <an41...@anon.penet.fi> or <anon...@mep-d.org>
OTHERWISE THEY WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.
These "filters" were created due to list members requests
to have a way to reduce the volume of mail coming in to
their mailboxes but without having to disconnect from the list.
Who are the persons that should use them?
well, if you live in Mexico and read La Jornada and
El Financiero every day, you might want to turn the
noticias en espanol switch off, and receive only discussion and
news in English.
Conversely, if you live in the U.S., and think the AP wires are
full of garbage, you might want to turn the news in English switch off.
Or you might want to turn both news switches off and participate only
in the discussions.
However, these, of course, are generalizations.
the news in spanish also include news from sources outside La Jornada,
just as the news in English include sources outside the AP, UPI wires.
Thus by turning a switch off, you might be missing on some good stuff.
What is the difference between this approach and having separate lists?
The answer is that the news tend to be source of discussion.
Thus by keeping them in one list, we set the reply option to the discusion
forum and keep the discussions alive.
For example, if someone is suscribed to news in english and discussion,
and replies to an item from the news in english asking for further
information or commenting on the news of the day, his/her reply will go
directly into the discussion forum, and be received even by those who have
the news in english switch off but the discussion switch on.
This allows to the individual list member tailor the mail volume but
yet maintains a way that all members can exchange comments.
Let us know if you are using the switches and feel that are not
working properly. Give us some time to work out the bugs.
Comments are welcome.
MESSAGES SENT TO THE LIST MAY BE SUBJECT TO DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTION, FOR A
VARIETY OF REASONS; PLEASE DO NOT SEND DUPLICATES UNTIL AFTER TWELVE HOURS
OF HAVING SENT THE ORIGINAL NOT-YET-DISTRIBUTED MESSAGE.
Regardless of the host and domain shown within the list address in the
"From:" and "To:" lines in outgoing messages, the "Reply-To:" field is hard
wired to mexic...@mep-d.org
If you require additional assistance, please contact list...@mep-d.org and
a human being will reply.
[** Mexico 2000 accepts anonymous subscriptions and messages, so those
individuals who otherwise may not be able to participate find a safe way to
do so. However, anonymous messages sent via anon.penet.fi may take longer
to be distributed due to that server restrictions; thus, we suggest that
anonymous messages to the list rather be sent to <anon...@mep-d.org>. In
addition, unlike "regular" subscriptions, the anonymous ones are subject to
immediate cancellation if any "User Unknown" or similar error message is
received by us.
The list of subscribers will not be made public under ANY circumstances,
and, for the added privacy of anonymous correspondents, the anonymous ID
assigned by anon.penet.fi is automatically changed to "Anonimo" upon receipt
of the message, which is destroyed by the same act. In other words, not even
us would be able to know the original anonymous ID of the sender. Of course,
we add the original anonymous ID of every anonymous subscription to the list
of subscribers.
PARTICIPATION IN MEXICO2000 DOES NOT IMPLY MEMBERSHIP TO MEXICAN EXILES FOR
DEMOCRACY, THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THE LIST AND THE ARTICLES SUBMITTED ARE
THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SENDERS, AND NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE
VIEWS OF MEXICAN EXILES FOR DEMOCRACY, AS THE OPINIONS OF THE ORGANIZATION
NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE LIST.
>>>Discussions limited to subjects covered by forum.<<<
WHO/WHAT IS MEXNEWS?
It is a group of volunteers that search for news of mexico on the
internet and posts on the lists Mexico2000 and chiapas-L, after which
they get reposted to soc.culture.mexican.
We try to provide a service that presents a different view on the news
from the regular U.S. and Mexican media. We do this by searching
many news sources and selecting the news that would otherwise get lost
in the noise.
We are always looking for volunteers, be mexican or non-mexican, english
or spanish speakers, in mexico or out of Mexico.
We have recently lost two members due to graduation. If interested,
send me an e-mail.
WHAT ARE THE RULES OF THE LIST?
There is no fixed set of rules. Only a few guidelines:
Do not use insults or be disrespectful (yes I know is hard).
Try to stick to the subjects of the lists, there are other lists where you
can discuss prop. 187 or mexican cuisine.
Since this is an uncensored forum, all views are welcome.
However, individuals that repeatedly use insults will receive
a note or two requesting a toning down of the messages.
We have a good list here. Let's keep it that way.
BUT I AM GETTING INUNDATED WITH NEWS, WHAT DO I DO?
You could set your list setting to the digest option, but you will miss
some good material.
Unfortunately, no matter how much we try to cull the best of the news,
it is still hard to define what is "best" and only send that.
What is best for me might not be best for you. it is a hard balance.
So we typically err in the side of a little too much rather than being
accused of presenting a one-sided picture.
>>>>>>>>>>
To reduce the mail volume, some "filters" have been created
to cull the mails according to:
news: news in English
Noticias: News in Spanish
Discussion: Discussion area
see information on these filters below
>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Others suggestions to reduce list volume:
>
> Whenever a message is requesting information specific only
> to the sender, try to reply directly to his/her address rather
> than to the entire list. For example, if someone wants information
> on how to access the profmexis gopher, reply to him/her directly
> rather than to the entire list.
> Same goes for "me too" or " I want that too" messages to the
> entire list. If you want the same information, send a message
> to the original sender asking him/her to send you a copy of any
> replies he/she gets. If the original sender gets a lot of
> "me too" messages, maybe he/she can summarize/merge the replies
> and then send the summary to the entire list.
>
> Try not to send messages to both the Chiapas-L and Mexico2000> list.
While the lists do not have exactly the same membership,
> there is a lot of duplicate membership.
most of those that do not belong to both is because they
> do not want to. Thus, sending messages to both creates unnecessary
> duplication. Now, this does not mean that some extremely important
> messages, urgent requests for help and the like should not be
> duplicated. Just keep the objectives of the lists in mind when
> posting messages.
>
>>>Discussions limited to subjects covered by forum.<<<
ENGLISH AND SPANISH
While I agree that a number of members do not have full command of
spanish, most of them can read it in a significant way. I
do not think making this and English only list is the solution.
Then we are closing in a way the forum to those who do not have
full command of English.
Summarizing in the other language is great. If people have the time
which is not usually often.
I would rather like to see fully bilingual conversations.
Typically, most of the members of the list read the other language
but might not feel comfortable writing with it.
So, a possible solution would be, use the language you feel most
comfortable with. Even if the discussion is being carried out
in Spanish and you do not feel comfortable writing in Spanish, feel
free to answer or contribute in English. The conversation can
take place in both languages. If a Mexican reads English but
does not write comfortably and a non-mexican reads spanish but
does not write it comfortably, then write in your own language and
read the other. Answer to each other in your own language.
do not feel pressured to write in the same language of a thread.
Interject with comments in your own language. The conversation
can continue in the language it started. Or it can switch.
Or it can go back and forth depending on the individuals contributing.
En resumen, si lees ingles pero no lo escribes bien, no te sientas
presionado a contestar en ingles si una discusion en particular
esta sucediendo en Ingles. Sientete libre de contestar o proporcionar
comentario en Espanol. Y viceversa.
Subject: Que es Mexico2000?
MEXICO 2000 es un foro libre para la discusion de Mexico y su problematica.
Se busca fomentar la busqueda de soluciones y propuestas constructivas con
relacion a los programas sociales, economicos y politicos, entre otros, que
podrian instaurarse con objeto de afrontar los retos que enfrenta el pais, a
corto, mediano y largo plazo.
Tambien se intentara analizar estrategias que permitan a Mexico acceder a la
democracia, sin descuidar las necesidades sociales y de distribucion del
ingreso.
Entre otros temas que se discuten en la lista, estan las transiciones
politicas, reales o hipoteticas, por que atraviesa el pais --magnicidios,
investigaciones, encubrimiento; elecciones, partidos politicos, corrupcion,
esperanza de democracia, narcopolitica, lavado de dinero, incluyendo la
mezcla del dinero de las drogas con el capital transnacional "limpio",
atraves de los sistemas financieros mexicano e internacional; terrorismo de
estado y violaciones a los derechos humanos, cambio social y economico,
tanto como consecuencias de politicas gubernamentales, TLC, tasas de cambio,
economia e industria mexicanas, devaluaciones y su efecto social en cuanto a
poder adquisitivo, salario minimo y el costo real de vida, la economia
informal, distribucion del ingreso; y los efectos de todo ello en los seres
humanos que constituyen el pueblo de Mexico.
Este tipo de discusiones puede, muy facilmente, caldear los animos y
encender las pasiones; la mejor manera de mantener una discusion civilizada,
tradicional en en este foro, es tratar con los demas participantes tal como
si estuvieramos cara a cara. Ademas, recordemos que en Mexico aun se
acostumbra el Usted, y, si bien la mayoria de los participantes prefieren el
tuteo, otros no. Independientemente de que aun entre los angloparlantes,
hay quienes prefieren un trato mas formal.
Articulos noticiosos de diversas fuentes, enviados por los suscriptores
mismos fomentan la discusion informada de la vida nacional.
Mensajes que no tienen a Mexico como tema central, pero que estan
relacionados con la vida o problematica del pais, tambien son bienvenidos.
Tanto como aquellos referentes al efecto de cuestiones mexicanas sobre el
resto del mundo.
Contribuciones academicas y vivencias u opiniones personales son bien
recibidas en la lista, en ingles o espa~ol.
>
> INSTRUCCIONES PARA EL USO DE MEXICO2000
>
> Estas instrucciones son unicamente para mexic...@mep-d.org (o
> <an41...@anon.penet.fi> si desea enviar mensajes anonimos a la lista *)
>
> NOTA EN CUANTO A ACENTOS Y CARACTERES ESPECIALES: La lista maneja
> correctamente caracteres ISO-8859-1 Latin-1 por lo que todos los caracteres
> especiales del idioma espa~ol son manejados, y transmitidos, correctamente.
> Sin embargo, muchos de los suscriptores no tienen configurado para manejar
> estos caracteres correctamente, y reciben mensajes practicamente ilegibles;
> queda a discrecion del ususario configurar su equipo correctamente, ya que
> los mensajes recibidos por la lista con caracteres especiales son
> distribuidos sin alteracion, del mismo modo que ningun mensaje es alterado
> por nosotros.
>
> PARA INSCRIBIRSE a mexico2000, ENVIE UN MENSAJE A majo...@mep-d.org (o a
> <an41...@anon.penet.fi> si desea una suscripcion anonima*) CON
> EL TEMA ("SUBJECT"):
>
> SUBSCRIBE MEXICO2000
>
> mep-d.org es el dominio en Internet de Mexicanos Exiliados pro-Democracia,
> es administrado por nuestra Unidad de Sistemas e Informatica
> <u...@mep-d.org>, la lista en si es manejada por nuestro Departamento de
> Listas <list...@mep-d.org>.
>
> Los comandos aceptados por majo...@mep-d.org son los siguientes, y cada
> uno de ellos tiene que ser el tema ("SUBJECT") de un mensaje individual
> para que sean procesados. Para enviar mas de un comando a majordomo, CADA
> UNO VA EN UN MENSAJE DIFERENTE. El cuerpo del mensaje es ignorado.
>
> SUBSCRIBE mexico2000
> Procesa la inscripcion a la lista mexico2000.
>
> UNSUBSCRIBE mexico2000
> Procesa la baja de la lista mexico2000
> ****ESTE COMANDO SOLO SURTE EFECTO SI SE ENVIA DESDE LA MISMA DIRECCION
> ELECTRONICA DESDE LA CUAL SE ENVIO EL DE SUSCRIPCION****
>
> REVIEW mexico2000
> Proporciona un lista de suscriptores a la lista "Nombre-de-la-Lista".
> POR RAZONES DE SEGURIDAD Y PRIVACIA DE LOS SUSCRIPTORES, ESTE COMANDO HA
> SIDO INUTILIZADO.
>
> HELP
> Envia este mensaje.
>
> SET mexico2000 OPCION
> Fija los parametros de suscripcion a OPCION
>
> Las opciones disponibles son:
> (las pre-establecidas estan indicadas)
>
> ACKN : Acusa recibo de mensajes enviados a la lista.
>
> NOACKN : No hay acuse de recibo
> [Pre-establecida].
>
> ACTIVE : Activa la suscripcion
> [Pre-establecida] INACTIVE : Suspende la suscripcion hasta el siguiente
> comando ACTIVE
> ****ESTE COMANDO SOLO SURTE EFECTO SI SE ENVIA DESDE LA MISMA DIRECCION
> ELECTRONICA DESDE LA CUAL SE ENVIO EL DE SUSCRIPCION****
>
> DIGEST : Envia compendios diarios en lugar de mensajes individuales
>
> MAIL : Envia mensajes individuales.
> [Pre-establecida].
>
> REPRO : Incluye al remitente entre los destinatarios de un mensaje
> [Pre-establecida]
>
> Las siguientes seis opciones son experimentales, no estan disponibles para
> recipientes del compendio (digest), y no garantizamos que funcionen en todos
> los casos:
>
> NONOTICIAS: Para NO recibir noticias en espa~ol.
>
> NONEWS: Para NO recibir noticias en ingles.
>
> NOCOMMENT: Para NO recibir comentarios de los participantes.
>
> NOTICIAS: Para SOLAMENTE recibir noticias en espa~ol.
>
> NEWS: Para SOLAMENTE recibir noticias en ingles.
>
> COMMENT: Para SOLAMENTE recibir comentarios de los participantes.
>
> NOTA: Mensajes a la lista, tanto como comandos a majordomo, son procesados
> por diferentes servidores, en funcion de su disponibilidad y carga de
> trabajo; sin embargo, los mensajes deben ser enviados UNICAMENTE a
> <mexic...@mep-d.org>, <anon...@mep-d.org> o <an41...@anon.penet.fi> y
> los comandos UNICAMENTE a <majo...@mep-d.org> o a
> <an41...@anon.penet.fi>, DE LO
> CONTRARIO, NO SERAN PROCESADOS.
>
> La carga de trabajo de nuestros servidores puede resultar en demoras en la
> distribucion de mensajes a la lista, favor de no remitir duplicados antes de
> doce horas de haber enviado el original.
>
> Independientemente de la maquina o dominio en las lineas "From:" y "To:", el
> campo "Reply-To:" esta dirigido a mexic...@mep-d.org; asi que un "Reply"
> hara llegar el mensaje al sitio adecuado.
>
> Quien necesite ayuda adicional puede enviar un mensaje a list...@mep-d.org
> y una persona les atendera.
>
> [* Suscripciones y mensajes anonimos son aceptados por mexico2000, con
> objeto de permitir que quienes de otra forma podrian ver limitada u
> obstaculizada su libre participacion no encuentren obstaculos. Sin embargo,
> los mensajes enviados atraves de anon.penet.fi pueden tardar mucho mas
> tiempo del normal en ser recibidos por nuestro servidor dadas las
> restricciones de ese servidor, por lo que sugerimos que mensajes anonimos
> sean enviados a <anon...@mep-d.org> de preferencia. Por otro lado, a
> diferencia de las suscripciones nominales, las anonimas seran canceladas
> automaticamente de recibirse el primer mensaje de usuario desconocido
> ("User Unknown") o similar.
>
> La lista de suscriptores no sera hecha publica bajo ninguna circunstancia, y
> para mayor privacia de quienes deseen remitir mensajes anonimos la identidad
> del corresponsal es automaticamente cambiada al recibirse el original y los
> destinatarios solamente ven la palabra "Anonimo" (ni siquiera la identidad
> anonima asignada por anon.penet.fi sera conocida por nadie, ni siquiera
> nosotros porque esto es automatico, como automatica es la destruccion del
> mensaje original a su recepcion por nuestros servidores. Por supuesto, la
> identida anonima original de los subscriptores si es a~adida a la lista de
> distribucion.
>
> Para aun mayor privacia, nuestra llave publica de encripcion se encuentra al
> final de este mensaje. Mensajes en clave son decodificados y redirijidos a
> la lista automaticamente.]
>
> LA PARTICIPACION EN MEXICO2000 NO SIGNIFICA MEMBRESIA EN MEXICANOS EXILIADOS
> PRO-DEMOCRACIA, LAS OPINIONES EXPRESADAS Y LOS ARTICULOS ENVIADOS A LA LISTA
> SON RESPONSABILIDAD EXCLUSIVA DE LOS REMITENTES, Y NO NECESARIAMENTE
> REFLEJAN EL PUNTO DE VISTA DE MEXICANOS EXILIADOS PRO-DEMOCRACIA, TANTO COMO
> LAS OPINIONES DE LA ORGANIZACION NO NECESARIAMENTE REFLEJAN LAS DE LOS
> PARTICIPANTES EN LA LISTA.
>
Craig Nordin (cno...@hq.vni.net) wrote:
: "Do not blame something because of the actions of its friends."
: Badly paraphrased but true.
: The claims by NAFTA proponents were trying to sway opinion by
: promising something that NAFTA couldn't deliver.
: Before anti-NAFTA folk gloat, you might check out your closest
: TV preacher, christian-coalition politician, or budget-slashing
: republican before you get too far along. They are all selling
: their "product" the same way.
: "Increase your wealth when you invest in God!"
: "Make this land the pure land it was"
: "It won't hurt society at all to cut out this money"
: The original poster can conduct his little anal-retentive study
: on these claims and come up with the same pre-digested hogwash.
: Nevertheless, NAFTA is a great thing and maybe one of the last
: sane things accomplished before the politicians are forced to
: simply do only the "populist thing".
: Free trade between nations contributes to the long-term stability
: and prosperity of the world at large. Free trade is always messy
: and never the friend of dictators and those who get their power from
: hatred and xenophobia.
: But we have too many problems now to worry about did NAFTA work or
: not. We *are* committed to fair and free trade.
: Just my "stenkin' opinion"
Mark Witte
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>Steve Conover wrote:
>>
>> Excuse me, but the point I made about free trade is a basic tenet
>> of economics. Mabye you should read it again. Economists may
>> argue over many, many issues but they ALL agree that free trade
>> benefits all parties involved.
>
>I don't mean to be hard on you Steve, but the Econ 101 you
>must have taken was evidently neoclassical economics (which
>I call "Econosaurus Rex" or "E-Rex" for short). It is well
>known that E-Rex is premised on an number of peculiar myths.
I suspect that "Econosaurus Rex" is a lot like Brontosaurus, a beast
that never really existed but was put together from bits and pieces of other
real things by someone attempting to advance a personal agenda.
> [ See for example,
> ENERGY AND THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY,
> John Peet, p.p. 129-144; Island Press, 1992. ]
>
>IMHO, the most outlandish E-Rex myth of all, is the myth of
>"infinite earth". Did your E-Rex 101 teacher say anything
>about the maximum scale of the human economy? See what I mean?
Did the teacher and the book stress the fundamental economic concept
of scarcity?
>
>[ In case of any lingering doubt, remember when we saw the
> earth from space? It was ROUND! A ROUND earth is, by
> definition, finite. True? ]
This statement stood out in Jay Hanson's post because it was actually
true and because it made me wonder if he's describing the view of earth he
gets from his window.
>
>Since the major premise of T-Rex (a FLAT earth) has now been
>falsified, all claims made by the critter are now suspect.
>
>Ecological Economics is slated to replace E-Rex as the
>dominant economic theory because it, unlike E-Rex, is based
>on the biophysical laws of the home planet. <G>
But, evidently, not in any way on economics as anyone knows it.
>
>But back to the issue of Free Trade. Here, I can do no
>better that to quote Paul Ekins (who, BTW, is an economist):
And who, BTW, does not appear in the AEA directory, the list of
members of the Econometric Society, nor the Prentice Hall Guide to
Economists. Given what comes below, I can see why his name is unassociated
reputable economic organization.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>BASIC TRADE THEORY
>
> In most recent discussions of international trade, free
>trade has been incorrectly assumed to be an unequivocally
>superior choice, regardless of the circumstances involved. A
>reexamination of basic trade theory, however, reveals that
>current discussions of the superiority of free trade are more
>dogmatic then scientific.
And this is based upon a reading of the works of Paul Krugman or
Laura Tyson? Is how, how so?
>
> The theory of trade originated with the nineteenth century
>classical economist David Ricardo.
And basic to the work of Ricardo, in particular his theory of
comparative advantage, was the assumption of a (Surprise, Jay!) finite
earth.
Externalities are a *widely studied* problem in almost all markets
and are irrelevant in the Ricardian system beyond their role in standard
microeconomic models of production.
>
>(2) Stable prices: Several countries may assume that they have
>a comparative advantage in a certain good and increase its
>supply substantially. However, if demand for these goods is
>inelastic, the market could be "flooded" and prices would fall,
>changing the distribution of comparative advantages.
Yes, adding assumptions of irrationality can make any model fail.
This again has nothing to add to international trade beyond how it is treated
in basic microeconomics. What if hat makers in the US flood the domestic hat
market?
>
>(3) Equally dynamic comparative advantages: Some types of
>production have more dynamic comparative advantages than others,
>for example, production of chemicals versus bananas. Countries
>with less dynamic comparative advantages (banana producers) may
>not be able to exercise much range in innovation and could
>become "locked into economic stagnation" and inequality.
This is simply irrelevant to Ricardo's model. Or trade models in
general.
>
>(4) International immobility of factors of production: Inherent
>in Ricardo's theory is the assumption that a country's capital
>and labor will stay within its borders to produce according to
>the country's comparative advantage. If they become mobile,
>trade will increasingly be based on absolute rather than
>comparative advantage. In the effort to remain competitive,
>countries will experience pressure on wages, environmental laws,
>and working conditions.
This is foolishness of the first order. Nations gain from trading
along the lines of mutual absolute advantage (this is just a special case of
comparative advantage). That this Ekins guy would write this and Hanson would
post it just shows that neither of them has any understanding of basic trade
theory, let alone the work that has been done in the 20th century.
>
>---------------------------------------
>
>from A SURVEY OF ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, p.p. 306-307;
> Island Press, 1995. This is part of a essay by Paul Ekins --
> there is much, much more.
I'd hope so because otherwise the book would be an intellectual
vacuum.
Meredith Poor
>I don't mean to be hard on you Steve, but the Econ 101 you
>must have taken was evidently neoclassical economics (which
>I call "Econosaurus Rex" or "E-Rex" for short). It is well
>known that E-Rex is premised on an number of peculiar myths.
>IMHO, the most outlandish E-Rex myth of all, is the myth of
>"infinite earth". Did your E-Rex 101 teacher say anything
>about the maximum scale of the human economy? See what I mean?
>
>[ In case of any lingering doubt, remember when we saw the
> earth from space? It was ROUND! A ROUND earth is, by
> definition, finite. True? ]
>
>Since the major premise of T-Rex (a FLAT earth) has now been
>falsified, all claims made by the critter are now suspect.
Right off the bat, this looks like production is viewed in terms of goods
with heavy material content, such as made from mining, woodcutting,
fishing, etc. A vast amount of wealth creation now is almost completely
abstract, particularly in the United States. Examples are software,
musical recordings, movies, drugs (at least those that are synthesized),
and microelectronic components.
>
>Ecological Economics is slated to replace E-Rex as the
>dominant economic theory because it, unlike E-Rex, is based
>on the biophysical laws of the home planet....
>
>But back to the issue of Free Trade. Here, I can do no
>better that to quote Paul Ekins (who, BTW, is an economist):
Note that this is not your analysis, it is someone elses. Are you being
led around by the nose by some academic? Where is YOUR original
thinking?
>
> In most recent discussions of international trade, free
>trade has been incorrectly assumed to be an unequivocally
>superior choice, regardless of the circumstances involved. A
>reexamination of basic trade theory, however, reveals that
>current discussions of the superiority of free trade are more
>dogmatic then scientific.
"unequivocally superior" and "dogmatic"... emotionally charged words.
The preamble has an odor to it.
>
> The theory of comparative advantage rests on assumptions
>which include:
>
>(1) No externalities: If costs of production are externalized,
>a product will be underpriced and appear to have more of a
>comparative advantage then it really does.
True, but so what? All goods have externalities, so they all appear
underpriced. Russian oil has the side effect of ruining the arctic.
Nigerian oil has the same effect in Nigeria. Americans use that oil to
generate nitros oxides and sulfites that precipitate as acid rain in
Europe. What goes around comes around.
>(2) Stable prices: Several countries may assume that they have
>a comparative advantage in a certain good and increase its
>supply substantially. However, if demand for these goods is
>inelastic, the market could be "flooded" and prices would fall,
>changing the distribution of comparative advantages.
Ricardo specifically and the entire free-trade school is probably
incompletely interpreted in this context. Their point is that at any
particular point in time, particular countries have comparitive
advantages. No one assumes that those relationships will remain fixed.
Free trade will accelerate the rebalancing of comparative advantages.
If a country (say the USA) devolves significant production to a low-
labor-cost satellite (i.e. Korea) then the United States accelerates the
migration from industrial manufacture to service provision (in this
example). Stable prices are not even desirable for free trade since a
country with an advantage will continually attempt to frustrate
competitors (i.e. the United States with computer chips, as an
outstanding example) by lowering prices and introducing superior goods.
>(3) Equally dynamic comparative advantages: Some types of
>production have more dynamic comparative advantages than others,
>for example, production of chemicals versus bananas. Countries
>with less dynamic comparative advantages (banana producers) may
>not be able to exercise much range in innovation and could
>become "locked into economic stagnation" and inequality.
The overpowering assumption in this statement is that comparative
disadvantage is the cause of stagnation. Stagnation is caused by
mismanagement and excessively regulated commerce. If people are free to
act in their economic self interest within the borders of a country, they
will abandon wasteful efforts and move on to those that maximize profit.
A banana producer now will move on to make baseballs (Haiti). Cuba is
an excellent example of stagnation.
>(4) International immobility of factors of production: Inherent
>in Ricardo's theory is the assumption that a country's capital
>and labor will stay within its borders to produce according to
>the country's comparative advantage. If they become mobile,
>trade will increasingly be based on absolute rather than
>comparative advantage. In the effort to remain competitive,
>countries will experience pressure on wages, environmental laws,
>and working conditions.
Does Ricardo say in so many words that capital and labor will remain
static? In the statement "Inherent in Ricardo's theory is the assumption
that..." you are putting words in his mouth.
In vast regions of the world today, the workforce is free to move.
However, just because it can be mobile doesn't mean that it is. People
living in Appalachia seem to be attracted to the place even though their
employment opportunities suck. The United States could productivly
employ every working age Mexican in Mexico as a domestic in the United
States, but for some reason they (the Mexicans) mostly stay put.
(For example) it's hard to imagine the United States being responsible
for low wages in Mexico when wealthy Mexicans use their police and
military to suppress their own population. The Oilworkers Union, for
example, requires bribes from the professional workers for admission to
the union, and thus employment in the oil industry. This power structure
is not even remotely under the control of anyone other than union
insiders. Is the economic advantage in this case inherent, or a creature
of the culture? Is culture and political context the main reason for
comparative or absolute advantages, or merely one of them?
The United States is very definitely not interested in unrestrained
trade, otherwise cocaine would be freely imported and distributed. As it
is, the public opinion in general and the FDA in particular have the
tobacco industry in a vise.
The assertion that unrestrained free trade will ruin the ecological
resources of subordinate countries is true if the countries in question
mismanage their assets. But that will happen anyway. Look at the damage
the countries of the ex-Soviet Union have sustained, even though trade
was highly regulated.
Free trade and freedom of commerce, and freedom of speech in particular,
result in economic optimization far faster than regulation and restraint.
If people are free to buy what they think is best and producers are free
to make the best use of their resources, the producers will have to
reduce waste just to survive. At first, this results in less consumption
of materials. Ultimately, it means the use of no materials at all, by
instead providing services, or abstractions (such as data).
Meredith Poor
>Notable
>was the work of economist List but there's modern ideas too. Japan
>capitalism - good if you follow the doctor's orders but fatal if taken
>in indiscriminate doses.
>
In any case, although the numbers look good at the national level, the
individual Japanese consumer has been shafted.
Economies are a little bit like nuclear reactors; it isn't that they run
out of control, it's that their energy output is too chaotic.
Government, in the form of taxes, is a moderator, absorbing the
particularly energic particles in far greater proportion than the
average.
Some limits on trade make sense, but the limits proposed here seem to be
oriented toward saving American jobs and imposing (in effect) American
environmental legislation on other countries. These are not good reasons
to restrain trade, and the envisioned restraints have side effects that
may frustrate their stated intentions.
Trade restrictions make sense on countries that are restraining their own
international trade, or who plan to use imported goods for grossly
destructive purposes (i.e. chemicals to Iraq). Imposing trade sanctions
to stop environmental damage will simply shift the damage elsewhere, as
that country attempts to feed and house its people with less
effective internal resources. If a country trades freely, it may more
rapidly accumulate savings that it can apply to environmental remediation
and preservation. It is also free to buy the best solutions possible on
the world market.
Mark Witte
Mason A. Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>sg...@mail.utexas.edu (Steve Conover) wrote:
>
>>Excuse me, but the point I made about free trade is a basic tenet
>>of economics. Mabye you should read it again. Economists may
>>argue over many, many issues but they ALL agree that free trade
>>benefits all parties involved.
>
>and certainly not on free trade.
I'd be interested in serious economic research that shows that
something is better for national welfare than free trade (given retaliation).
I rather doubt that James Fallows' magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, would
present any such careful work.
>I don't have references at my finger
>tips this instant but there was a good article in the Atlantic Monthly
>discussing this in detail. If you wish I'll find it for you. Notable
>was the work of economist List but there's modern ideas too. Japan
>is perhaps the best recent example of controlled trade successful.
Friedrich List is a poor example of an economist who favored
protectionist policies. He was a primitive institutionalist who never built
anything like a convincing model of why national development should be divided
into five stages or what those stages should be nor did he do any serious
empirical work. Furthermore, he actually advocated free trade among all
nations that had achieved the level of technical development of 19th century
England. By his standards, protectionism would only be optimal for nations
that are still working out steam power.
>The United States history is another. Pure free trade is like pure
>capitalism - good if you follow the doctor's orders but fatal if taken
>in indiscriminate doses.
>
> Mason A. Clark
Steve Cumming
Steve Conover <sg...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>How about some EVIDENCE that free trade between natioins contributes
>>to the long-term stability and prosperity of the world at large.
>>
>
>Did you take econ 101? In econ 101 you learn how free trade ALWAYS
>benefits ALL parties involved. Mexico produces what it's best at producing,
Those of us who audited econ 102, however, might wonder about the
domains of all those universal quantitifiers you are using. Who are
the parties involved. Does it include the rural peasant economies, who
get to go live in shanty towns outside mexico city, so that north
americans get to spend \epsilon per kg less for tomatoes?
The actual models which <prove> the All and Always do so by playing
with GDP per nation-state. The states themselves are essetntially
black boxes. The domains of your quantifiers are in fact abstract
economic entities, not people.
What econ 101 models really say, is that under certain sets
of assumptions and conditions, free trade Always-Eventually
increases (something like the) GDP of All (the very small set
of entities included in the model).
That any net benefit to actual human beings follows from this
is an article of faith.
--
Steve Cumming "I could save the world
ste...@geog.ubc.ca if I could only get the parts."
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
Jay Hanson
->
-> Right off the bat, this looks like production is viewed in terms of
goods
-> with heavy material content, such as made from mining, woodcutting,
-> fishing, etc. A vast amount of wealth creation now is almost
completely
-> abstract, particularly in the United States. Examples are software,
-> musical recordings, movies, drugs (at least those that are
synthesized),
-> and microelectronic components.
Meredith,
You must be have a big investment in T-Rex futures. <G> What
kind of economic development does not increase the CO2 in the
atmosphere AND deplete nonrenewable resources? (I assume that
you know what "nonrenewable" means.) I have always wondered
why economists assume they know anything about ecology. <G>
-> >Ecological Economics is slated to replace E-Rex as the
-> >dominant economic theory because it, unlike E-Rex, is based
-> >on the biophysical laws of the home planet....
-> >
-> >But back to the issue of Free Trade. Here, I can do no
-> >better that to quote Paul Ekins (who, BTW, is an economist):
->
-> Note that this is not your analysis, it is someone elses. Are you
being
-> led around by the nose by some academic? Where is YOUR original
-> thinking?
First, I have refuted the earlier statement that ALL economists
agree that free trade benefits ALL parties. It is simply not
true on either count.
My "original thinking" is that E-Rex is actually POLITICS in
disguise. As I have said earlier, it is inconsistent with
modern systems theory, sociology, ecology, chaos theory,
cybernetics, and so on. In short, it is not science at all,
it is POLITICS -- POLITICS based upon one-dollar-one-vote.
-> > The theory of comparative advantage rests on assumptions
-> >which include:
-> >
-> >(1) No externalities: If costs of production are externalized,
-> >a product will be underpriced and appear to have more of a
-> >comparative advantage then it really does.
->
-> True, but so what? All goods have externalities, so they all appear
-> underpriced. Russian oil has the side effect of ruining the arctic.
-> Nigerian oil has the same effect in Nigeria. Americans use that oil
to
-> generate nitros oxides and sulfites that precipitate as acid rain in
-> Europe. What goes around comes around.
You prove my point that E-Rex is POLITICS. You are making
assertions concerning public policy. Public policy is
inherently political because the costs and benefits are
different in kind and they accrue to different individuals
(e.g., cancer to the poor and profits to the rich).
Why don't you explicitly state the value system that
you use to rationalize your POLITICS.
Tell us how you know that you are right.
Jay
--
PAUL HAWKEN:
"A hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, it did not seem
urgent that we understand the relationship between business and a
healthy environment, because natural resources seemed unlimited. But
on the verge of a new millenniums we know that we have decimated
ninety-seven percent of the ancient forests in North America; every
day our farmers and ranchers draw out 20 billion more gallons of water
from the ground than are replaced by rainfall; the Ogalala Aquifer,
an underwater river beneath the Great Plains larger than any body of
fresh water on earth, will dry up within thirty to forty years at
present rates of extraction; globally we lose 25 billion tons of
fertile topsoil every year, the equivalent of all the wheatfields in
Australia. These critical losses are occurring while the world
population is increasing at the rate of 90 million people per year.
Quite simply, our business practices are destroying life on earth.
Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife reserve,
wilderness, or indigenous culture will survive the global market
economy. We know that every natural system on the planet is
disintegrating. The land, water, air and sea have been functionally
transformed from life-supporting systems into repositories for waste.
There is no polite way to say that business is destroying the world."
[p. 3]
THE ECCOLOGY OF COMMERCE -- Paul Hawken -- 1994 Harper
(available in paperback at your favorite bookstore)
Meredith Poor
>Meredith,
>You must be have a big investment in T-Rex futures. <G> What
>kind of economic development does not increase the CO2 in the
>atmosphere AND deplete nonrenewable resources? (I assume that
>you know what "nonrenewable" means.) I have always wondered
>why economists assume they know anything about ecology. <G>
4 million windmills, each generating 500KWh, spread out half a mile in
each direction, over the entire great plains, would produce twice as much
electricity as the entire United States needs. This is assuming present
demand AND all urban vehicles being powered electrically.
I am on the record with this statement in a number of forums. The
windmills are built by U.S. Windpower, the batteries by Ovonics, the cars
by General Motors. E-Rexors, all of them.
>-> >Ecological Economics is slated to replace E-Rex as the
>-> >dominant economic theory because it, unlike E-Rex, is based
>-> >on the biophysical laws of the home planet....
Economics is Ecological Economics. Economics has always been a study of
how to maximize human benefit from limited resources. What we define as
limited resources has shifted over time.
>My "original thinking" is that E-Rex is actually POLITICS in
>disguise. As I have said earlier, it is inconsistent with
>modern systems theory, sociology, ecology, chaos theory,
>cybernetics, and so on. In short, it is not science at all,
>it is POLITICS -- POLITICS based upon one-dollar-one-vote.
Economics is the study of maximizing benefit from scarce resources.
Politics is the process of arbitrating competing demands for those scarce
resources. I don't disagree with your statement, but I don't see how it
supports some of your other assertions.
>You prove my point that E-Rex is POLITICS. You are making
>assertions concerning public policy. Public policy is
>inherently political because the costs and benefits are
>different in kind and they accrue to different individuals
>(e.g., cancer to the poor and profits to the rich).
Is this politics, or class warfare? Cancer is not limited to poor
people, and poor people (whatever that means) frequently engage in
transactions that have net personal and social profit. In the latter
case, the profit is not an economic profit, because the profit is enough
to sustain life and nothing more. But it is a net maintenance or
increase in value created.
>Why don't you explicitly state the value system that
>you use to rationalize your POLITICS.
>
>Tell us how you know that you are right.
Am I supposed to write a book? >>>...rationalize your POLITICS...<<<
sure seems to be an emotionally charged term. My politics are rational
to me, and yours is to you. I could not rationally deal with your
interests any more than you could rationally deal with mine. Our
circumstances are different, and thus our political philosophies.
I do not attempt to prove that any economic or political value system is
right or wrong. I am interested in the effects of particular economic
and political choices. In many instances, people state that thing X
should be done to produce result Y. However, in previous executions of
thing X result Y was not even remotely achieved. In fact, result Y was
severely frustrated.
Posing a question to you: is Ecological Economics, or the political
rationalization behind it, an attempt to shift the responsibility for
what is produced and consumed from profit-making organizations to
political entities? If so, is the ecological effect of such a shift
actually beneficial? Can you name the person or organization that will
ultimately assume the responsibility if it is reallocated?
>PAUL HAWKEN:
>
> "A hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, it did not seem
>urgent that we understand the relationship between business and a
>healthy environment, because natural resources seemed unlimited. But
>on the verge of a new millenniums we know that we have decimated
>ninety-seven percent of the ancient forests in North America;... <Snip>
Anyone familiar with ancient history, particularly in the Eastern
Medittranean (Crete, Cyprus, Greece, southern Italy) knows that the
forests in these areas were decimated, and then the soil washed away from
irresponsible farming.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that many of our current agricultural and
forestry practices are destructive. However, we have learned to conserve
as we have seen our resources diminish. We are not totally stupid.
The freedom to innovate, and to bring new technologies to market, means
that someone can spend years and fortunes to develop products that at
first make no sense. However, once they do make sense, they often result
in substantial conservation. The work on solar power, windmills, and
effective batteries has taken, in the latter case in particular, over a
century. How would something like that have been permitted in economies
that are regulated by naieve bureaucrats and politicians?
Mason A. Clark
by James Fallows under the title:
How the World Works
In the December 1993 issue of Atlantic Monthly.
In the January 1994 issue Fallows has another good
article:
What is an Economy For?
Both are worth reading.
Countless books are appearing pointing out the
failures of Econ 101 and the rest of Econ academia.
Anyone wishes, I can provide a list. A very new one
is by Paul Ormerod:
The Death of Economics
There are, of course, some economists who have escaped
from the fold and think -- rather than bow to Adam Smith and
Milton Friedman.
Such simplicities as Free Trade, Free Market, and the
Balanced Budget substitute for thought. Rather like
astrology. Would that life were simply. We could all be
professors of economics.
Mason A. Clark
Srijana Dhakhwa
In article <4erdmu$o...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Steve Conover <sg...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
|>If that is what you learned in econ 101, I suggest you apply
|>for a refund. It is not even interesting fiction.
|
|of economics. Mabye you should read it again. Economists may
|benefits all parties involved.
They all agree following the simplistic assumptions that do not hold
in real life. The model assumes there are no public goods, constant
returns to scale, and complete markets, as well as certainity.
We are never asking whether two countries should have free trade, but
whether we should increase or reduce tarriffs, and what costs and
bennifits are associated with that move.
More than likely, reducing all trade barriers will have significant
costs. On the other hand, many developing countries want to subsidize
exports to get the benificial externalities involved with increaseing
returns to scale in manufacturing.
Meredith Poor
elses ideas, and not even quoting them or expressing the essence of their
content. What are YOUR thoughts, in your own words?
Mark Witte
Would that life were simple. Would that we could all publish
hand-waving essays without having to build consistent models, test them
against real world data, and get them peer reviewed in order to get published.
We could all be pundits.
Mason A. Clark
> Would that life were simple. Would that we could all publish
>hand-waving essays without having to build consistent models, test them
>against real world data, and get them peer reviewed in order to get published.
> We could all be pundits.
The Mark Witte essays are well known here.
And please provide ONE example of an economic model tested against
real world data. We can all get rich in the stock market, as Keynes
did.
Sorry, Mark. It must be colder than hell in Evanston.
Mason A. Clark, Tech 51
BRAIN CECILIA NATALIA
Steve Conover <sg...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>How about some EVIDENCE that free trade between natioins contributes
>>to the long-term stability and prosperity of the world at large.
>>
>>Exactly where and when has this claimed fact come pass?
>
>Did you take econ 101? In econ 101 you learn how free trade ALWAYS
>benefits ALL parties involved. Mexico produces what it's best at producing,
>better analogy. I hear people say "Buy American" all of the time, when
>buying American just because of the fact that the product is American is
>extremely harmful to our economy. Why shouldn't I just "Buy Austin"? Or
>in the same sense why don't I just "Buy Steve"? Because it would be
>ludicrous for me to try and produce everything I consume. I, along with
>everyone else, specialize (I am an MIS consultant) in what I do and then
>trade my skills with the rest of the world (via money) so that I can buy
>products in which other people specailized. My lowest oppurtunity cost
>job with the resources I have available (my education) is for me to work
>in the MIS field. It would be stupid for me to try to learn how to grow
>everything I eat, produce the pencils I use, build my own car, etc. It's
>exactly the same way in trade between countries.
>
>-Steve
Wow... it is nice to see some economic input here. As you have explained
it ... in a linear world (Eco101) we will all be better off... it is
welfare improving. But, as we move into a free market (on the capitalist
model) the main need of every country by itself is to maximize its own
welfare at the expense of others. When tariffs exist... it is sometimes
benefitial for one country at the expense of another (in-non competitive
markets) or at the expense of its consumers, subsidies (see any papers
on the new-economic theory) of exports can also increase a countries
welfare at the expense of rivals. This all makes it better for free
trade because we are talking about oligopolies that earn profits (in most
instances)... at least with free trade we could approximate a real
price... or are we making it worse because now we would have a stronger
oligopoly since they would expand in non-industrialize countries?...
Remember that the basic of the eco 101 model is that it is a perfectly
competitive industry... and most things are not like that...
The rules will be made to increase the welfare of the most powerful...
Developed countries have no interest on seeing underdeveloped countries
develop..
There are so many licenses, imperfections... how free, is free trade?...
With all the different industries, and all the needed re-structure (for
free trade)... would the equilibrium be really benefitial to everyone?
In a linear world maybe... in the real world I guess we would have to
wait or hope that economists come up with more credible models (and they
have, but not perfect enough so that the can apply to a wide range of
industries) than the regular comparative advantage model that they teach
us in Eco 100.
Markku Stenborg
writes:
>
>I don't mean to be hard on you Steve, but the Econ 101 you
>must have taken was evidently neoclassical economics (which
>I call "Econosaurus Rex" or "E-Rex" for short). It is well
>known that E-Rex is premised on an number of peculiar myths.
Econ is based on bunch of assumptions, which aren't any worse myths than
what enviromentalist religion is based upon.
> [ See for example,
> ENERGY AND THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY,
> John Peet, p.p. 129-144; Island Press, 1992. ]
>
>IMHO, the most outlandish E-Rex myth of all, is the myth of
>"infinite earth". Did your E-Rex 101 teacher say anything
Never heard this particular assumption, 'xept on the 'Net.
>about the maximum scale of the human economy? See what I mean?
>
>[ In case of any lingering doubt, remember when we saw the
> earth from space? It was ROUND! A ROUND earth is, by
Didn't know you and Steve are cosmonauts :)
> definition, finite. True? ]
>
>Since the major premise of T-Rex (a FLAT earth) has now been
>falsified, all claims made by the critter are now suspect.
Yeah, right, if you say so.
>Ecological Economics is slated to replace E-Rex as the
>dominant economic theory because it, unlike E-Rex, is based
>on the biophysical laws of the home planet. <G>
Sure.
>But back to the issue of Free Trade. Here, I can do no
>better that to quote Paul Ekins (who, BTW, is an economist):
Never heard of. Besides, for the time being, anyone can call
him/her/itself an economist -- self promoted title is no indication of
knowledge.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>BASIC TRADE THEORY
>
> In most recent discussions of international trade, free
>trade has been incorrectly assumed to be an unequivocally
>superior choice, regardless of the circumstances involved. A
No. It is rarely, actually, never, *assumed* to be unequivocally superior
choice; it is *established* to be superior, under some conditions.
>reexamination of basic trade theory, however, reveals that
>current discussions of the superiority of free trade are more
>dogmatic then scientific.
On the 'Net, yes.
[snip]
> The theory of comparative advantage rests on assumptions
>which include:
Not really. Besides, argument for free trade is more profound than just
comparative advantage. Basically, it is a question od differences in
relative prices.
>(1) No externalities: If costs of production are externalized,
>a product will be underpriced and appear to have more of a
>comparative advantage then it really does.
Or overpriced, depending on externality.
>(2) Stable prices: Several countries may assume that they have
>a comparative advantage in a certain good and increase its
>supply substantially. However, if demand for these goods is
>inelastic, the market could be "flooded" and prices would fall,
>changing the distribution of comparative advantages.
So? Is this supposed to be argument for trade restrictions?
>(3) Equally dynamic comparative advantages: Some types of
>production have more dynamic comparative advantages than others,
>for example, production of chemicals versus bananas. Countries
>with less dynamic comparative advantages (banana producers) may
>not be able to exercise much range in innovation and could
>become "locked into economic stagnation" and inequality.
So what?
>(4) International immobility of factors of production: Inherent
>in Ricardo's theory is the assumption that a country's capital
>and labor will stay within its borders to produce according to
>the country's comparative advantage. If they become mobile,
>trade will increasingly be based on absolute rather than
>comparative advantage. In the effort to remain competitive,
>countries will experience pressure on wages, environmental laws,
>and working conditions.
So? This is no objection for free trade either.
Burt
>Meredith,
>You must be have a big investment in T-Rex futures. <G> What
>kind of economic development does not increase the CO2 in the
>atmosphere AND deplete nonrenewable resources? (I assume that
>you know what "nonrenewable" means.) I have always wondered
>why economists assume they know anything about ecology. <G>
>
How ironic! I have always wondered why environmentalists
and ecologists assumed they knew anything about economics!
As for the problems noted by Hawken below (I snipped it) I
cannot disagree. However, I believe that the use of economics as
well as the biological sciences is necessary to remedy these problems
while minimizing the human cost in the shorter term.
Eric Burt
bu...@utxsvs.cc.utexas.edu
>Jay
Mark Witte
>
>> Would that life were simple. Would that we could all publish
>>hand-waving essays without having to build consistent models, test them
>>against real world data, and get them peer reviewed in order to get published.
>> We could all be pundits.
>
> The Mark Witte essays are well known here.
>
> And please provide ONE example of an economic model tested against
> real world data.
Are you joking?
Well, I'll reach out, grab a journal at random, open to an article and
let's see what we find....ugh, pure theory. I'll try again...Boldrin and
Horvath, Journal of Political Economy, Oct. 1995. There is a two page
appendix which describes the sources of the data which is mostly from the
National Income and Product accounts. It turns out that it was just back luck
that the first article I found was pure theory, it was the only one of the
seven pieces published in that issue that did not have an empirical part.
> We can all get rich in the stock market, as Keynes did.
By reading the financial pages in bed?
> Sorry, Mark. It must be colder than hell in Evanston.
>
> Mason A. Clark, Tech 51
As you may recall, it's the wind that makes all the difference.
Steve Conover
>domains of all those universal quantitifiers you are using. Who are
>the parties involved. Does it include the rural peasant economies, who
>get to go live in shanty towns outside mexico city, so that north
>americans get to spend \epsilon per kg less for tomatoes?
I understand most of the intricacies but what you're talking about is
a couple steps up from the debate here. Right now everyone's still
stuck on whether free trade is good or bad. Mabye someday we can
get to those gray points. Hopefully.
Jim McCulloch
>
>(free trade) is rarely, actually, never, *assumed* to be unequivocally superior
> choice; it is *established* to be superior, under some conditions.
>
Indeed so. We export many of our low-paid jobs to Mexico, and fill many of
the remainder with tacitly accepted illegal immigrants, which drives the
wages of the lowest paid 40% of American employees down-- down by 1/4 to
1/3 in the past 20 years even as productivity has risen-- and we (we
economists) call this "superior" because we know who butters our bread.
Hint, it is not the Poor, who butter the economists' bread.
Well, these people who are losing ground should realize it is for their
own good. The unfit need to be weeded out. If they had any sense, they
would go to graduate school and become economists and suck up to the rich,
and thereby prosper.
--Jim McCulloch
Mnpoor
<<<Wow... it is nice to see some economic input here. As you have
explained
it ... in a linear world (Eco101) we will all be better off... it is
welfare improving. But, as we move into a free market (on the capitalist
model) the main need of every country by itself is to maximize its own
welfare at the expense of others. When tariffs exist... it is sometimes
benefitial for one country at the expense of another (in-non competitive
markets) or at the expense of its consumers, subsidies (see any papers
on the new-economic theory) of exports can also increase a countries
welfare at the expense of rivals. This all makes it better for free
trade because we are talking about oligopolies that earn profits (in most
instances)... at least with free trade we could approximate a real
price... or are we making it worse because now we would have a stronger
oligopoly since they would expand in non-industrialize countries?...
Remember that the basic of the eco 101 model is that it is a perfectly
competitive industry... and most things are not like that...
The rules will be made to increase the welfare of the most powerful...
Developed countries have no interest on seeing underdeveloped countries
develop..
There are so many licenses, imperfections... how free, is free trade?...
With all the different industries, and all the needed re-structure (for
free trade)... would the equilibrium be really benefitial to everyone?>>>
The basic assertion above is that for one country to win another has to
lose. More specifically, industrialized powers prosper by suppressing
third world countries.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The sum of value to all citizens
of the world is the sum of all world product. The more that is converted
to a form fit for human use or consumption, the better off the population
at large becomes. Such well being exists regardless of borders.
The United States has worked very hard to promote free trade and
development everywhere possible. This was particularly the case in Europe
and Japan following World War II. The Federal Government sees increasing
welfare as promoting political stability, which reduces the American
defense effort and increases the safety of Americans and American assets
abroad.
The above statement would be found controversial by an army of critics,
and in many specific instances I wouldn't argue with it. However, I think
that individual American citizens would prefer that overseas consumers buy
American products and American services (which are technologically
advanced and expensive), and sell to American cheap food, economical
manufactured goods, and bargain vacation packages. Internal disturbances
tend to frustrate those objectives, and end up involving American relief
efforts and diplomacy.
There are some countries (Iraq and Iran, at the moment) that have clear
agendas that are in conflict with American goals. American policy is to
contain the belligerents, but not occupy their territories or overthrow
their governments. This policy seems reasonably successful as this is
written.
WW I and it's aftermath (the Weimar government in Germany, in particular)
are the most outstanding example of what happens when one country or
coalition attempts to punish or suppress another. We don't need the
results of that again, ever.
Della Noche
exceptions provided for American whiskey, for example. Also I *believe*
that medications will be restricted that were formerly available OTC in
Mexico. So it's not completely clear to me that NAFTA represents "free
trade" in actuality.
DN
Della Noche
Della Noche
Jay Hanson
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. The sum of value to all citizens
> of the world is the sum of all world product. The more that is converted
> to a form fit for human use or consumption, the better off the population
> at large becomes. Such well being exists regardless of borders.
This is your "belief". Explicitly state the set of values upon
which you stake your "belief". Tell us how you know your "belief"
is right.
There is now good evidence that the "economy" is increasing
"bads" faster than it is increasing "goods":
------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT IS THE GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR -- GPI?
The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is a new measure of the
economic well-being of the nation from 1950 to present. It
broadens the conventional accounting framework to include the
economic contributions of the family and community realms, and
of the natural habitat, along with conventionally measured
economic production.
The GPI takes into account more than twenty aspects of our
economic lives that the GDP ignores. It includes estimates of
the economic contribution of numerous social and environmental
factors which the GDP dismisses with an implicit and arbitrary
value of zero. It also differentiates between economic
transactions that add to well-being and those which diminish it.
The GPI then integrates these factors into a composite measure
so that the benefits of economic activity can be weighed against
the costs.
The GPI is intended to provide citizens and policy-makers with a
more accurate barometer of the overall health of the economy,
and of how our national condition is changing over time.
While per capita GDP has more than doubled from 1950 to present,
the GPI shows a very different picture. It increased during the
1950s and 1960s, but has declined by roughly 45% since 1970.
Further, the rate of decline in per capita GPI has increased
from an average of 1% in the 1970s to 2% in the 1980s to 6% so
far in the 1990s. This wide and growing divergence between the
GDP and GPI is a warning that the economy is stuck on a path
that imposes large -- and as yet unreckoned -- costs onto the
present and the future.
Specifically, the GPI reveals that much of what economists now
consider economic growth, as measured by GDP, is really one of
three things: 1) fixing blunders and social decay from the past;
2) borrowing resources from the future; or 3) shifting functions
from the community and household realm to that of the monetized
economy. The GPI strongly suggests that the costs of the
nation's current economic trajectory have begun to outweigh the
benefits, leading to growth that is actually uneconomic.
If the mood of the public is any barometer at all, then it would
seem that the GPI comes much closer than the GDP to the economy
that Americans actually experience in their daily lives. It
begins to explain why people feel increasingly gloomy despite
official claims of economic progress and growth.
The GPI starts with the same personal consumption data the GDP
is based on, but then makes some crucial distinctions. It
adjusts for certain factors (such as income distribution), adds
certain others (such as the value of household work and
volunteer work), and subtracts yet others (such as the costs of
crime and pollution). Because the GDP and the GPI are both
measured in monetary terms, they can be compared on the same
scale.
I. CRIME & FAMILY BREAKDOWN
Social breakdown imposes large economic costs on individuals and
society, in the form of legal fees, medical expenses, damage to
property, and the like. The GDP treats such expenses as
additions to well-being. By contrast, the GPI subtracts the
costs arising from crime and divorce.
II. HOUSEHOLD & VOLUNTEER WORK
Much of the most important work in society is done in household
and community settings: childcare, home repairs, volunteer work,
and the like. These contributions are ignored in the GDP because
no money changes hands. To correct this omission, the GPI
includes, among other things, the value of household work
figured at the approximate cost of hiring someone to do it.
III. INCOME DISTRIBUTION
A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats -- not if the
gap between the very rich and everyone else increases. Both
economic theory and common sense tell us that the poor benefit
more from a given increase in their income than do the rich.
Accordingly, the GPI rises when the poor receive a larger
percentage of national income, and falls when their share
decreases.
IV. RESOURCE DEPLETION
If today's economic activity depletes the physical resource base
available for tomorrow's, then it is not really creating
wellbeing; rather, it is just borrowing it from future
generations. The GDP counts such borrowing as current income.
The GPI, by contrast, counts the depletion or degradation of
wetlands, farmland, and non-renewable minerals (including, oil)
as a current cost.
V. POLLUTION
The GDP often counts pollution as a double gain; once when it's
created, and then again when it is cleaned up. By contrast, the
GPI subtracts the costs of air and water pollution as measured
by actual damage to human health and the environment.
VI. LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
Climate change and the management of nuclear wastes are two
long-term costs arising from the use of fossil fuels and atomic
energy. These costs do not show up in ordinary economic
accounts. The same is true of the depletion of stratospheric
ozone arising from the use of chlorofluorocarbons. For this
reason, the GPI treats as costs the consumption of certain forms
of energy and of ozone-depleting chemicals.
VII. CHANGES IN LEISURE TIME
As a nation increases in wealth, people should have increasing
latitude to choose between more work and more free time for
family or other activities. In recent years, however, the
opposite has occurred. The GDP ignores this loss of free time,
but the GPI treats leisure as most Americans do -- as,something
of value. When leisure time increases, the GPI goes up; when
Americans have less of it, the GPI goes down.
VIII. DEFENSIVE EXPENDITURES
The GDP counts as additions to well-being the money people spend
just to prevent erosion in their quality of life or to
compensate for misfortunes of various kinds. Examples are the
medical and repair bills from automobile accidents, commuting
costs, and household expenditures on pollution control devices
such as water filters. The GPI counts such "defensive"
expenditures as most Americans do: as costs rather than as
benefits.
IX. LIFESPAN OF CONSUMER DURABLES & PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
The GDP confuses the value provided by major consumer purchases
(e.g., home appliances) with the amounts Americans spend to buy
them. This hides the loss in well-being that results when
products are made to wear out quickly. To overcome this, the GPI
treats the money spent on capital items as a cost, and the value
of the service they provide year after year as a benefit. This
applies both to private capital items and to public
infrastructure, such as highways.
X. DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ASSETS
If a nation allows its capital stock to decline, or if it
finances its consumption out of borrowed capital, it is living
beyond its means. The GPI counts net additions to the capital
stock as contributions to well-being, and treats money borrowed
from abroad as reductions. If the borrowed money is used for
investment, the negative effects are canceled out. But if the
borrowed money is used to finance consumption, the GPI
declines.
The above text is excerpted from The Genuine Progress Indicator:
Summary of Data and Methodology, Redefining Progress C1995.
Copies of the full reports are available for $10.00 by contacting:
Redefining Progress,
One Kearny Street, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108 415-781-1191 Fax: 415-781-1198.
[ These are the same people who wrote the cover story "If the
Economy Is Up, Why Is America Down?", in the October 1995
Atlantic Monthly. For back issues send $7 to: The Atlantic,
Back Issues, 200 North 12th St., Newark, NJ. 07107
or
http://www2.theAtlantic.com/atlantic/xchg/circ/back.htm ]
Jay
--
-------------------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!!
Meredith Poor
>Mnpoor wrote:
>>
>> Nothing could be further from the truth. The sum of value to all citizens
>> of the world is the sum of all world product. The more that is converted
>> to a form fit for human use or consumption, the better off the population
>> at large becomes. Such well being exists regardless of borders.
>
>This is your "belief". Explicitly state the set of values upon
>which you stake your "belief". Tell us how you know your "belief"
>is right.
>
>There is now good evidence that the "economy" is increasing
>"bads" faster than it is increasing "goods":
>
to me to produce all the supporting material, while you just sit back and
shoot it down. However, the remaining material (which will be addressed
in succeeding posts) removes that plaint.
Everything that either you or I are dealing with are beliefs. By the
time information arrives in our hands, it has been filtered through so
many interpreters that it is vague beyond bounds. Don't count too
heavily on the quality of your references. Distillation leaves out quite
a bit.
Meredith Poor
> WHAT IS THE GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR -- GPI?
For the body of this text, which is extensive, please refer to the
earlier post.
I. Desirability of such a measure
Such an indicator is probably a good idea, but not for the reason you
propose. Anyone who took such a number at face value would be committing
laughable folly. If it were in impartial hands it would occillate all
over the scale; as it is, it is in the hands of committed anti-growth
activists, who are trying to prove that the Western consumer lifestyle we
take so much for granted is the Devil incarnate.
II. Factors and Weights (what is included, and how much it matters)
Taking all kinds of unpleasantness and factoring it into a
counterbalancing indicator says more about the indicator composer than it
does about the resulting number. I wonder what other things I could
throw in there (good and bad) that would befuddle the number even
further.
III. Itemized Factor Interpretation
Some of the things you are saying are bad either don't matter or aren't
necessarily bad. Furthermore, you are using some terms in more
relatively than absolutely. In particular, "poor". Poverty in the
United States is a very different creature from poverty in India, Viet
Nam, or Zaire. It is also different from poverty in the United States
circa 1933 (when a lot of measures were first taken) or the early 1960's,
before the implementation of Great Society programs.
In any case, itemized analysis follows....
Meredith Poor
(Please refer to source for complete body of text)
>I. CRIME & FAMILY BREAKDOWN
>
>Social breakdown imposes large economic costs on individuals and
>society, in the form of legal fees, medical expenses, damage to
>property, and the like. The GDP treats such expenses as
>additions to well-being. By contrast, the GPI subtracts the
>costs arising from crime and divorce.
The two of these are combined, when they should be separated.
If some bible belt Sheriff shuts down a video tape rental operation for
selling porn, it is crime, but if the same business is operating in NYC,
it isn't measured that way.
If a securities ripoff is detected, it is in your measure, but if it
isn't detected, then it isn't. Furthermore, if a corporate miscreant
escapes on a technicality, then the victims are probably not in your
list, since they aren't offically victims. This measure is likely to be
off by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Are divorces bad? Many marriages are founded on frustrating the
dependent partner, usually the woman. Divorce leaves them free to become
whatever they are. While the children may suffer some without a two
parent family, they may also have a better understanding of what life is
all about.
This is particularly paradoxical when family violence is involved: if the
husband is beating up the wife marriage leads to crime. Once he leaves,
the crime stops (at least between the two of them).
>II. HOUSEHOLD & VOLUNTEER WORK
>
>Much of the most important work in society is done in household
>and community settings: childcare, home repairs, volunteer work,
>and the like. These contributions are ignored in the GDP because
>no money changes hands. To correct this omission, the GPI
>includes, among other things, the value of household work
>figured at the approximate cost of hiring someone to do it.
This is an omission in the GDP. Value creation exists in many
non-monetary contexts.
However, over the last 40 years, a lot of labor has devolved onto
machines, so reductions in hours don't necessarily mean reduction in
results. Measure that!
>III. INCOME DISTRIBUTION
>
>A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats -- not if the
>gap between the very rich and everyone else increases. Both
>economic theory and common sense tell us that the poor benefit
>more from a given increase in their income than do the rich.
>Accordingly, the GPI rises when the poor receive a larger
>percentage of national income, and falls when their share
>decreases.
Meaningless for two reasons: how the assets of the rich are used, and
what "poor" means.
Rich people are reinvesting their money in producing assets, such as
businesses, which are in turn creating more value. While some older and
very large employers are shedding employees, a lot of other companies are
getting very large (hi-tech ones in particular). Thus, GM lays off
people, who then go to work for Nissan. BMW and Mercedes are building
car plants in the U.S.
Assets are quickly moved to growing businesses, where hiring is frenetic.
The computer industry is now almost as significant as the automotive
industry, but it has only been that way since the late 1980's. This has
created an ocean of decent paying, comfortable working condition jobs.
In the United States, a poor person is someone living in a house with a
leaking roof and tattered clothes, has no job, and has limited
educational opportunity. That house typically (but not necessarily) has
running water, power and gas service, sewer, and garbage collection. It
may furthermore be public housing, where half-way decent accomodations
exist in theory, aside perhaps from crime. More often than not the poor
person has food and subsidized health care. If the sum of all government
benefits are added up, a single mother with one child having no income
but subsidized housing, AFDC, and Medicaid receives about $13,000 in
benefits per year.
Really poor means living in a culvert. Most of these people are
alcoholics or mentally ill. However, these people are a tiny percentage
of all low income, low asset families. To make them count, it would be
necessary to add a huge bias to the poverty yardstick.
But even here, if someone living in a culvert has done so for years, that
means they are getting food, some kind of clothing, shelter in really
cold or violent weather, and other less obvious means of support. In
some other cultures, these people wouldn't survive at all.
I am living in an area of San Antonio Texas that only blocks from some of
the most desperate living conditions in the city. There are a lot of
working cars in front of these houses. The transients and beggars are
smoking cigarettes, keeping dogs as pets, and hanging out with their
friends under the bridges with their gutiars and bottles. Unless the
weather turns bad, they don't seem to have a care in the world.
Now, lets look at the poor in Russia, where even having a job
(i.e. as a coal miner) doesn't mean having access to decent housing,
running water, or even soap.
Meredith Poor
(Please see earlier posts)
>
>IV. RESOURCE DEPLETION
>
>If today's economic activity depletes the physical resource base
>available for tomorrow's, then it is not really creating
>wellbeing; rather, it is just borrowing it from future
>generations. The GDP counts such borrowing as current income.
>The GPI, by contrast, counts the depletion or degradation of
>wetlands, farmland, and non-renewable minerals (including, oil)
>as a current cost.
What about knowlege resources, infrastructure resources, and political
stability? One thing that the United States in particular and much of
the rest of the world has produced in the last 50 years is vast amounts
of knowledge: knowlege in how to conserve and reuse depletable resources
and substitute environmentally benign practices for environmentally
destructive ones. If you are measuring resource depletion negatively,
then you should also measure knowledge accumulation positively.
Knowledge is a bequest to future generations; once we have it, we have it
for a long time.
If we build a better highway, we spend less energy and wear and tear to
travel. If we invest in telecommunications, we don't even use the
highway. If we pursue politically difficult choices, such as let
inefficient and obsolete industries die, then we have spread the pain in
such a way that it doesn't come down all at once.
So far, you have excluded factors that correct for depleted natural
resources. Some of these allow us to make substitutions that render the
depletions meaningless.
>V. POLLUTION
>
>The GDP often counts pollution as a double gain; once when it's
>created, and then again when it is cleaned up. By contrast, the
>GPI subtracts the costs of air and water pollution as measured
>by actual damage to human health and the environment.
And how do you know what the damage to human health is? A half-million
people die each year from cigarette induced health problems. How are you
going to explain the consequences of fully informed personal choice in
your model?
Furthermore, do you measure any human induced change to the environment
as damage? Is this a measure of loss of habitat, or loss of species
variation? If so, you are trying to describe a vast region, both
physically and taxonomically. Nobody has a clue what is damaged and what
merely looks like it.
Volcanoes erupt and devastate vast areas. Freezes and fires lay waste to
hundreds of square miles of territory. Is human behavior merely a
temporary clearing of areas that will regrow. How do you know whether
this result will occur, years in advance of the fact?
>VI. LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
>
>Climate change and the management of nuclear wastes are two
>long-term costs arising from the use of fossil fuels and atomic
>energy. These costs do not show up in ordinary economic
>accounts. The same is true of the depletion of stratospheric
>ozone arising from the use of chlorofluorocarbons. For this
>reason, the GPI treats as costs the consumption of certain forms
>of energy and of ozone-depleting chemicals.
So, what would the impact of a KT boundary asteroid do to your number?
This isn't accounted for in ordinary economic accounts either. But it is
no doubt material. It is also a completely natural phenomenon. After
just one of those, would we be worried about long term nuclear waste? Or
ozone depletion?
>VII. CHANGES IN LEISURE TIME
>
>As a nation increases in wealth, people should have increasing
>latitude to choose between more work and more free time for
>family or other activities. In recent years, however, the
>opposite has occurred. The GDP ignores this loss of free time,
>but the GPI treats leisure as most Americans do -- as,something
>of value. When leisure time increases, the GPI goes up; when
>Americans have less of it, the GPI goes down.
A lot of what I see personally is that people are fascinated with their
work. Thus, the distinction between work and leisure time is moot. In
fact, a lot of people are spending time at work that the should spend
with their families, not because they have to work but because they don't
want to hang around the house.
>VIII. DEFENSIVE EXPENDITURES
>
>The GDP counts as additions to well-being the money people spend
>just to prevent erosion in their quality of life or to
>compensate for misfortunes of various kinds. Examples are the
>medical and repair bills from automobile accidents, commuting
>costs, and household expenditures on pollution control devices
>such as water filters. The GPI counts such "defensive"
>expenditures as most Americans do: as costs rather than as
>benefits.
Of course, we can afford to make these expenditures now, whereas fifty
years ago such products weren't available, they were too expensive, or we
didn't even know what the hazards were (radon, for instance).
>IX. LIFESPAN OF CONSUMER DURABLES & PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
>
>The GDP confuses the value provided by major consumer purchases
>(e.g., home appliances) with the amounts Americans spend to buy
>them. This hides the loss in well-being that results when
>products are made to wear out quickly. To overcome this, the GPI
>treats the money spent on capital items as a cost, and the value
>of the service they provide year after year as a benefit. This
>applies both to private capital items and to public
>infrastructure, such as highways.
"Designed" to wear out quickly? I have a 15 year old computer that still
works. So what? My first CD player worked for 8 years. The apartment I
am living in is 60 years old, and is a re-use of an old warehouse. I am
wearing shirts I bought 5 years ago (face it, I'm a cheapskate). A lot
of people don't know how to conserve their assets. Why is this the fault
of the vendors?
>
>X. DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ASSETS
>
>If a nation allows its capital stock to decline, or if it
>finances its consumption out of borrowed capital, it is living
>beyond its means. The GPI counts net additions to the capital
>stock as contributions to well-being, and treats money borrowed
>from abroad as reductions. If the borrowed money is used for
>investment, the negative effects are canceled out. But if the
>borrowed money is used to finance consumption, the GPI
>declines.
This is particularly meaningless. The United States owns overseas
investments in the hundreds of billions. Was our investment overseas bad
for those countries? Is it bad now that they are able to take control of
their own economic lives so that the United States is a net disinvestor?
Capital formation in this country is immense. There is so much money
running around no one knows what to do with it. That explains the
ridiculous Price/Earnings ratios on Wall Street, and American propensity
to invest overseas.
Meredith Poor
>While per capita GDP has more than doubled from 1950 to present,
>the GPI shows a very different picture. It increased during the
>1950s and 1960s, but has declined by roughly 45% since 1970.
>Further, the rate of decline in per capita GPI has increased
>from an average of 1% in the 1970s to 2% in the 1980s to 6% so
>far in the 1990s. This wide and growing divergence between the
>GDP and GPI is a warning that the economy is stuck on a path
>that imposes large -- and as yet unreckoned -- costs onto the
>present and the future.
>
>Specifically, the GPI reveals that much of what economists now
>consider economic growth, as measured by GDP, is really one of
>three things: 1) fixing blunders and social decay from the past;
>2) borrowing resources from the future; or 3) shifting functions
>from the community and household realm to that of the monetized
>economy. The GPI strongly suggests that the costs of the
>nation's current economic trajectory have begun to outweigh the
>benefits, leading to growth that is actually uneconomic.
>
>If the mood of the public is any barometer at all, then it would
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>seem that the GPI comes much closer than the GDP to the economy
>that Americans actually experience in their daily lives. It
>begins to explain why people feel increasingly gloomy despite
>official claims of economic progress and growth.
>
>The GPI starts with the same personal consumption data the GDP
>is based on, but then makes some crucial distinctions. It
>adjusts for certain factors (such as income distribution), adds
>certain others (such as the value of household work and
>volunteer work), and subtracts yet others (such as the costs of
>crime and pollution). Because the GDP and the GPI are both
>measured in monetary terms, they can be compared on the same
>scale.
I have emphasized above what the GPI really is. It is an attempt to
justify the public mood with some kind of rational-sounding index.
Item 1: Mood has a lot to do with what kind of signals people are
receiving, and those signals, from the 1950s on, have been coming from
doom and gloom national media. That media has terrorized the population
with horror stories.
Item 2: From the end of World War II up to the energy crisis of 1973,
Americans didn't have to do much more than show up for work and get paid.
We exported massive amounts of product to a rebuilding Europe and Japan
while everything was powered by cheap oil. Suddenly, in the 1970s,
energy was expensive, and all that rebuilding had led to good competitors
overseas. Americans began to face something that had not seen in an
economic sphere: risk, competition, and belligerant suppliers. Suddenly,
the workforce had to improve, change, expend effort, and otherwise act
like someone out there could take it away from them. During the 1970s,
the United States wasn't up to it, and we got our butts kicked.
In the 1980's we got it together and turned it around. This meant
present sacrifices for future gains. This meant layoffs, closings,
industrial realignments, currency revaluations, and other major shifts in
the economic landscape. Needless to say, people's mood during all this
was dark.
The pattern that has emerged in the 1990's is that the landscape at work
demands technical competence. Computers, Medical Technology,
Entertainment (Movies, Music, Books), and Financial related disciplines
are hot; but they require a mindset that few people have acquired. The
rest of the people are at an employment disadvantage and know it. Thus,
the mood is still not good.
The opportunities are vast, but taking advantage of them requires that
people face pain. Some people are a lot slower at making that shift than
others. The slow ones would rather buy the argument that it's not their
fault, or not their responsibility. Thus, our policies are wrong, and
are reducing rather than improving our prosperity.
All of this is completely subjective. If you're making good money,
there's no problem. If you're not making good money, or if you are but
you hate your job, then "they" or "society" has the wrong focus and
should change it, preferably to your advantage.
There are some things that need to be fixed. In fact, a lot of things.
This excercise, however, tries to relate a lot of unquantifiable
indicators to an economic number. Mashing everything into one item is
unproductive. Better to just deal with the issues one at a time, in
their respective contexts.
Jay Hanson
-> For a moment there, I was going to say that you were going to leave it
up
-> to me to produce all the supporting material, while you just sit back
and
-> shoot it down. However, the remaining material (which will be
addressed
I wouldn't do that -- that would be a dirty trick. <G>
-> in succeeding posts) removes that plaint.
->
-> Everything that either you or I are dealing with are beliefs. By the
How about logic? Here is a short piece I wrote about our society
that is based mostly on logic:
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEAD. WRONG. 12/1/95
by Jay Hanson
"A tormenting thought: as of a certain point, history was
no longer real. Without noticing it, all mankind suddenly
left reality; everything happening since then was supposedly
not true; but we supposedly didn't notice. Our task would
now be to find that point, and as long as we didn't have it,
we would be forced to abide in our present destruction."
Elias Canetti
We left reality when we believed the "infinite earth ideas"
of Locke, Smith, and Marx. Our "present destruction" (economic
system) encourages its disciples to dominate and exploit each
other and nature, and rewards the most powerful, aggressive, and
ruthless with even more power and riches. Since the system
actively destroys people and the environment (both morally and
physically), it requires a continuous feast of new people and
natural resources.
In essence, this method ingests natural-living systems
(including people) in one end, and excretes un-natural-dead
garbage and waste (including wasted people) out the other --
development and progress. The entropy law dictates that this
method can not run in reverse (Prigogine). Our society can
not be "de-developed" and "de-progressed".
We, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, call forth
"artificials" (large corporations) to faithfully administer our
present destruction. Artificials may be seen as autonomous
technical structures (machines) that follow the logic inherent
in their design. They have no innate morals to keep them from
seducing our politicians, subverting our democratic processes
or lying to maximize profit. Today, the artificials are
transforming life into death as efficiently and as quickly as
they can.
Now we find that Locke, Smith, Marx, and that entire
"dismal science" called economics -- were wrong. Dead wrong.
We find that we actually do live in a finite world with a
finite life-support system that may be destroyed in less than
35 years. Yet we are unable to call the artificials back
because they have stolen our only means to do so: our
so-called political system.
Thus, the artificials will rip, tear, and gulp down our
life-support system till it's gone. We gambled it all and we
were wrong. Dead. Wrong.
Jay Hanson
>
> There are some things that need to be fixed. In fact, a lot of things.
> This excercise, however, tries to relate a lot of unquantifiable
> indicators to an economic number. Mashing everything into one item is
> unproductive. Better to just deal with the issues one at a time, in
> their respective contexts.
I would like to introduce you to "systems thinking" by way of
a short clip from my "CAPITALISM Against DEMOCRACY" [the full
paper is available at my web site, or I will email it to whoever
asks]:
----
///////////////
SYSTEM DEFINED
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Interacting, interrelated, or interdependent parts combine to
form a "system." A system exhibits emergent "properties" that
are different from the properties of the individual parts.
Alone, the individual parts of a bicycle do not exhibit the
property of a bicycle (people transporter). The property of a
bicycle emerges once the parts are in their proper places and
interacting together.
To solve a problem in a system, one must analyze the
relationships of the parts to each other and to the environment.
For example, if the spark plugs were removed from a car's engine
and put in the back seat, an inventory of the parts would show
the car intact. To understand why the car's properties had
changed, one would have to study the relationship of the spark
plugs to the rest of the engine.
It is important to understand that system properties derive from
the ongoing interaction of the parts. If a system is producing
unwanted effects, then we consider improving the system so that
it stops producing those unwanted effects. For example, should
we "treat the symptoms" of an unmoving car by attaching a horse,
or should we improve the system by putting the spark plugs back
into the engine? This example is not as silly as it seems,
because we usually treat symptoms rather than improve
systems--it's the way our economic system works.
For example, some unwanted effects of the "booze" industry are
alcoholics. Rather than trying to improve the system (e.g., by
banning booze advertising), we treat the symptoms by creating a
new industry to treat alcoholism. If the pesticide or tobacco
industry causes cancer, then so much the better for those in the
cancer industry. The same illustrations also apply to many
other social and environmental problems.
Obviously, if our economic system is producing unwanted effects,
we should improve it so it stops producing those unwanted
effects. We know it can be done because lobbyists "improve" our
economic system all the time.
[snip]
----
jjdixon
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Jay
> --
> -------------------------------------
> COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!!
> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/index.html
I have been trying to provoke you, Jay, by posting my own NAFTA article as
bait. But hey, I love a good esoteric argument, wherever I can find it,
so I'll follow you. The points you make above are interesting,if highly
debatable. I think you are underestimating the power of the environment to
adapt, underestimating the our capacity to adjust even under a
neoclassical framework and overestimating the damage we are currently
doing to our environment. I also believe that you are overestimating the
power of large corporations over the political system, and underestimating
the power of the collective (general public). Indeed, I believe that if
preferences were to radically change to line up with yours, the political
system would have no choice to change (if not democratically, then by
revolution) with the corporate world having little to say. It is precisely
because the corporations can offer something that the public wants
(material prosperity) that they have power. The general loss of desire to
drive cars would precede the death of Chrysler, but the power of Chrysler
does not cause people to drive cars.
One would also think that neo-classical economics would have something to
say about the new state of affairs. Just because the paradigm lacks a
broader vision of the "exhaustable earth" does not mean that it cannot be
used in a paradigm that does have this vision. One never hears about the
finite nature of the worlds resources in Econ 101, because it is not the
mandate of the field to directly consider such concerns. A faith in
neo-classical economics does not, in my view, form a comprehensive
Weltanschauung. One can still have other interests, and even be
enviromentally concious, with absolutely no contradiction.
That being said, I still would like to know what any of this has to do
with NAFTA? Your arguments betray a general hostility to the materialism
allegedly fostered by the current system. One would think that
intra-system debates such as the geographical allocation of production
and the distribution of resources would be of little interest in such
global ideology.
Jay
Jay Hanson
> earlier post.
>
> I. Desirability of such a measure
>
> Such an indicator is probably a good idea, but not for the reason you
> propose. Anyone who took such a number at face value would be committing
> laughable folly. If it were in impartial hands it would occillate all
> over the scale; as it is, it is in the hands of committed anti-growth
> activists, who are trying to prove that the Western consumer lifestyle we
> take so much for granted is the Devil incarnate.
We take the GDP for granted -- economists speak of it
daily on TV. If that isn't "laughable folly", I don't
know what is ("Martha, I had another surgery yesterday
for the GDP.")
Why don't you tell me how you know that our "Western
consumer lifestyle" it isn't "bad" in the long run
(say, 50 years -- the lifespan of today's young people)?
Why don't we quit screwing around an call "capitalism"
and it's legitimizers -- the economists -- what they
actually are?
"Politics" is a legitimized system of power whereby
people coerce one another. A careful analysis of
"capitalism" reveals that it too is politics (albeit
well disguised by its legitimizers -- economists).
In America, our nominal politics is democracy (one-
person-one vote) while our dominant politics is
capitalism (one-dollar-one-vote).
Jay Hanson
It is a test of power between those who now are getting
it and those who want it. It is a clash of values.
There are no arguments here that are not based on "values".
Individuals must start with essently the same values or
they can not agree on these economic issues.]
> However, over the last 40 years, a lot of labor has devolved onto
> machines, so reductions in hours don't necessarily mean reduction in
> results. Measure that!
What I am concerned about, is the loss of work because of machines.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TWO BOOK REVIEWS FROM FUTURE SURVEY
Work and Pay in the Twenty-First Century: An Impending Crisis,
Joseph F. Coates (President, Coates & Jarratt, Washington),
Employment Relations Today, Spring 1995, 17-22. (Reprints
free from Coates & Jarratt).
Productivity improvements largely associated with infotech may
be raising a critical new issue: coping with large-scale,
permanent unemployment. Factors in creating a labor surplus:
1) Downsizing: every big corporation is in the midst of or has
completed the disposal of an average of 10-20% of its workforce,
and prefers to extend overtime rather than hire new workers; 2)
Contingent Workers: the Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts
that this corporate strategy for cost containment will result in
less than full-time, standard workers growing from 30% of
today's labor force to 50% by 2000; 3) Distributed Work: those
working outside the traditional workplace are roughly estimated
at 3.5% of today's workforce; this could grow to 20% by 2005 and
40% by 2020 (employers benefit by getting workers out of
relatively expensive office space, while workers gain more
flexibility); 4) Work Force Expansion: there is a current
shortage of entry-level labor, but around 2005 the baby boom
echo generation will enter the job market in massive numbers
that will rival the baby boom itself; 5) Workforce Quality: a
significant part of the labor force is "in the broadest sense
dyslexic" (weak in symbolic, oral, and written skills). Vast
technological unemployment in the manufacturing and service
sectors, along with large numbers of new workers (many unfit for
information society work), "could substantially increase
unemployment over the next one to two decades. Without
intervention, about 20% unemployment in a generally
wage-depressed workforce is likely."
Among the wide range of options to provide people with a
satisfactory life and to stimulate the economy: 1) reduce the
workweek from 40 to 32 hours ("the most attractive and easiest
remedy to implement"); 2) maintain the time at work, but
mandate more training and education; 3) encourage more
midcareer schooling; 4) promote earlier retirement (speeding up
long-term trends); 5) spread ownership so that rents or
dividends substitute for wages and other forms of payment; 6)
foster public service projects. [NOTE: Add to this list the
options of mandating prorated benefits for part-time work (which
some workers might then choose), standardized hours for salaried
workers, and other disincentives for overtime, as proposed by
Juliet Schor in The Overworked American (Basic Books, 1992; FS
Annual 1993 #11931).] (unemployment to increase)
----------------------------------------------------------------
The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the
Dawn of the Post-Market Era. Jeremy Rifkin (President,
Foundation on Economic Trends, Washington). Foreword by Robert
L. Heilbroner. NY: Tarcher/Putnam, Jan 1995/350p/$24.95.
According to The World Employment Situation (Geneva:
International Labor Organization, 1994), more than 800 million
people are now unemployed or underemployed in the world. This
figure is likely to rise sharply by 2000 because of millions of
new entrants into the workforce combined with a technology
revolution that is fast replacing humans with machines in
virtually every sector and industry. After years of wishful
forecasts and false starts, the information age has arrived,
throwing the world community into the grip of a third great
industrial revolution. In the years ahead, more sophisticated
software technologies will bring civilization ever-closer to a
near-workerless world, forcing every nation to rethink the role
of human beings in the social process. "Redefining
opportunities and responsibilities for millions of people in a
society absent of mass formal employment is likely to be the
single most pressing social issue of the coming century." In
the past, when new technologies replaced workers in a given
sector, new sectors have always emerged. Today, only the
knowledge sector -- made up of a small elite is growing; it is
not expected to absorb more than a fraction of the unemployed.
Chapters discuss substituting software for employees (more than
75% of the labor force in most industrial nations works in
simple tasks that can be automated to some degree),
re-engineering the workplace, trickle-down technology (the
dubious theory that dramatic benefits for all will eventually
trickle down to the mass of workers), visions of
techno-paradise, automation and the making of the urban
underclass, past concerns about automation, post-Fordism (the
Japanese production model), the mechanization of agriculture,
automation of manufacturing and services, high-tech winners and
losers, the spread of automation into the Third World, and the
dramatic rise in crime and random violence resulting from
unemployment.
If there is to be a successful transition into the post-market
era of the 21st century, two specific courses of action must be
vigorously pursued: productivity gains resulting from new
technologies must be shared, and -- in that employment is
shrinking in the market economy and in the public sector --
greater attention must be focused on the third sector: the
non-market or social economy. Proposals include: 1) a shorter
workweek (gaining much support in Europe, and likely to be
implemented in many countries by the early 21st century); 2) a
new social contract allowing workers to benefit from
productivity increases; 3) encouraging service to others in the
third sector by providing a tax deduction for every hour of
volunteer time given to tax-exempt organizations (this "shadow
wage" would insure greater volunteerism and reduce the need for
expensive government programs); 4) governments should consider
paying a "social wage" as an alternative to welfare payments,
for those willing to be retrained and placed in third sector
jobs to educate the young, restore family life, and rebuild
communities (adding on earlier arguments by Robert Theobald for
a guaranteed income, and by Milton Friedman for a negative
income tax); 5) funds to finance the transition could be raised
by a value-added tax on non-essential goods and services. In
sum, "a transformed third sector offers the only viable means
for constructively channeling the surplus labor cast off by the
global market." The end of work could be a death sentence for
civilization, or the start of a great social transformation -- a
rebirth of the human spirit. [NOTE: Clearly written,
well-documented, and better than any of Rifkin's previous 12
books. The hostile review in The Washington Post, however,
calls it "a rear-guard action against the future . . . an
updated version of the Luddite argument . . . vulgar Marxist
fantasies of machines making people obsolete." ALSO SEE: The End
of Jobs by Richard Barnet (Harper's, Sept 1993, FS Annual 1995
#13114).] (unemployment to increase)
> Now, lets look at the poor in Russia, where even having a job
> (i.e. as a coal miner) doesn't mean having access to decent housing,
> running water, or even soap.
So what? Have you been "trained" to "believe" there are only
two or three possible "isms" in the universe for all time? <G>
You seem to have forgotten that your "isms" are reifications:
Berger & Luckmann, THE SOCIAL CONSCTRUCTION OF REALITY;
Anchor Books, 1966, ISBN 0-385-05898-5
"Reification is the apprehension of human phenomena as if they
were things, that is, in non-human or possibly supra-human
terms. Another way of saying this is that reification is
the apprehension of the products as if they something else
than human products -- such as facts of nature, results of
cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will. Reification
implies that man is capable of forgetting his own authorship
of the human world, and further, that the dialectic between
man, the producer, and his products is lost to consciousness.
The reified world is, by definition, a dehumanized world. It
is experienced by man as a strange facticity, an opus alienum
over which he has no control rather than as the opus proprium
of his own productive activity." [p. 89]
This book takes you step by step through the process of
constructing "social reality" and complete with institutions
to "legitimize" that reality.
Jay Hanson
Meredith Poor wrote:
>
> What about knowlege resources, infrastructure resources, and political
> stability? One thing that the United States in particular and much of
You have a fundemental epistimological error. Yours is a
"political-economic" (ECON) world view, mine is a "biophysical"
(BP) world view. Those with an ECON view, see the "environment"
as a subsystem of the ECON system with the ECON system as
exerting strong control over the environment.
Those with a BP view, see things the other way around with
the ECON system as a subsystem of the environment and with
the environment exerting strong control over the ECON system.
In reality, it makes no difference what "rights" or who's
ideas our social systems are premised on, either they submit
to the biophysical laws of the planet that we have the
privilege to inhabit, or they will end.
Here is an essay wrote that will hopefully put this issue
in a sharper focus for ongoing debate:
--------------------------------------------------------------
[ Check my website at:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/index.html ]
Jay
Rafael Gea.
se ha hablado desde antaño.Un paìs no es totalmente autosuficiente para
producir todos los satisfactores de su poblaciòn, por lo que necesita de
otros paìses para poder complementarse y dar a los habitantes del mundo
todo lo que requieran. Pienso que es muy importante saber hacia donde se
va, pero sobre todo no perdiendo de vista esa meta, lo que nos lanzò como
paìses a comerciar, ayudèmonos, ahora ya solo la competencia es
importante y no nos damos cuenta que nos estamos destruyendo.
Avanzar sin perder el rumbo, sabiendo la escencia es lo importante.
atte.
Angèlica Leòn Chong
Direcciòn: Francisco I. Madero 112-B Sur
Ampliaciòn Unidad Nacional
Madero., Tam.
C.P. 89510
Tel: 111094.
Me interesa mucho comunicarme mediante este medio, agradecerìa respuesta.
Rafael Gea.
int...@phoenix.net
>se ha hablado desde antaño.Un paìs no es totalmente autosuficiente para
>producir todos los satisfactores de su poblaciòn, por lo que necesita de
>otros paìses para poder complementarse y dar a los habitantes del mundo
>todo lo que requieran. Pienso que es muy importante saber hacia donde se
>va, pero sobre todo no perdiendo de vista esa meta, lo que nos lanzò como
>paìses a comerciar, ayudèmonos, ahora ya solo la competencia es
>importante y no nos damos cuenta que nos estamos destruyendo.
>Avanzar sin perder el rumbo, sabiendo la escencia es lo importante.
>atte.
>Angèlica Leòn Chong
para empezar, no es necesario mandar una copia a todo los grupos ya
que los tratados de libre comercio no tienen que ver con
alt.censorship, etc.......
disputo la idea que un pais no puede ser autosuficiente para las
necesidades de su poblacion. al contrario, si un pais puede sostener
buena direccion en su economia, por su propia economia interna se
satisfacen las necesidades internas... de ejemplo doy los estados
unidos hasta mediados de los '80s.....
un tratado de libre comercio sirve solamente si todos los miembros de
esa union son iguales o de mutuo beneficio. para poder seguir
discutiendolo, tendriamos que saber si platicas de tratados de libre
comercio en general o del tratado de libre comercio que unen a canada,
estados unidos, y mexico.
---------
International Suppliers Inc.
José Y. Cañedo - Vice President
Houston, Texas U S A
Meredith Poor
>Meredith Poor wrote:
>>
>> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>[Much snipped because in reality, this is "politics".
> It is a test of power between those who now are getting
> it and those who want it. It is a clash of values.
> There are no arguments here that are not based on "values".
> Individuals must start with essently the same values or
> they can not agree on these economic issues.]
>
>> However, over the last 40 years, a lot of labor has devolved onto
>> machines, so reductions in hours don't necessarily mean reduction in
>> results. Measure that!
>
>What I am concerned about, is the loss of work because of machines.
What I am concerned about, is the creation of work faster than machines
can replace it.
Now that we have machines that efficiently produce automobiles, we have a
lot of automobiles that need servicing. Same goes in particular for
computers and networking technology. In fact, the inherent property of
computing in modern society is that each configuration must be different
to satisfy the user, and requirements configuration change as the user
assumes progressively more ambitious goals. What is happening is that
economically viable work is multiplying such that we are already at the
point where there is enough work needed in the United States alone to
employ the workforce of the entire globe!
If we build robots to grow crops, we must encode an immense knowledge
base of information on pests, nutrient and climatic effects, growth
patterns, and recognition rules for determining when crops are ripe and
in what way each picked item should be graded and sorted. This is merely
one example.
Imagine how much information would need to be backfilled if we built
machines to repair cars: make and model of every car in production, down
to the schematic drawings, merged with general and specific rules for
identifying maladies and remedies.
Now take this into the realm of the human body, and look at the
functionality of extremely complex organs such as the liver, brain, and
heart. The machinery exists to do all these things. It will take
centuries for humans to code the necessary knowledge to make the
machines effective.
You are stuck in the 1950's-1960's industrial model of factories and big
iron industry. The future model is more like Jefferson's original ideal
of a country of citizen-farmers, except that the households will be data
intensive rather than agriculturally intensive. As has already occurred
several times, someone will go to school for 16 or 18 years (Grade 1
through Masters Degree), find an economic hole, plug it with one project
taking a year or two, get paid, and retire. Marc Andresson (the Netscape
programmer) is the prototype of this economic animal.
At present, our educational methodology is hugely wasteful. This will be
replaced by more effective technological equivalents. Thus, inspired
students, excersising free choice, will gravitate toward highly
customizable learning environments that give them excellent coping
skills. This does not mean they will necessarily work very much; it may
not be necessary. It means that they will have the means to address a
collection of concerns, one of which is making a living.
The fundamental assumption in the books you are quoting is that people
are helpless. This is absurd and dangerous. We are just now discarding
this political premise in the United States. It hasn't happend in the
European Community or Japan yet, with the exception perhaps of
Switzerland. But the signs of discontent overseas are beginning to
surface. Increasingly, citizens resent patronistic governments and
social policies.
Not everyone is a rocket scientist, so there are people that are not
going to cope with occupations framed in techological terms. Most of
these people will be once removed from the technological infrastructure.
Thus, someone will sell dresses that are made by machines. Someone will
serve food that has been prepared by automatons. Someone will write and
debate legislation, and rule on the meaning of laws, with nothing more
than spectacles and a pencil on ruled paper.
In all of this exchange, I hear very little of your personal words. You
are always quoting some magazine article or some book. What is your
thinking on these topics? Your thinking. T.H.I.N.K.I.N.G.
Meredith Poor
>[sci.environment and sci.med dropped]
>Meredith Poor wrote:
>>
>> stability? One thing that the United States in particular and much of
>
>"political-economic" (ECON) world view, mine is a "biophysical"
>(BP) world view. Those with an ECON view, see the "environment"
>as a subsystem of the ECON system with the ECON system as
>exerting strong control over the environment.
I am repeating myself here: economics is a study of the best use of
limited resources. Notice the preceeding term: LIMITED RESOURCES. There
is no such assumption of infinite resources. There never was.
>
>Those with a BP view, see things the other way around with
>the ECON system as a subsystem of the environment and with
>the environment exerting strong control over the ECON system.
It is a little hard to ignore the environment when it is blowing your
house down. Human beings make all kinds of economic choices with the
environment first and foremost on their mind. Thus, few people live in
the desert, because water is hard to find. Few people live in the
Canadian Shield, because it is too damn cold, and there is nothing to do.
Lots of people live in California, because it is pleasant and there are
lots of other cool people there.
Americans individually and collectively are behaving with progressivly
greater environmental responsibility. The topic is discussed
incessantly. Efforts to frustrate environmental regulations are being
fought even by the industries being regulated; some of them find that the
EPA et al is now a convenience. When you go to the store and see EPA
Approved on the bug spray, you feel better about buying it. Same goes
for computers that say EPA Energy Star, or light fixtures that say EPA
Green Light.
We are recycling plastic, paper, glass, most metals, and increasingly,
yard waste and other plant byproducts. Americans have or are developing
waste water and renewable energy technologies to conserve these
resources. In particular, look up U.S. Windpower (500KW windmills),
Ovonics (environmentally friendly vehicle batteries), and Arco/Solarex
(solar cells). The migration into completely renewable energy has begun,
and will probably take 30 years to carry out (replacing 30 year old coal
fired power plants).
>In reality, it makes no difference what "rights" or who's
>ideas our social systems are premised on, either they submit
>to the biophysical laws of the planet that we have the
>privilege to inhabit, or they will end.
We can remove people's rights, and lock ourselves into inefficient
behavior. Or we can expand rights as much as possible, and expose and
replace practices that damage our surroundings. If someone begins to
usurp the individual's right to act in their best self interest, people
will continue to consume (perhaps at a much reduced rate), but they will
do little to produce.
>
>Here is an essay wrote that will hopefully put this issue
>in a sharper focus for ongoing debate:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEAD. WRONG. 12/1/95
> by Jay Hanson
>
>
> We left reality when we believed the "infinite earth ideas"
>of Locke, Smith, and Marx. Our "present destruction" (economic
>system) encourages its disciples to dominate and exploit each
>other and nature, and rewards the most powerful, aggressive, and
>ruthless with even more power and riches. Since the system
>actively destroys people and the environment (both morally and
>physically), it requires a continuous feast of new people and
>natural resources.
Every living organism consumes raw material in it's environment and
generates waste. Other organisms develop synergetic strategies and use
that waste as input to their life processes. Ultimately, every human
being becomes food for worms (Robin Williams, "Dead Poet's Society").
Guess what they did to John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and generation
after generation of Du Ponts.
Human beings, in getting along with each other, have to adjust. This may
be what you mean by "Moral Destruction". In other words, people have to
hold their nose and do something unpleasant to live. Perhaps except for
you.
Since you are quoting Dead White Males (Locke, Smith, and Marx) please
explain how the dynastic system that ruled China for millenea is
different.
> In essence, this method ingests natural-living systems
>(including people) in one end, and excretes un-natural-dead
>garbage and waste (including wasted people) out the other --
>development and progress. The entropy law dictates that this
>method can not run in reverse (Prigogine). Our society can
>not be "de-developed" and "de-progressed".
>
> We, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, call forth
>"artificials" (large corporations)...
Ah yes, the C-word. In the fifties, this was Communism. That particular
bogyman isn't around anymore. So we blame our personal and
social failures on Corporations.
>...to faithfully administer our
>present destruction. Artificials may be seen as autonomous
>technical structures (machines) that follow the logic inherent
>in their design. They have no innate morals to keep them from
>seducing our politicians, subverting our democratic processes
>or lying to maximize profit. Today, the artificials are
>transforming life into death as efficiently and as quickly as
>they can.
>
> Now we find that Locke, Smith, Marx, and that entire
>"dismal science" called economics -- were wrong. Dead wrong.
>We find that we actually do live in a finite world with a
>finite life-support system that may be destroyed in less than
>35 years. Yet we are unable to call the artificials back
>because they have stolen our only means to do so: our
>so-called political system.
First, people have been predicting the end of the world since biblical
times. What's interesting is that the "end" is always at least 7 years
off (too far off for immediate action to have any consequence) but no
more than 35 years off (half of the population will still be alive to
experience it). This trick is used all the time by fundamentalists.
>
> Thus, the artificials will rip, tear, and gulp down our
>life-support system till it's gone. We gambled it all and we
>were wrong. Dead. Wrong.
>
Well, you do seem lifeless as of late...:-).
Meredith Poor
>
>We take the GDP for granted -- economists speak of it
>daily on TV. If that isn't "laughable folly", I don't
>know what is ("Martha, I had another surgery yesterday
>for the GDP.")
I think he would be saying "I had surgury so I could live longer". GDP
was the last thing on the mind of most surgury patients.
The GDP is also a pretty useless number. Most economists know that.
>Why don't you tell me how you know that our "Western
>consumer lifestyle" it isn't "bad" in the long run
>(say, 50 years -- the lifespan of today's young people)?
Change that to 80 years plus: it is likely that most young people today
will live to be 100. You could start by reading earlier posts. I'm
still waiting for you to do anything other than blame straw men for
unspecific evils. Which corporations? What damage? What people? And
in what proportion to the total of all corporations, undamaged originals,
and people? Particularly in proportion.
>
>Why don't we quit screwing around an call "capitalism"
>and it's legitimizers -- the economists -- what they
>actually are?
So are we now also blaming economists. Economists measure things and
observe behavior. Then they write down what they have observed, and
argue about what it means. Businesses and governments ask them to peer
in their crystal balls and make predictions. Economists do that because
someone will give them money. Quite a number of them hate that aspect of
their existence. Others take the money and laugh all the way to the
bank (unless they run the bank, like the Governors of the Fed).
>"Politics" is a legitimized system of power whereby
>people coerce one another. A careful analysis of
>"capitalism" reveals that it too is politics (albeit
>well disguised by its legitimizers -- economists).
Politics is a method of reaching consensus among competing factions.
First, a lot of people aren't in factions and so don't participate.
Second, of the remaining, people are unhappy but cannot succinctly state
their objective. In this discourse, for example. Third, coercion is
expensive. In most Western societies, the path of minimum energy is
followed, which is mostly compromise.
Perhaps you are mistaking "persuasion" for "coercion". Thus, someone is
"forced" to buy a car because of an ad they saw on TV, or because they
prefer to live in a Northside neighborhood when the work on the
Southside. I haven't seen too many people towed to the mall in chains,
and I haven't seen anyone eating a Big Mac because they have a gun
pointed at their head.
>In America, our nominal politics is democracy (one-
>person-one vote) while our dominant politics is
>capitalism (one-dollar-one-vote).
Actually, our nominal political system is republican, where appointed
represenatives do our political business. Democracy means we vote on
legislation directly, which we don't.
The dollar-per-vote rule applies to economic choices. Some people decide
not to play. Others say that they don't but actually do, and still
others write books that say it is wrong and then collect their royalty
checks from the sales.
Mark Witte
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>
>How about logic? Here is a short piece I wrote about our society
>that is based mostly on logic:
I won't comment on the quality of your logic but I can confirm that
the following piece is clearly not based on information.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEAD. WRONG. 12/1/95
> by Jay Hanson
>
> "A tormenting thought: as of a certain point, history was
>no longer real. Without noticing it, all mankind suddenly
>left reality; everything happening since then was supposedly
>not true; but we supposedly didn't notice. Our task would
>now be to find that point, and as long as we didn't have it,
>we would be forced to abide in our present destruction."
> Elias Canetti
>
> We left reality when we believed the "infinite earth ideas"
>of Locke, Smith, and Marx. Our "present destruction" (economic
>system) encourages its disciples to dominate and exploit each
[SNIP]
> Now we find that Locke, Smith, Marx, and that entire
>"dismal science" called economics -- were wrong. Dead wrong.
>We find that we actually do live in a finite world with a
>finite life-support system that may be destroyed in less than
>35 years. Yet we are unable to call the artificials back
>because they have stolen our only means to do so: our
>so-called political system.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly by many people, this is
complete crap. Smith wrote of the importance of scarcity as a central fact of
economic behavior. I'll leave Locke out of this but I think that even you
recognize the lack of effect Marx's thinking has had on modern economics.
John McCarthy
the permanent level of unemployment and is unlikely to do so in the
future is that the human desire for a combination of goods, services
and leisure is essentially insatiable. We have more goods, services
and leisure than our grandparents and our grandchildren will have
still more. The people made unemployed by a technical advance get
other jobs, not necessarily related at all to the industry they worked
in before.
A century ago, half the population was in farming. Now it is two
percent. Few of the great grandchildren of the farmers of the 1890s
are in farming today - namely 4 percent of them.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Markku Stenborg
writes:
>Subject: Re: NAFTA: Good For The Future -- DEAD. WRONG.
[snip]
>How about logic? Here is a short piece I wrote about our society
>that is based mostly on logic:
How about some true information? Logic alone isn't enough. It is logical
to claim that "The King of California is bald-headed" but we all know
that this isn't so.
[snip]
> We left reality when we believed the "infinite earth ideas"
>of Locke, Smith, and Marx. Our "present destruction" (economic
Once again, to the contrary, Smith clearly did not belief in "infinite
earth ideas". His main point was "scarcity" which is in striking
opposition to "infinite earth ideas", what ever those are.
[snip]
> Now we find that Locke, Smith, Marx, and that entire
>"dismal science" called economics -- were wrong. Dead wrong.
>We find that we actually do live in a finite world with a
>finite life-support system that may be destroyed in less than
Or may not.
>35 years. Yet we are unable to call the artificials back
>because they have stolen our only means to do so: our
>so-called political system.
Eh?
Markku Stenborg <mar...@utu.fi>
Take my advice, I have no use for it
Key fingerprint = 0C D5 B6 5D E8 9E 01 C0 4C 8F 7A 60 A9 A7 BA B1
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/M/SS d-(++)@ s+:+(++)>++ a C++ UC>++ P+? L>++ !E !W++() N+++(+)@ o+
!K--? w(+) !O M+(-) V PS(++)@ PE++() Y+ PGP++ !t-- 5? X-- !R-* tv++()@
b+++()@>$ DI- !D- G+ e++++$ h--- r+++ y+++*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Jay Hanson
>
> The basic reason why technological advance has never led to increasing
> the permanent level of unemployment and is unlikely to do so in the
John,
Instead of just explaining to us what you have been "trained"
to "believe", why don't you actually study this issue?
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Future Survey is published by the World Future Society, an
association for the study of alternative futures. The Society is
a non-profit educational and scientific organization founded in
1966. It acts as an impartial clearinghouse for a variety of
different views and does not take positions on what will or
should happen in the future. Future Survey (ISSN: 0190-3241) is
published monthly by the World Future Society, 7910 Woodmont
Avenue, Suite 450, Bethesda, MD 20814, U.S.A. Subscription
Rates: $79 per year for individuals; $119 per year for libraries
(both subscription rates include Future Survey Annual). Single
copies of monthly issues cost $9.50 each. For Air Mail service
worldwide, add $25. Phone orders welcome: (301) 656-8274.
Jay Hanson
Meredith Poor wrote:
>
> Change that to 80 years plus: it is likely that most young people today
> will live to be 100. You could start by reading earlier posts. I'm
This is merely an expression of faith in INDUSTRIAL RELGION.
Rather than telling us what you are "trained" to "believe",
tell us what you "know" and how you "know" you are right.
> still waiting for you to do anything other than blame straw men for
> unspecific evils. Which corporations? What damage? What people? And
You question is not clear. But to generalize about our
economy, here is a clip from an essay called DEAD. WRONG.
-----
We left reality when we believed the "infinite earth ideas"
of Locke, Smith, and Marx. Our "present destruction" (economic
system) encourages its disciples to dominate and exploit each
other and nature, and rewards the most powerful, aggressive, and
ruthless with even more power and riches. Since the system
actively destroys people and the environment (both morally and
physically), it requires a continuous feast of new people and
natural resources.
In essence, this method ingests natural-living systems
(including people) in one end, and excretes un-natural-dead
garbage and waste (including wasted people) out the other --
development and progress. The entropy law dictates that this
method can not run in reverse (Prigogine). Our society can
not be "de-developed" and "de-progressed".
We, like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, call forth
"artificials" (large corporations) to faithfully administer our
present destruction. Artificials may be seen as autonomous
technical structures (machines) that follow the logic inherent
in their design. They have no innate morals to keep them from
seducing our politicians, subverting our democratic processes
or lying to maximize profit. Today, the artificials are
transforming life into death as efficiently and as quickly as
they can.
Now we find that Locke, Smith, Marx, and that entire
"dismal science" called economics -- were wrong. Dead wrong.
We find that we actually do live in a finite world with a
finite life-support system that may be destroyed in less than
35 years. Yet we are unable to call the artificials back
because they have stolen our only means to do so: our
so-called political system.
Thus, the artificials will rip, tear, and gulp down our
life-support system till it's gone. We gambled it all and we
were wrong. Dead. Wrong.
-----
> >"Politics" is a legitimized system of power whereby
> >people coerce one another. A careful analysis of
> >"capitalism" reveals that it too is politics (albeit
> >well disguised by its legitimizers -- economists).
>
> Politics is a method of reaching consensus among competing factions.
> First, a lot of people aren't in factions and so don't participate.
In capitalism, those with no money do not vote.
> "forced" to buy a car because of an ad they saw on TV, or because they
> prefer to live in a Northside neighborhood when the work on the
I think you made my point that capitalism is politics. For example,
people are either "forced" to buy a car to satisfy job requirements
or are "forced" to move. Were their choices established by
popular consensus or by plutocrats?
Jay Hanson
>
> As has been pointed out to you repeatedly by many people, this is
> complete crap. Smith wrote of the importance of scarcity as a central fact of
> economic behavior. I'll leave Locke out of this but I think that even you
> recognize the lack of effect Marx's thinking has had on modern economics.
Who cares that "Smith wrote of the importance of scarcity
as a central fact of the importance of economic behavior"?
What is the importance of economic behavior on our life-support system?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Neoclassical economics ASSUMES that there are no limits to
economic growth (infinite earth). One can infer from this
assumption that neoclassical economics also teaches that the
earth is FLAT instead of ROUND (because a round earth is
"finite" by definition).
Indeed, neoclassical economics is often referred to as
"flat earth economics". See: Wackernagel and Rees, p. 41,
OUR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT; New Society, 1996. ISBN 0-86571-312-x
Such a collosial epistimological screwup is why enligntend
economists are now studying ecological economics. Ecological
economics teaches that the earth is indeed round and finite.
The book that I have listed above would be a good place for
flat earth economists to learn something about their life-
support system -- it has lots of pictures. <G>
Jay Hanson
> > We left reality when we believed the "infinite earth ideas"
> >of Locke, Smith, and Marx. Our "present destruction" (economic
>
> earth ideas". His main point was "scarcity" which is in striking
> opposition to "infinite earth ideas", what ever those are.
Neoclassical (Flat Earth) economics ASSUMES no limit to the size
of the human economy. Endless economic growth requires a "flat earth"
with endless sewers and natural resources. I find Flat Earth
economics to be an extremely interesting religious cult. <G>
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION revised 12/29/65
by Jay Hanson
As the new century rises like a wave on the horizon, we sense
that we are not going to be able to ride this one out, that
uncontrollable currents will pull us to the bottom and tear us
apart. We have good reason to be frightened because we are in
the midst of a "paradigm shift"; a tidal wave of change that
threatens to overwhelm and annihilate us.
This new century brings with it dangers and challenges that we
can scarcely imagine. Human society has experienced paradigm
shifts in the past, but nothing compared to what is yet to come.
For 14 centuries, Ptolemy's astronomical theory (that
everything in the universe revolved around the Earth) was taught
as religious dogma throughout Western Christendom. But, Copernicus
changed all that and caused tremendous controversy in religion,
philosophy, and social theory by proving mathematically that the
Earth moves around the Sun.
The implications of Copernicus' ideas were devastating for the
Catholic Church. No longer was the Earth the center of the
universe. In fact, man might not have a special place in
creation at all! This was heresy on a grand scale. The medieval
churchmen even refused to peer into a telescope to "see for
themselves" because doing so meant defeat for their current
religious dogma.
Before Copernicus' time, knowledge was based on "authority"
(reading scriptures or philosophical tracts). In contrast, the
new knowledge was "empirical" (by scientific observation and
experiment). Ultimately of course, science defeated religious
dogma. The Copernican revolution successfully challenged ancient
authority and caused a paradigm shift in our entire conception of
the universe.
If we substitute "Industrial Religion" for Catholicism,
"ecology" for Copernicus' astronomy, and "Growthmen" for churchmen,
we can see that a parallel situation exists today.
In the 16th century, Martin Luther established a new form of
Christianity that ultimately came to regard work as the only way
to obtain love and approval. But behind the Christian face arose
a new secret religion that actually directs the character of
modern society. At the center of Industrial Religion is fear of
powerful male authorities, cultivation of the sense of guilt
for disobedience, and dissolution of community by promoting
hyperindividuality and mutual antagonism. The "sacred" in
Industrial Religion is work, property, profit and power.
Industrial Religion is incompatible with genuine Christianity
in that it reduces people to servants of the economy. The most
aggressive and ruthless are rewarded with even more power and
riches. Industrial Religion was destined to fail from the very
beginning because it actively destroys its own premises (both
morally and physically) by encouraging its members to dominate
and exploit each other and nature.
Evidence that Industrial Religion is failing, ipso facto, is
everywhere: desertification, topsoil loss, falling water
tables, filling garbage dumps, ozone depletion, global warming,
human sperm decline, rising cancer rates, loss of biodiversity,
collapsing ocean fisheries, depletion of oil, nuclear waste,
300,000 to 400,000 polluted ground water sites, pesticide-
resistant pests, antibiotic-resistant disease, billions of
people in the Third World planning to industrialize; social
problems such as jobless futures, the national debt, crack
babies, declining SAT scores, skyrocketing teenage pregnancy,
violence and suicide . . .
Growthmen are today's equivalent of the medieval churchmen.
They refuse to look at the scientific evidence and "see for
themselves", because once again, it means the defeat of their
current religious dogma; it means that they must give up their
faith that the problems caused by growth can be cured by more of
the cause.
There is however, one big difference between yesterday's
churchmen and today's Growthmen. Growthmen carry the collective
responsibility for the deaths of billions of lives as once-civil
societies gradually disintegrate into insurrection, chaos, and
oblivion.
Mark Witte
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>Mark Witte wrote:
>>> We left reality when we believed the "infinite earth ideas"
>>>of Locke, Smith, and Marx. Our "present destruction" (economic
>>>system) encourages its disciples to dominate and exploit each
>>>other and nature, and rewards the most powerful, aggressive, and
>>>ruthless with even more power and riches. Since the system
>>>actively destroys people and the environment (both morally and
>>>physically), it requires a continuous feast of new people and
>>>natural resources.
>>
>> As has been pointed out to you repeatedly by many people, this is
>> complete crap. Smith wrote of the importance of scarcity as a central fact of
>> economic behavior. I'll leave Locke out of this but I think that even you
>> recognize the lack of effect Marx's thinking has had on modern economics.
>
>Who cares that "Smith wrote of the importance of scarcity
>as a central fact of the importance of economic behavior"?
You seem to have an interest in Smith, although perhaps not to the
level that you would actually go out and read his work. Anyway, you are
the one who brought up Smith.
>
>What is the importance of economic behavior on our life-support system?
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Neoclassical economics ASSUMES that there are no limits to
>economic growth (infinite earth). One can infer from this
>assumption that neoclassical economics also teaches that the
>earth is FLAT instead of ROUND (because a round earth is
>"finite" by definition).
Perhaps you can cite references and quote from some prominant
neoclassical economists who say such things? Perhaps you can't.
>
>Indeed, neoclassical economics is often referred to as
>"flat earth economics". See: Wackernagel and Rees, p. 41,
>OUR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT; New Society, 1996. ISBN 0-86571-312-x
>
>Such a collosial epistimological screwup is why enligntend
>economists are now studying ecological economics. Ecological
>economics teaches that the earth is indeed round and finite.
>
>The book that I have listed above would be a good place for
>flat earth economists to learn something about their life-
>support system -- it has lots of pictures. <G>
>
Meredith Poor
>[sci.med and sci.environment clipped]
>Meredith Poor wrote:
>>
>> Change that to 80 years plus: it is likely that most young people today
>> will live to be 100. You could start by reading earlier posts. I'm
>
>tell us what you "know" and how you "know" you are right.
I don't know, and in any case it's a question of averages. Over the last
century, lifespans have been increasing, and our understanding of how the
human body works suggests that we will continue to improve.
>> still waiting for you to do anything other than blame straw men for
>> unspecific evils. Which corporations? What damage? What people? >
>You question is not clear. But to generalize about our
>economy, here is a clip from an essay called DEAD. WRONG.
Name a corporation, a specific act, and the person responsible for that
act. Do you want to say here and now that General Motors is responsible
for x-amount of environmental damage and misuse of resources as they
produce 100,000 Cadillacs? If so, what dollar or other amount do you
ascribe to x?
>> Politics is a method of reaching consensus among competing factions.
>> First, a lot of people aren't in factions and so don't participate.
>
>In capitalism, those with no money do not vote.
Correct up to a point. However, the success of unions in the 1930s
exposes the fundamental untruthfullness of that assertion.
>> "forced" to buy a car because of an ad they saw on TV, or because they
>> prefer to live in a Northside neighborhood when the work on the
>
>I think you made my point that capitalism is politics. For example,
>people are either "forced" to buy a car to satisfy job requirements
>or are "forced" to move. Were their choices established by
>popular consensus or by plutocrats?
Part of the human condition involves making difficult choices. This has
been the case regardless of economic system or historical era. However,
in the economic system we have now, people make their own choices, rather
than have them dictated by someone else.
Meredith Poor
> As the new century rises like a wave on the horizon, we sense
>that we are not going to be able to ride this one out, that
>uncontrollable currents will pull us to the bottom and tear us
>apart. We have good reason to be frightened because we are in
>the midst of a "paradigm shift"; a tidal wave of change that
>threatens to overwhelm and annihilate us.
I would like to know who "we" is. Sounds like you and Pat Buchanan.
> This new century brings with it dangers and challenges that we
>can scarcely imagine. Human society has experienced paradigm
>shifts in the past, but nothing compared to what is yet to come.
People in 1880 had a hard time imagining powered flight, nuclear warfare,
CAT scanners, or Ebola virus. Good and bad, powerful beyond belief.
They might be scared, but they might be fascinated too.
> Before Copernicus' time, knowledge was based on "authority"
>(reading scriptures or philosophical tracts). In contrast, the
>new knowledge was "empirical" (by scientific observation and
>experiment). Ultimately of course, science defeated religious
>dogma. The Copernican revolution successfully challenged ancient
>authority and caused a paradigm shift in our entire conception of
>the universe.
>
> If we substitute "Industrial Religion" for Catholicism,
>"ecology" for Copernicus' astronomy, and "Growthmen" for churchmen,
>we can see that a parallel situation exists today.
Actually, we will be trying to reverse current thinking, and return to an
authority based political and economic system. You don't like killing
furry animals, you're in political power, so no one wears fur coats
anymore. Etc.
>...But behind the Christian face arose
>a new secret religion that actually directs the character of
>modern society. At the center of Industrial Religion is fear of
>powerful male authorities, cultivation of the sense of guilt
>for disobedience, and dissolution of community by promoting
>hyperindividuality and mutual antagonism. The "sacred" in
>Industrial Religion is work, property, profit and power.
>
> Industrial Religion is incompatible with genuine Christianity
>in that it reduces people to servants of the economy.
So what is this stuff St. Augustine wrote about the idea that people born
into a class remain in that class. Lets talk about subservience to
authority!
>The most
>aggressive and ruthless are rewarded with even more power and
>riches. Industrial Religion was destined to fail from the very
>beginning because it actively destroys its own premises (both
>morally and physically) by encouraging its members to dominate
>and exploit each other and nature.
Aggressive yes, ruthless, no. Ruthless people eventually destroy
themseves as they get caught up in their own intrigues. Capitalism
definitely favors action over contemplation.
Capitalism works because people cooperate, not because they dominate.
Very large businesses depend on armies of small businesses to provide
essential services. The large organization may dominate in a sense, but
it does not control the smaller organizations. And large organizations
don't have the power by themselves to create or destroy small businesses.
> Evidence that Industrial Religion is failing, ipso facto, is
>everywhere: desertification, topsoil loss, falling water
>tables, filling garbage dumps... <snip> and suicide . . .
There is a posting I made elsewhere (in SAT.General) called the "Misery
List". The above is one of them. We are industrial and capitalistic,
therefore miserable in all of the above ways. Of course, not everyone
suffers from every misery, only a few suffer from a few of each. Most
people have learned to cope with theirs, and of course a few don't and
lose it. However, why is this different from any other collection of
humans in any other historical era?
>
> Growthmen are today's equivalent of the medieval churchmen.
>They refuse to look at the scientific evidence and "see for
>themselves", because once again, it means the defeat of their
>current religious dogma; it means that they must give up their
>faith that the problems caused by growth can be cured by more of
>the cause.
It would be nice to see some scientific evidence. When it is presented
(such as the ozone depletion) action is taken. It may not produce
immediate results, but the abuse peters out.
> There is however, one big difference between yesterday's
>churchmen and today's Growthmen. Growthmen carry the collective
>responsibility for the deaths of billions of lives as once-civil
>societies gradually disintegrate into insurrection, chaos, and
>oblivion.
Such as in Iran and Iraq, presumably, where Moslem fundamentalism is not
too Western minded, and life seems to be cheap.
John McCarthy
I remember that there were famous books to that effect written in the
1930s and probably before. All predicted that the latest
technological advances, whatever was new at the time, would lead to
enormous permanent unemployment in some short time. The level of
unemployment has fluctuated, but there has been no long term trend.
Coates and Hanson are indulging in wishful thinking when they say that
this time it is different.
Jay Hanson
> >
> >Neoclassical economics ASSUMES that there are no limits to
> >economic growth (infinite earth). One can infer from this
> >assumption that neoclassical economics also teaches that the
> >earth is FLAT instead of ROUND (because a round earth is
> >"finite" by definition).
>
> Perhaps you can cite references and quote from some prominant
> neoclassical economists who say such things? Perhaps you can't.
Well Herman Daly for one, if you are interested in opening your
eyes, here are some books to get you started:
Daly, 1991: STEADY STATE ECONOMICS -- Island Press
800-828-1302, 707-983-6432, Fax 707-983-6164,
Internet: http://www.islandpress.com
Daly and Cobb, 1989: FOR THE COMMON GOOD --
Beacon Press, Boston; 800-631-8571, Fax 617-723-3097
Ekins, 1994: TOWARD SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT --
The International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE)
and Island Press
Ekins and Max-Neef, 1992: REAL-LIFE ECONOMICS --
Routledge, NY; 212-244-3336
Laszlo, 1994: VISION 2020 -- Gordon and Breach, NY;
212-206-8900
Meadows, et al., 1992: BEYOND THE LIMITS -- Chelsea Green
Publishing Company, Lebanon, NH; 800-639-4099,
603-448-0317, Fax 603-448-2576
Rees and Wackernagel, 1994: INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL --
ISEE and Island Press
Wackernagel and Rees, OUR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT;
New Society, 1996. ISBN 0-86571-312-x
If you are new to ecology, read this book:
OVERSHOOT by Catton, 1982 -- University of Illinois Press,
800-545-4703, Fax 217-244-8082
To learn out about the coming energy crash, read:
BEYOND OIL, by Gever, et al., 1991 -- University Press
of Colorado 303-530-5337
It is difficult to believe that you have such an intense interest
if flat earth economics yet remain apperently unaware of it's
critics (there are over 2000 members of the ISEE).
But since you are acting as High Priest for flat earth economics,
why don't you tell us when the human economy must stop growing?
And rather than simply recite mantra as you were "trained" to do,
try out your critical thinking facility and tell us how you know
that you are right (please cite your sources).
Meredith Poor
this s***? Amazing.
Mark Witte
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>Mark Witte wrote:
>> >
>> >Neoclassical economics ASSUMES that there are no limits to
>> >economic growth (infinite earth). One can infer from this
>> >assumption that neoclassical economics also teaches that the
>> >earth is FLAT instead of ROUND (because a round earth is
>> >"finite" by definition).
>>
>> Perhaps you can cite references and quote from some prominant
>> neoclassical economists who say such things? Perhaps you can't.
>
>Well Herman Daly for one,
Well Herman Daly and the rest of these guys for ZERO. I asked you to
back up your statement that serious neoclassical economists have the beliefs
you attribute to them. To do this, you must actually name such economists,
read their stuff, and come up with such statements, not regurgitate your usual
reading list of your most loved pseudo-economists. You might want to start
with Malthus (although he wasn't a neoclassical economist), Hotelling, or
Samuelson. You might want to try reading some of the economic journals
devoted to environmental issues (generally using neoclassical analysis). If
you actually did this, you would find that your views on economics are
unfounded and foolish, plus you might even learn something about economics.
>if you are interested in opening your
>eyes, here are some books to get you started:
I've read Daly and will reserve opinion here. However, the issue here
is your statements about modern economics for which you have yet to provide
support.
It's odd that you claim an interest in economics and yet remain
unaware of its most basic concepts.
>But since you are acting as High Priest for flat earth economics,
>why don't you tell us when the human economy must stop growing?
I just am acting as someone who points out that you don't have a clue
about the issues you continually post on sci.econ. I wouldn't presume to be
able to answer your question but would instead defer to the many economists
who have studied this issue over the last 200 years.
Meredith Poor
catastrophe. In the meantime, work by an increasing number of
individuals, businesses, and organizations has brought solar power
generation and high-capacity batteries to economic viability.
I discovered the following links in the last day or two of surfing.
1. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) narrative on the cost
effectiveness of wind generated power.
http://www.nrel.gov/research/wind/wind.html
2. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) article in a past journal on
the competitiveness of a particular solar cell array.
http://www.epri.com/EPRI_Journal/jan_feb_95_html/in_the_field.html
Further description at:
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/SJ/pv/274.html
3. Availability of a Nickel Metal Hydride Electric Car (EV) available
from Solectria Vehicles.
http://www.solectria.com/pressrel/nimh.htm
While research and development will continue, solar power and solar power
technologies are now consumer products. They are in short supply and may
appear expensive, but manufactures make them, regulatory organizations
approve them (crash tests, restraints, markings and lighting), and
dealers sell them to end users. They work in everyday environments
(including extended heat and cold) and last the five to ten year time
periods (ten to twenty for solar panels and wind generators) expected for
such investments.
Jay Hanson
>
> Is this guy a first class bookseller, or what? Or does he really believe
> this s***? Amazing.
Now now Merideth, sing one of your Flat Earth Economics
hymns, go back into a trance. <G>
Jay
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"As he watched the eyeless face with the jaw moving rapidly
up and down, Winston had a curious feeling that this was not
a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the
man's brain that was speaking; it was his larynx. The stuff
coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech
in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in
unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck."
"The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact
there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy
means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is
unconsciousness." -- George Orwell, 1984
Lizard
wrote:
<a lot of luddite drivel deleted>
Why do you assume that the solution to the problem of a finite Earth
is to create a state of perpetual stagnation?
It seems to me that the "problem", if there is one, is solved not by
ending growth, but by expanding beyond the Earth. Luna, LEO, and Mars
will do for the 21st century. By the 22nd, the terraforming of Venus
will be possible. Beyond that, we will need to start seriously
thinking about dyson spheres....assuming we haven't cast Einstein onto
the same dustbin as Newton, that is. (Workable FTL travel would
basically eliminate all pretense of 'shortages' for all time, but
since there is as yet no scientific basis for believing in it, I don't
consider it a viable solution)
Of course, you are quite foolish if you think the Earth is even close
to being out of resources. Our deepest mines go down, what? Two miles?
The crust is many times that thick. We have not begun to even *think*
about mining the bottoms of the oceans, or seriously exploring
Antartica for resources. As for the tops of the oceans, again, we do
not exploit them at nearly as much as we could or should. Nor have we
truly even explored the *land* -- such place as Siberia, much of
Canada,Mongolia, etc, are almost completely untapped.
Beyond the ability to find new resources on Earth and in space, you
ignore advances in recycling and other technologies. Nanotechnology
opens the possibility of disassembling any piece of garbage and
building something new out of it, atom by atom. Genetic engineering
can create food sources which can grow in places currently barren, or
even produce materials other than food -- research has been done with
breeding corn to produce organic polymers, for example.
You have a very narrow, parochial, reactionary sense of life. You see
such a small fraction of the possibilities that are out there. Rather
than boldly facing the future and looking for positive solutions, you
want to run and hide. You want an age of stagnation, where you will
never have to deal with change, never have to face the possibility
that tomorrow will be different from today.
Well, that's fine when you're four years old and clinging to Mommy so
she won't make you go to nursery school. But it's not the way adults
should behave.
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Indecency:Fuck the CDA.
Information on explosives: The formula for gunpowder is 2 parts
charcoal, 3 parts sulfur, 15 parts saltpeter.
Information on abortion:Planned Parenthood of San Rafael
:(415) 454-0471
URL:http://www.dnai.com/~lizard
Jay Hanson
>
> Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> > As the new century rises like a wave on the horizon, we sense
> >that we are not going to be able to ride this one out, that
> >uncontrollable currents will pull us to the bottom and tear us
> >apart. We have good reason to be frightened because we are in
> >the midst of a "paradigm shift"; a tidal wave of change that
> >threatens to overwhelm and annihilate us.
>
> I would like to know who "we" is. Sounds like you and Pat Buchanan.
EARTH CALLING MEREDITH . . . . EARTH CALLING MEREDITH . . . .
EARTH CALLING MEREDITH . . . .
(Mmmmmm , doesn't seem to be anyone home at the "Church of the
Flat Earth". Maybe he's out turning lead into gold.) <G>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: ILA KEIPER <DVP...@prodigy.com>
From: Cunews \ Internet: (cun...@cornell.edu)
Contact: Roger Segelken; (607) 255-9736; hr...@cornell.edu
BALTIMORE -- If humans can't control the explosive population growth in
the coming century, disease and starvation will do it, Cornell University
ecologists have concluded from an analysis of Earth's dwindling
resources.
A grim future -- without enough arable land, water and energy to grow
food
for 12 billion people -- is all but inevitable and all too soon, a
worried
David Pimentel today (Feb. 9) told an American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) session on "How Many People Can the Earth
Support?" "Environmentally sound agricultural technologies will not be
sufficient to ensure adequate food supplies for future generations unless
the growth of human population is simultaneously curtailed," the Cornell
professor of ecology said, speaking for researchers who produced the
report, "Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment."
The "optimum population" that the Earth can support with a comfortable
standard of living is less than 2 billion, including fewer than 200
million people in the United States, the Cornell scientist noted. But if
the world population reaches 12 billion, as it is predicted to in 50
years, as many as 3 billion people will be malnourished and vulnerable to
disease, the Cornell analysis of resources determined. The planet's
agricultural future -- with declining productivity of cropland -- can be
seen in China today, Pimentel suggested.
China now has only 0.08 hectare (ha) of cropland per capita, compared to
the worldwide average of 0.27 ha per capita and the 0.5 ha per capita
considered minimal for the diverse diet currently available to residents
of the United States and Europe. Nearly one-third of the world's
cropland
has been abandoned during the past 40 years because erosion makes it
unproductive, he said.
Competition for dwindling supplies of clean water is intensifying, too,
the Cornell ecologists concluded. Agricultural production consumes more
fresh water than any other human activity -- about 87 percent -- and 40
percent of the world's people live in regions that directly compete for
water that is being consumed faster than it is replenished. Further,
water shortages exacerbate disease problems, the ecologists' analysis
pointed out. About 90 percent of the diseases in developing countries
result from a lack of clean water. Worldwide, about 4 billion cases of
disease are contracted from water each year and approximately 6 million
people die from water-borne disease, Pimentel said. "When people are
sick
with diarrhea, malaria or other serious disease, anywhere from 5 to 20
percent of their food intake is lost to stress of the disease," he said.
Prices of fossil fuels will rise as the world's supplies are depleted.
While the United States can afford to import more petroleum when its
reserves are exhausted in the next 15 to 20 years, developing countries
cannot, Pimentel said. "Already, the high price of imported fossil fuel
makes it difficult, if not impossible, for poor farmers to power
irrigation and provide for fertilizers and pesticides," he said. The
analysis was conducted by Pimentel, professor of entomology and of
ecology
in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell; Xuewen Huang,
a visiting scholar in the agriculture college; Ana Cordova, a graduate
student in the agriculture college; and Marcia Pimentel, a researcher in
Cornell's Division of Nutritional Sciences.
The ecologists pointed to two alarming trends: At the same time that
world population is growing geometrically, the per capita availability of
grains, which make up 80 percent of the world's food, has been declining
for the past 15 years. Food exports from the few countries that now have
resources to produce surpluses will cease when every morsel is needed to
feed their growing populations, the ecologists predicted. That will cause
economic discomfort for the United States, which counts on food exports
to
help its balance of payments. But the real pain will wrack nations that
can't grow enough, Pimentel said. "When global biological and physical
limits to domestic food production are reached, food importation will no
longer be a viable option for any country," he said. "At that point,
food
importation for the rich can only be sustained by starvation of the
powerless poor."
EDITORS: David Pimentel can be reached at (607) 255-2212.
Cornell University News Service
840 Hanshaw Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-255-4206 phone
607-257-6397 fax
cun...@cornell.edu
http://www.news.cornell.edu
________________________________________________________________________Forwarded from:
The KZPG Population News Network
For subscription info. send email to KZPG...@iti.com or visit
http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/ Editor: Howard Johnson <KZ...@iti.com>.
Equal time given for controversial issues. Views broadcast don't
necessarily represent editor's. (Not affiliated with ZPG Inc.)
________________________________________________________________________Every thing you wanted to know about the end of the world,
but were afraid to ask:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/index.html
Meredith Poor
everything in flames.
Saddam Hussein described George Bush as someone who could not respect the
soveriegn right of a nation to live in peace.
It wouldn't take me long to get a similar quote from just about anyone in
the world. The things that make people mad the most are those things
that they are guilty of themselves.
Meredith Poor
>>
>> I would like to know who "we" is. Sounds like you and Pat Buchanan.
>
>EARTH CALLING MEREDITH . . . . EARTH CALLING MEREDITH . . . .
>EARTH CALLING MEREDITH . . . .
Hey, you spelled my name right this time. Getting better already.
>(Mmmmmm , doesn't seem to be anyone home at the "Church of the
> Flat Earth". Maybe he's out turning lead into gold.) <G>
Not lead, sand. Silicon. You know, something the size of your fingernail that sells
for $1000. Don't you wish you could get that kind of money for a similar quantity of
gold.
>BALTIMORE -- If humans can't control the explosive population growth in
>the coming century, disease and starvation will do it, Cornell University
>ecologists have concluded from an analysis of Earth's dwindling
>resources.
Notice how this sentence parses. It needs to be broken up.
First of all, in China and Africa the competition for scarce resources has already led
to megadeath fatality rates. In China abandoned children in orphanages are simply
left to die. In Africa they simply massacre each other. Of course, Bosnia in the
last few years hasn't been a slouch either. So use of the future tense isn't
necessary.
Now, the second part is the assertion that Earth's resources are dwindling. A case
can be made for topsoil erosion, however we know enough to create alternative culture
mediums for crops if that was absolutely necessary. It shouldn't be necessary, a lot
of erosion problems have been identified and are being corrected.
As far as for the rest of them, the energy issue is already settled. Renewable energy
is now competitive with fossil fuel generation, even in the United States where energy
is obscenely cheap. Thus, we can afford to take waste wood products, paper, glass,
base metals, and water itself, and reprocess and reuse it. We are becoming
increasingly competent at remediating chemical waste dumps, although there is still
quite a bit of damage to remediate.
Someone from the ZPG group sent a letter to the San Antonio Express-News in 1990 or
so, and I responded with the following question:
If you take all 5.6 billion people in the world, and organize them in a parade such
that each persons arm touches the next in front of them and their other arm just
touches the person beside them, how much area does this cover?
In essence, each person covers 4 square feet. Multiply by 5.6 billion to get
22,400,000,000 square feet. Take the square root to come up with approximately
145,000. Divide by 5280 (feet per mile) to come up with a square that is about 28
miles on a side. The average county in the United States is fifty or sixty miles on a
side (30 miles to the center from the farthest point). So any average county in the
United States could literally hold the entire population of the planet four times
over.
>A grim future -- without enough arable land, water and energy to grow
>food
>for 12 billion people -- is all but inevitable and all too soon, a
>worried
>David Pimentel today (Feb. 9) told an American Association for the
>Advancement of Science (AAAS) session on "How Many People Can the Earth
>Support?" "Environmentally sound agricultural technologies will not be
>sufficient to ensure adequate food supplies for future generations unless
>the growth of human population is simultaneously curtailed," the Cornell
>professor of ecology said, speaking for researchers who produced the
>report, "Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment."
This would require him to be fully aware of all current agriculture, water reuse, and
energy extraction technologies. No one knows all those things. It will take years
for appropriate technologies to emerge and be put into common practice. In that time,
there will be some discomforts. But the classic remedy of simply enforcing limited or
negative population growth has, or may have, unintended side effects,
differing depending on the culture and political system involved.
>The "optimum population" that the Earth can support with a comfortable
>standard of living is less than 2 billion, including fewer than 200
>million people in the United States, the Cornell scientist noted. But if
>the world population reaches 12 billion, as it is predicted to in 50
>years, as many as 3 billion people will be malnourished and vulnerable to
>disease, the Cornell analysis of resources determined. The planet's
>agricultural future -- with declining productivity of cropland -- can be
>seen in China today, Pimentel suggested.
Purely a judgement call. Again, at what level of technology? If we all returned to
hunter gatherer status, the world wouldn't even be able to support 1 billion. The
population of the earth in 1900 was less than 1 billion.
>China now has only 0.08 hectare (ha) of cropland per capita, compared to
>the worldwide average of 0.27 ha per capita and the 0.5 ha per capita
>considered minimal for the diverse diet currently available to residents
>of the United States and Europe. Nearly one-third of the world's
>cropland
>has been abandoned during the past 40 years because erosion makes it
>unproductive, he said.
This is a particularly interesting comment. China has a very stultifying political
environment. If people were free to innovate, a lot of these problems would be
ameliorated. However, some party hack somewhere "controls" things. Thus, communities
don't have access to solutions that a free enterprise system would make available.
This is the immediate and absolute cost of totalitarian rule. The same applies to the
ex-Soviet Union; people had to do what they were told rather than do what made sense.
Thus, things we call essential (such as drugs) weren't produced because too many
people were tied up making steel, or ships, or building nukes, or pushing paper in
some office building.
>Competition for dwindling supplies of clean water is intensifying, too,
>the Cornell ecologists concluded. Agricultural production consumes more
>fresh water than any other human activity -- about 87 percent -- and 40
>percent of the world's people live in regions that directly compete for
>water that is being consumed faster than it is replenished. Further,
>water shortages exacerbate disease problems, the ecologists' analysis
>pointed out. About 90 percent of the diseases in developing countries
>result from a lack of clean water. Worldwide, about 4 billion cases of
>disease are contracted from water each year and approximately 6 million
>people die from water-borne disease, Pimentel said. "When people are
>sick
>with diarrhea, malaria or other serious disease, anywhere from 5 to 20
>percent of their food intake is lost to stress of the disease," he said.
Political systems designed around small, easily coerced populations don't work in high
stress (i.e. overburdened) environments. China's traditions contain implicit
assumptions about per capita land use. Same goes for Africa and India. Now that that
ratio is changed, the existing traditions can't cope. New technology is needed, but
what has to change first is the organization of human resources. Outside advice is
not going to get anywhere. So suffering is more or less assured.
There are a whole collection of water purification technologies available that could
be applied in third world settings. Question is, how do people in those areas of the
world make global level contributions that recover the cost of outside capital
investment? It can be done, but is it permitted by the local government?
>Prices of fossil fuels will rise as the world's supplies are depleted.
>While the United States can afford to import more petroleum when its
>reserves are exhausted in the next 15 to 20 years, developing countries
>cannot, Pimentel said. "Already, the high price of imported fossil fuel
>makes it difficult, if not impossible, for poor farmers to power
>irrigation and provide for fertilizers and pesticides," he said. The
>analysis was conducted by Pimentel, professor of entomology and of
>ecology
>in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell; Xuewen Huang,
>a visiting scholar in the agriculture college; Ana Cordova, a graduate
>student in the agriculture college; and Marcia Pimentel, a researcher in
>Cornell's Division of Nutritional Sciences.
These people have just demonstrated they haven't done their homework. Neither the
United States, nor China, nor anyone else need to import any more petroleum than
necessary to migrate to renewable energy technologies that are already in place. If
the United States made a concerted committment to stop using fossil fuels, it could
reduce consumption to trivial levels within the next 10 years (trivial being less than
1% of existing consumption) - without any devastating up front costs. We are likely
to do that anyway.
>The ecologists pointed to two alarming trends: At the same time that
>world population is growing geometrically, the per capita availability of
>grains, which make up 80 percent of the world's food, has been declining
>for the past 15 years. Food exports from the few countries that now have
>resources to produce surpluses will cease when every morsel is needed to
>feed their growing populations, the ecologists predicted. That will cause
>economic discomfort for the United States, which counts on food exports
>to
>help its balance of payments. But the real pain will wrack nations that
>can't grow enough, Pimentel said. "When global biological and physical
>limits to domestic food production are reached, food importation will no
>longer be a viable option for any country," he said. "At that point,
>food
>importation for the rich can only be sustained by starvation of the
>powerless poor."
One of the reason the poor are powerless is because of corrupt local governments.
Nigeria is the outstanding example, with Viet Nam. Haiti, and Romania being close
behind.
The only thing Western governments could do about that is move in and take over using
armed force, which is not an option. Even if it were, the hue and cry now about
diminishing resources would be replaced by screams of "Colonialism". So, a lose-lose
situation. Basically, we can beam information in from satellites, and provide
military relief when we are asked for help. Otherwise, it is something we will have
to watch those parties resolve on their own.
Jay Hanson
> Name a corporation, a specific act, and the person responsible for that
> act. Do you want to say here and now that General Motors is responsible
> for x-amount of environmental damage and misuse of resources as they
> produce 100,000 Cadillacs? If so, what dollar or other amount do you
> ascribe to x?
This is part of an essay I wrote:
===========================
== Justifiable homicide? ==
===========================
It has been said that more people have been killed because of
religion than any other cause. This is certainly true when one
considers Industrial Religion. For example, cigarette smoking
causes about 435,000 American deaths each year. During the last
40 years, roughly 17 million Americans have been killed by
tobacco smoke while tobacco companies have pocketed something
like a thousand billion dollars.*77 Tobacco company apologists
will argue that the victims willingly lined up for the slaughter.
However, if advertising alters one's judgment and interferes with
free will, weren't the tobacco companies the proximate cause of
most of those deaths? If there were no cigarette advertising or
manufacturing, how many victims would have died?
There are many other deadly economic interests besides tobacco:
"We are a culture that assumes the benefits of progress. We
still look to new machines, new chemicals, and new techniques as
the primary means to improve our condition -- despite the fact
that they are harming us in increasing numbers: In 1900, cancer
accounted for only three percent of the total deaths in the
United States. Since the introduction of thousands of new
chemicals beginning in the 1940s -- pesticides, herbicides,
radiation, artificial hormones, food additives, toxic wastes,
industrial chemicals, and toxic building materials -- one in
three Americans contracts the disease."*78
The petrochemical industry discharges roughly 200 million tons of
hazardous wastes into our environment each year. Since about
1988, publications of the scientific mainstream have emphasized
that chemicals are causing reproductive and immune system damage
in wildlife, laboratory animals and humans. Recently, it has
been learned that many common industrial chemicals mimic hormones
and thus interfere with the fundamental cell chemistry of birds,
fish and mammals (remember that we humans are mammals).*79
A report published by the National Research Council titled,
Environmental Neurotoxicity, said "There is convincing evidence
that chemicals in the environment can alter the function of the
nervous system." The report suggested that chemical exposures
may be responsible for some degenerative brain disorders such as
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Lou Gehrig's
disease.*80 We have no way of calculating the millions of
cancers, birth defects, and other crippling conditions that have
been caused by the 70,000 different chemicals now in commercial
use.
In Making Peace with the Planet, Barry Commoner argues that our
current practice of environmental protection is a return to the
medieval approach to disease, when illness and death were
regarded as a debt that must be paid for original sin. Today,
this medieval philosophy is recast in a modern form: some level
of pollution and some risk to health are the unavoidable prices
that must be paid for the material benefits of modern technology.
For example, here is Time magazine's response to the appalling
deaths in the chemical accident in Bhopal India:
"The citizens of Bhopal lived near the Union Carbide plant
because they sought to live there. The plant provided jobs, and
pesticide [provided] more food. Bhopal was a modern parable of
the risks and rewards originally engendered by the industrial
Revolution . . . . There is no avoiding that hazard, and no
point in trying; one only trusts that the gods of the machines
will give a good deal more than they take away. . . ."*81
Like the medieval priests who accepted the Black Death as the
"will of God," Time says that the reason more than five thousand
people were killed, and thousands more were blinded and maimed
was because the victims owed it to the gods of the machines! How
touching! Time ends with a prayer to the gods of the machines
that the economic good will somehow outweigh the human tragedy!
Did Time consider the possibility that the economic good accrued
to different individuals than those who had been forced to pay
the debt? Does it make any difference if 99% of the people pay
the costs while only 1% of the people get the benefits? When
economists calculate cost/benefit ratios, do they just throw all
the poor people into one big pot -- like so many pounds of meat?
Were those people who were killed, blinded and maimed asked if
the economic benefits outweighed the costs? Will the deformed
babies born to Bhopal mothers be considered an economic benefit
because of the staggering medical costs?
At an October 1992 news conference, Vladimir Pokrovsky, head of
the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, shocked the world: "We
have doomed ourselves for the next 25 years." He added: "The new
generation is entering adult life unhealthy. The Soviet economy
was developed at the expense of the population's health." Data
released by the Academy show that 11 percent of Russian infants
are suffering from birth defects and 55 percent of the school-age
children suffer heath problems. The Academy also reported that
the increase in illness and early death among those aged 25-40
was particularly distressing.*82
Economists have developed several ingenious ways of solving
financial dilemmas that involve killing people (remember that
economists "abolished the moral problem"). Placing a dollar
value on human life means that untimely death is rational and
quantified. Thus, the economic cyborgs can kill legally (a new
meaning to justifiable homicide). This raises many fascinating
questions: are rich people worth more than poor, are whites
worth more than blacks, are young worth more than old, men
worth more than women, is there a discount for cripples, are
economists worth more than housewives? It is clear that there
are enough calculations here to generate a lot more economic
benefits by employing a whole army of economists for quite some
time. Can we use these additional economic benefits to kill a few
more people? Wait a minute -- doesn't that presuppose that
people are the property of the state -- isn't that fascism?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To the Party, "power is not a means to an end; it is the end in
itself. To the Party, power means the capacity to inflict
unlimited pain and suffering on another human being." For the
Party, power creates reality, it creates truth.
-- George Orwell, 1984
Meredith Poor
>===========================
>== Justifiable homicide? ==
>===========================
>It has been said that more people have been killed because of
>religion than any other cause. This is certainly true when one
>considers Industrial Religion. For example, cigarette smoking
>causes about 435,000 American deaths each year. During the last
>40 years, roughly 17 million Americans have been killed by
>tobacco smoke while tobacco companies have pocketed something
>like a thousand billion dollars.*77 Tobacco company apologists
>will argue that the victims willingly lined up for the slaughter.
>However, if advertising alters one's judgment and interferes with
>free will, weren't the tobacco companies the proximate cause of
>most of those deaths? If there were no cigarette advertising or
>manufacturing, how many victims would have died?
To get rid of the evil, get rid of the symptom, in this case the tobacco
manufacturer. The way the statement above statement reads, the reasons
why someone would want the effects of tobacco does not need further
investigation.
People's anxieties will continue to exist, various other addictions will
continue to exist, their self-destructive behavior will still exist, and
the people that exploit that behavior will still exist, just as it did
before Europeans ever heard of or saw tobacco. Do you really think you
can legislate personalities and habits out of existence?
So what particular additiction has altered your free will? What
advertising has altered your judgement? You don't have a problem, do
you?
>"We are a culture that assumes the benefits of progress. We
>still look to new machines, new chemicals, and new techniques as
>the primary means to improve our condition -- despite the fact
>that they are harming us in increasing numbers: In 1900, cancer
>accounted for only three percent of the total deaths in the
>United States. Since the introduction of thousands of new
>chemicals beginning in the 1940s -- pesticides, herbicides,
>radiation, artificial hormones, food additives, toxic wastes,
>industrial chemicals, and toxic building materials -- one in
>three Americans contracts the disease."*78
But doesn't necessarily die from it. Of course, life expectancy in 1900
was about 40 years, and the major cause of death was communicable
diseases, unsanitary water, or transportation/industrial accidents. Now
that our water is safe from those particular pathogens, we have safe
working and traveling environments, and drugs that cure many of these
ailments, we are worse off.
>The petrochemical industry discharges roughly 200 million tons of
>hazardous wastes into our environment each year. Since about
>1988, publications of the scientific mainstream have emphasized
>that chemicals are causing reproductive and immune system damage
>in wildlife, laboratory animals and humans. Recently, it has
>been learned that many common industrial chemicals mimic hormones
>and thus interfere with the fundamental cell chemistry of birds,
>fish and mammals (remember that we humans are mammals).*79
The above number needs some reexamination. The petrochemical industry
generates 200 million tons of waste, that doesn't mean it's discharged.
Much of it is recycled (sulfuric acid in particular).
However, the combustion products from automobiles and waste oil dumped on
the ground certainly qualifies for hazardous waste. This is the
consumers responsibility as much as anyone elses. But then again, plant
decomposition generates methane gas, volcanoes eject sulfur and CO2 into
the atmosphere, and poisonous animals generate a whole collection of
toxics by themselves. Many plants (i.e. peanuts, for instance) contain
very potent toxins for suppressing insects. Yet somehow, we live on.
>A report published by the National Research Council titled,
>Environmental Neurotoxicity, said "There is convincing evidence
>that chemicals in the environment can alter the function of the
>nervous system." The report suggested that chemical exposures
>may be responsible for some degenerative brain disorders such as
>Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Lou Gehrig's
>disease.*80 We have no way of calculating the millions of
>cancers, birth defects, and other crippling conditions that have
>been caused by the 70,000 different chemicals now in commercial
>use.
This is a legitimate grey area. However, then we go back to looking at
people's behavior (eating bad food, driving dangerously, unprotected sex,
and excessive drinking, not to mention cigarettes) and wonder how much
difference all these other things could make. If we as a nation
prioritized the issues, which conditions and behaviors would we want to
work on first?
>In Making Peace with the Planet, Barry Commoner argues that our
>current practice of environmental protection is a return to the
>medieval approach to disease, when illness and death were
>regarded as a debt that must be paid for original sin. Today,
>this medieval philosophy is recast in a modern form: some level
>of pollution and some risk to health are the unavoidable prices
>that must be paid for the material benefits of modern technology.
>For example, here is Time magazine's response to the appalling
>deaths in the chemical accident in Bhopal India:
>
>"The citizens of Bhopal lived near the Union Carbide plant
>because they sought to live there. The plant provided jobs, and
>pesticide [provided] more food. Bhopal was a modern parable of
>the risks and rewards originally engendered by the industrial
>Revolution . . . . There is no avoiding that hazard, and no
>point in trying; one only trusts that the gods of the machines
>will give a good deal more than they take away. . . ."*81
>
>Like the medieval priests who accepted the Black Death as the
>"will of God," Time says that the reason more than five thousand
>people were killed, and thousands more were blinded and maimed
>was because the victims owed it to the gods of the machines! How
>touching! Time ends with a prayer to the gods of the machines
>that the economic good will somehow outweigh the human tragedy!
So, without the technology, we wouldn't have to make any such choice.
Big simplification, isn't it? In other words, if we make things really,
really simple, we can stop thinking.
>Did Time consider the possibility that the economic good accrued
>to different individuals than those who had been forced to pay
>the debt? Does it make any difference if 99% of the people pay
>the costs while only 1% of the people get the benefits? When
>economists calculate cost/benefit ratios, do they just throw all
>the poor people into one big pot -- like so many pounds of meat?
>Were those people who were killed, blinded and maimed asked if
>the economic benefits outweighed the costs? Will the deformed
>babies born to Bhopal mothers be considered an economic benefit
>because of the staggering medical costs?
Of course, preindustrial society consisted of a large number of servants
and slaves, and other forms of human bondage, and a very few aristocrats.
Without machines and technology, 98% of the people live in hovels and
work for the remaining 2% ruling class.
The way to keep it that way, by the way, is to restrict information flow
and impose comprehensive laws to protect the status quo. In what
societies do we see that in today?
>At an October 1992 news conference, Vladimir Pokrovsky, head of
>the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, shocked the world: "We
>have doomed ourselves for the next 25 years." He added: "The new
>generation is entering adult life unhealthy. The Soviet economy
>was developed at the expense of the population's health." Data
>released by the Academy show that 11 percent of Russian infants
>are suffering from birth defects and 55 percent of the school-age
>children suffer heath problems. The Academy also reported that
>the increase in illness and early death among those aged 25-40
>was particularly distressing.*82
No kidding. As an absoloutist, statist society, people were not free to
move from unhealthy environments, not free to discuss problems with
neighbors and people in similar circumstances thousands of miles away,
and unable to buy or produce anything other than that approved by the
state. Russia can't afford to adopt most of the more benign technologies
we have developed over here.
>Economists have developed several ingenious ways of solving
>financial dilemmas that involve killing people (remember that
>economists "abolished the moral problem"). Placing a dollar
>value on human life means that untimely death is rational and
>quantified. Thus, the economic cyborgs can kill legally (a new
>meaning to justifiable homicide). This raises many fascinating
>questions: are rich people worth more than poor, are whites
>worth more than blacks, are young worth more than old, men
>worth more than women, is there a discount for cripples, are
>economists worth more than housewives? It is clear that there
>are enough calculations here to generate a lot more economic
>benefits by employing a whole army of economists for quite some
>time. Can we use these additional economic benefits to kill a few
>more people? Wait a minute -- doesn't that presuppose that
>people are the property of the state -- isn't that fascism?
I haven't seen the above quote anywhere, but I find your interpretation
suspect, in any case. It would also be nice to know which economists
these were, what problems they were trying to solve, and what dollar
amounts they used.
There are lots of people that put dollar amounts on their own lives. One
of the points made in some management literature is even after going to
extremes to educate workers and provide protections, some workers refuse
to follow the rules or use the protection. Lumberjacks, truck drivers,
and chemical workers routinely ignore safety rules and frequently get
hurt or killed, often for almost no benefit whatsoever. Is an economist
trying to rationalize something here, or simply measure the meaning of
pre-existing behavior?
What is the point of insurance, other than to put a dollar value on life
and health? What is the point of Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
lawsuits? No one, in any case, attempts to deal with such numbers very
precisely; they are in terms of order of magnitude.
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>To the Party, "power is not a means to an end; it is the end in
>itself. To the Party, power means the capacity to inflict
>unlimited pain and suffering on another human being." For the
>Party, power creates reality, it creates truth.
> -- George Orwell, 1984
George Orwell had lots of insights. Some of the people he found so
alarming are the people that pursued your agenda in his times.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
Meredith Poor <mnp...@txdirect.net> wrote:
+>diseases, unsanitary water, or transportation/industrial accidents. Now
+>that our water is safe from those particular pathogens,
For now. The current Congress isn't finished yet.
=========================================
Visit the Houston Dance Coalition web page at http://maurice.cph.uh.edu/hdc/hdc.htm.
=========================================
Mason A. Clark
>Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>>BALTIMORE -- If humans can't control the explosive population growth in
>>the coming century, disease and starvation will do it, Cornell University
>>ecologists have concluded from an analysis of Earth's dwindling
>>resources.
>Notice how this sentence parses. It needs to be broken up.
Well, ok. Is this better?
Cornell University ecologists have concluded from an analysis of
Earth's dwindling resources that if humans can't control the explosive
population growth in the coming century, disease and starvation will
do it.
Or do you prefer this, Meridith:
Cornell University ecologists have concluded from an analysis of
Earth's dwindling resources that disease and starvation will control
the explosive population growth in the coming century if humans
can't do it.
Can you understand one of those? If not, I'll try again, and again
until I get it right.
Mason A. Clark mas...@ix.netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------
At what wealth distribution do revolutions begin?
Mark Witte
Mason A. Clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>the coming century, disease and starvation will do it, Cornell University
>>>ecologists have concluded from an analysis of Earth's dwindling
>>>resources.
>
>>Notice how this sentence parses. It needs to be broken up.
>
>
>population growth in the coming century, disease and starvation will
>
>Or do you prefer this, Meridith:
>
>the explosive population growth in the coming century if humans
>can't do it.
Cornell? I thought it was a Cambridge (England) economist in the late 18th
century.
sn...@swcp.com
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
> THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION revised 12/29/65
> by Jay Hanson
[The "They laughed at Columbus, too!" argument deleted]
> In the 16th century, Martin Luther established a new form of
>Christianity that ultimately came to regard work as the only way
>to obtain love and approval.
I seem to have missed that in my confirmation classes.
>But behind the Christian face arose
>a new secret religion that actually directs the character of
>modern society.
[Aside to Dr. McCarthy--KLAATU BARADA NICTO! Have we been
discovered?!!] :-)
[snip]
>Jay
Jay Hanson
> with Malthus (although he wasn't a neoclassical economist), Hotelling, or
> Samuelson. You might want to try reading some of the economic journals
What does Hotelling say that the absolute limit on the size
of the human economy is? How about Samuelson?
Do they tell us when we will hit the absolute limit?
[ Can ANY student of FLAT EARTH ECONOMICS answer this
question? ]
Jay
--
-------------------------------------
FLAT EARTH ECONOMIST REHABILITATION PAGE:
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/index.html
Meredith Poor
>
>
>population growth in the coming century, disease and starvation will
>
>Or do you prefer this, Meridith:
>
>the explosive population growth in the coming century if humans
>can't do it.
>
>until I get it right.
The problem with the sentence is the complex assertion. The first
assertion is that population needs to be controlled. The second
assertion is that this is necessary because of dwindling resources. The
first may or may not be true regardless of whether the second is true.
My assertion is that "resources" in the context you use them are not
dwindling at all; in fact they are exploding exponentially. The
resources that matter most to humans are knowledge resources; and we are
producing those prodigiously.
The reasons for controlling population growth are related more to
political stability; many cultural norms assume fairly stable
populations. Others are based on periodic warfare to trim the
population; we don't do that very much any more, so the population
doesn't get trimmed.
The resources we are short of are not natural resources, but
infrastructure resources; energy and water delivery systems; water
re-processing and purification plants; food distribution, and education
facilities. People will die due to lack of these just as surely as they
will die from an absolute absence of farmland, oil, or fresh water.
Meredith Poor
>At what wealth distribution do revolutions begin?
The real revolutionaries in this country were Henry Ford, Alexander Grahm
Bell, Thomas Edison, and innumerable other innovators. In the last
fifteen years an army of revolutionaries put communications and computing
technology in the hands of the masses. This has had immense social,
economic, political, and cultural impact.
Now, what is the relevance of "wealth distribution"?
Mark Witte
Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>Mark Witte wrote:
>
>> with Malthus (although he wasn't a neoclassical economist), Hotelling, or
>> Samuelson. You might want to try reading some of the economic journals
>
>What does Hotelling say that the absolute limit on the size
>of the human economy is? How about Samuelson?
>
>Do they tell us when we will hit the absolute limit?
>
>[ Can ANY student of FLAT EARTH ECONOMICS answer this
> question? ]
Well Jay, I thought I'd have to wait until I'd entered the Hereafter
and to ask God this question, but maybe can let me know early. So what's the
answer?
Baird Webel
>"We are a culture that assumes the benefits of progress. We
>still look to new machines, new chemicals, and new techniques as
>the primary means to improve our condition -- despite the fact
>that they are harming us in increasing numbers: In 1900, cancer
>accounted for only three percent of the total deaths in the
>United States. Since the introduction of thousands of new
>chemicals beginning in the 1940s -- pesticides, herbicides,
>radiation, artificial hormones, food additives, toxic wastes,
>industrial chemicals, and toxic building materials -- one in
>three Americans contracts the disease."*78
rather large mistake in viewing the statistics here. Even if cancer
has increased from causing 3% of the deaths to 30%, this could be a
result of everything else going down instead of cancer going up. As you
learn to cure other diseases, the percentage of people who die from those
you can't cure will inevitably rise. Not to mention the fact that you
are viewing two different statistics, the first is the number of deaths,
the second the number of people who contract the disease. There are
plenty of people who have contracted cancer who don't die of it. A last
point is that it is quite possible that modern medicine is more able to
diagnose cancer, thus the cancer rates would naturally go up. All of
this is not to say that your contention that modern chemicals have
increased cancer rates is flat out wrong. But you haven't shown it here.
baird
--
*****************************************
* Baird Webel *
* web...@gusun.georgetown.edu *
*****************************************
Sam Sankar
>>Cornell University ecologists have concluded from an analysis of
>>Earth's dwindling resources that if humans can't control the explosive
[To which Meredith replies:]
>My assertion is that "resources" in the context you use them are not
>dwindling at all; in fact they are exploding exponentially. The
>resources that matter most to humans are knowledge resources; and we are
>producing those prodigiously.
But as you say, those are human resources. The Earth might well consider human
resources (pesticides, drift nets, earth moving equipment) to be liabilities.
The "Earth's dwindling resources" seems to be me to mean "the Earth's
dwindling _natural_ resources", but I'll leave it to you two to decide.
***************************************
Sambhav N. Sankar
sam_s...@pc.radian.com
Mason A. Clark
>>Cornell University ecologists have concluded from an analysis of
>>the explosive population growth in the coming century if humans
>>can't do it.
Mark Witte reminded us:
>Cornell? I thought it was a Cambridge (England) economist in the late 18th
>century.
Yes, the problem has been recognized by many thoughtful people,
Malthus among them. But in his time the Earth was not well-known
and certainly had not been seen from the Moon as a small planet
isolated in space. Much has been learned in the past two hundred
years, and more importantly in the last thirty years, and data is now
being acquired daily.
The problem now is an uneducated population which cannot understand
the data. It must be presented in simplified and graphic form. Let
us hope that nature does not provide the education in too graphic a
manner.
.
Mason A. Clark
Malthusian sentence::
>The problem with the sentence is the complex assertion. The first
>assertion is that population needs to be controlled. The second
>assertion is that this is necessary because of dwindling resources. The
>first may or may not be true regardless of whether the second is true.
>My assertion is that "resources" in the context you use them are not
>dwindling at all; in fact they are exploding exponentially. The
>resources that matter most to humans are knowledge resources; and we are
>producing those prodigiously.
Is it no longer true that the resources mattering most are food,
shelter, and safety?.
>The reasons for controlling population growth are related more to
>political stability; many cultural norms assume fairly stable
>populations. Others are based on periodic warfare to trim the
>population; we don't do that very much any more, so the population
>doesn't get trimmed.
What about Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and many other places?
These population reductions are basically economic wars where
one grouop, a minority, has the dominant economic position and
the majority set about to reduce that minority population to zero,
using hatchets or whatever weapons are at hand. It is a problem of
the allocation of scarce resources among a burgeoning population.
>The resources we are short of are not natural resources, but
>infrastructure resources; energy and water delivery systems; water
>re-processing and purification plants; food distribution, and education
>facilities. People will die due to lack of these just as surely as they
>will die from an absolute absence of farmland, oil, or fresh water.
True, but there was a time when water was thirty feet down almost
anywhere in the U.S.A. Now it may be many miles away, on the
other side of mountain range. There was a time when no water
purifaction was needed; safe water was a readily available resource.
And there was a time when one-room school houses served us well.
Now an expensive facility with high-technology machines seems
necessary to prepare some of the students to operate the struggle to
develop scarce resources. And more prisons to accomodate the
students who don't succeed.
Mason A. Clark
>mas...@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>>At what wealth distribution do revolutions begin?
>The real revolutionaries in this country were Henry Ford, Alexander Grahm
>Bell, Thomas Edison, and innumerable other innovators. In the last
>fifteen years an army of revolutionaries put communications and computing
>technology in the hands of the masses. This has had immense social,
>economic, political, and cultural impact.
It's hard to believe that anyone capable of operating a computer on
the Internet would think: "put....technology in the hands of the
masses." Such a world view - and it's not rare - is damn
frightening.
>Now, what is the relevance of "wealth distribution"?
Apparently a skewed wealth distribution creates a large number
of ignorant people on both ends of the distribution. One has the
economy in its control; the other has the guns on the street. Be
careful what street you travel on.
nwein...@macalstr.edu
> Mark Witte wrote:
>
>> with Malthus (although he wasn't a neoclassical economist), Hotelling, or
>> Samuelson. You might want to try reading some of the economic journals
>
> What does Hotelling say that the absolute limit on the size
> of the human economy is? How about Samuelson?
>
> Do they tell us when we will hit the absolute limit?
>
> [ Can ANY student of FLAT EARTH ECONOMICS answer this
> question? ]
Well, actually, there is no absolute limit, because the Earth is not
the limit of human exploration. There are absolutely vast amounts of resources
in space, waiting for the first company with the courage and long-term
viewpoint to exploit them. To give one example, solar power satellites in space
could provide all the electrical power ten or twenty billion people might need,
with no pollution whatsoever. We can mine metals from the Moon and asteroids,
and farther in the future, start terraforming other planets for humans to
colonize.
This is a point that I don't think anyone has yet raised in the thread:
that though the Earth is finite, space is (for all economic intents and
purposes) infinite. On this one it's the environmentalists who are being
bullheaded and shortsighted, thinking that this one planet is all we'll ever
have and that our current technology level is all we'll ever be able to use.
--
Nicholas Weininger
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one
person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
-John Stuart Mill
Fuck the CDA. Fuck Congress. May they all choke on their own shit.
The above line will remain in my .sig until the CDA is overturned.
Disobedience to such unconstitutional laws is the right and duty of every
American net.citizen.
Dean Myerson
>The basic reason why technological advance has never led to increasing
>the permanent level of unemployment ...
In the early industrial revolution, the increase in the unemployment rate
was temporary because it was matched by an increase in the mortality rate
in the new, filthy and disease-ridden cities. The fact the the
industrializing nation was a colonial power also meant that a lot of people
with lousy options at home decided to try their luck in one of the many
colonies open to their emigration. These were strong factors in the case
of England and almost as strong in many other countries that developed
in the 19th century. Better medicine and a lack of colonies has changed
these options for modern countries. The most recent developers in EAst
Asia compensated by having huge trade surpluses with a much larger country
(the US mostly) that decided their were geopolitical advantages to
supporting that trade surplus (or deficit for the US). Insatiable demand
hardly explaines the process unless it is matched by equally unlimited
wealth and resources. We could argue on what limits there are on resources
but the wealth is certainly not unlimited at the time.
What factors do you think India can depend on?
--
-- Dean Myerson
(de...@vexcel.com) (http://www.vexcel.com)
Mason A. Clark
>>
>>What does Hotelling say that the absolute limit on the size
>>of the human economy is? How about Samuelson?
>>
>>Do they tell us when we will hit the absolute limit?
>>
>>[ Can ANY student of FLAT EARTH ECONOMICS answer this
>> question? ]
> Well Jay, I thought I'd have to wait until I'd entered the Hereafter
>and to ask God this question, but maybe can let me know early. So what's the
>answer?
Mark could get an answer to his question if he would but walk over to
the Tech Institute (McCormack?) and ask someone in the physics
department. But quasi-economists aren't generally very well received
in science departments.
So I'll provide the answer here. Scientists have not many limits to
their physical numbers, but the velocity of light in certain simple
circumstances is such a limit. The limit this gives us for the
world population is 5.39 x 10^50 and this will occur in 9,477 years
if the growth rate is one percent per year. At that time the
radius of the earth, covered with humans at three cubic feet per
human, will race outward at the speed of light.
I will not be glad to provide the details of the calculation only
because I have no easy way to write equations here, but if anyone
wishes, I will describe the calculation. I would be happy to have
anyone check the precision of these important numbers.
John McCarthy
obscure. I said that demand was insatiable, and therefore there
needn't be increased unemployment as productivity advanced. Indeed
there has been no secular trend in unemployment in the world.
As for India, I think the resources required for a high standard of
living are available to India. Even if the resources available were
limited, there is plenty of work to be done there, e.g. better water
supply, more doctors and better housing.
Unemployment is caused by bad economic organization. Indian socialism
didn't solve the unemployment problem; now they are going more in a
capitalist direction. Maybe that will work better.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Meredith Poor
plant. Physical plant deteriorates into uselessness; knowledge is
forever. Specifically right now, the knowledge of how to make things
work, and what things to do and avoid for humanity to prosper.
Meredith Poor
>shelter, and safety?.
Applying knowledge resources to these problems produce solutions.
Clearly, food, shelter, and safety matter. However, getting those
requires increasing sophistication as the population gets larger.
In an earlier quote, someone points out that the United States cannot
support a population of more than 200 million. Before Europeans arrived,
it counldn't support a population of more than five to twelve million, in
what was primarily a hunter/gatherer community. So any such question
cannot be asked or answered without stating the technologies available to
the population.
>>The reasons for controlling population growth are related more to
>>political stability; many cultural norms assume fairly stable
>>populations. Others are based on periodic warfare to trim the
>>population; we don't do that very much any more, so the population
>>doesn't get trimmed.
>
>What about Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and many other places?
>These population reductions are basically economic wars where
>one grouop, a minority, has the dominant economic position and
>the majority set about to reduce that minority population to zero,
>using hatchets or whatever weapons are at hand. It is a problem of
>the allocation of scarce resources among a burgeoning population.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Resource contention is no doubt part of the
problem, but not all of it. The Bosnia situation is more the collapse of
outside agencies that help enforce the peace. The Western interference
in Somalia (Russian and American arms sales and donations) were
horrendously destabilizing. In that case, who ever controls the port
controls the duties revenue stream, which seems to be the crux of the
Somali conflict.
>
>>The resources we are short of are not natural resources, but
>>infrastructure resources; energy and water delivery systems; water
>>re-processing and purification plants; food distribution, and education
>>facilities. People will die due to lack of these just as surely as they
>>will die from an absolute absence of farmland, oil, or fresh water.
>
>True, but there was a time when water was thirty feet down almost
>anywhere in the U.S.A. Now it may be many miles away, on the
>other side of mountain range. There was a time when no water
>purifaction was needed; safe water was a readily available resource.
>And there was a time when one-room school houses served us well.
>Now an expensive facility with high-technology machines seems
>necessary to prepare some of the students to operate the struggle to
>develop scarce resources. And more prisons to accomodate the
>students who don't succeed.
The situation with water is complex, but water availabilty is subordinate
to energy availability. Usable energy is now easier (and more
ecologically benign) to obtain. Thus, the first requirement for
regaining our water balance has been achieved.
Education and incarceration are complex issues, and both need serious
reform. However, the solutions do require more that what we used to
have.
Meredith Poor
>>Bell, Thomas Edison, and innumerable other innovators. In the last
>>fifteen years an army of revolutionaries put communications and computing
>>technology in the hands of the masses. This has had immense social,
>>economic, political, and cultural impact.
>
>It's hard to believe that anyone capable of operating a computer on
>the Internet would think: "put....technology in the hands of the
>masses." Such a world view - and it's not rare - is damn
>frightening.
At present, computers are still technologically too complex for the truely
uneducated. I am reminded of this everytime I set up someone with an account, and
fool with TCP/IP drivers, modems, interrupts, and port addresses.
However, the Internet Computer idea may change that radically. For the cost of a
color TV ($500), absolute bozos can get Internet access. I shudder at the thought,
but it will be happening this year.
>>Now, what is the relevance of "wealth distribution"?
>
>Apparently a skewed wealth distribution creates a large number
>of ignorant people on both ends of the distribution. One has the
>economy in its control; the other has the guns on the street. Be
>careful what street you travel on.
So why does there have to be a particular wealth distribution for there to be
ignorance at both ends, or at the middle for that matter? Nobody knows very much,
and plenty of philosophers insist none of us "know" anything at all. And in the
context that they make that statement, I agree with them.
The bigger point, however, is a hint at political instability in the United States,
or globally. In the United States, institutions are sufficiently ingrained that it
will take something beyond anything I can see on the horizon to generate an armed
free-for-all. In the rest of the world, I have some real concerns about China and
that part of Asia, and Iran. Despite the millions killed in the Iran/Iraq war, the
population of that country has doubled since the current rulers took power. There's
a jam, if I ever saw one.
Meredith Poor
>the data. It must be presented in simplified and graphic form. Let
>us hope that nature does not provide the education in too graphic a
>manner.
The question that comes to me is, what is your proposed remedy, in any
case? What is your proposed solution to the population problem?
Mark Witte
Dean Myerson <de...@vexcel.com> wrote:
>In article <JMC.96Fe...@Steam.stanford.edu> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>The basic reason why technological advance has never led to increasing
>>the permanent level of unemployment ...
>
>In the early industrial revolution, the increase in the unemployment rate
>was temporary because it was matched by an increase in the mortality rate
>in the new, filthy and disease-ridden cities. The fact the the
>industrializing nation was a colonial power also meant that a lot of people
>with lousy options at home decided to try their luck in one of the many
>colonies open to their emigration. These were strong factors in the case
Interesting hypothesis. I take it that European nations that had
similar technological progress but were without colonial empires had much
higher persistent unemployment rates? Would the ratio of colonial trade to
GDP have a statistically significant correlation with the unemployment rate?
>of England and almost as strong in many other countries that developed
>in the 19th century. Better medicine and a lack of colonies has changed
>these options for modern countries. The most recent developers in EAst
>Asia compensated by having huge trade surpluses with a much larger country
>(the US mostly) that decided their were geopolitical advantages to
>supporting that trade surplus (or deficit for the US).
Again, a nice story. Oddly, the US did not begin running persistent
trade deficits until the price of oil jumped in the middle 1970s. I have not
tracked down the figures on the bilateral trade deficits although it's not
clear such things have much or any economic significance. If Japan needs to
import all its energy and much of its food, and it produces consumer
electronics and fuel efficient cars, I'm not sure geo-politics can be shown to
explain much about the US-Japan bilateral trade deficit.
>Insatiable demand
>hardly explaines the process unless it is matched by equally unlimited
>wealth and resources. We could argue on what limits there are on resources
>but the wealth is certainly not unlimited at the time.
However, high budget deficits and low national savings rates would
imply a current account (trade) deficit for a given level of domestic
investment demand.
>
>What factors do you think India can depend on?
Hmm, increased domestic demand?
Mark Witte
>>>
>>>What does Hotelling say that the absolute limit on the size
>>>of the human economy is? How about Samuelson?
>>>
>>>Do they tell us when we will hit the absolute limit?
>>>
>>>[ Can ANY student of FLAT EARTH ECONOMICS answer this
>>> question? ]
>
>> Well Jay, I thought I'd have to wait until I'd entered the Hereafter
>>and to ask God this question, but maybe can let me know early. So what's the
>>answer?
>
>Mark could get an answer to his question if he would but walk over to
>the Tech Institute (McCormack?) and ask someone in the physics
>department. But quasi-economists aren't generally very well received
>in science departments.
I'd heard that Northwestern had raised it's standards over the years
but until now I'd had no evidence.
>
>So I'll provide the answer here. Scientists have not many limits to
>their physical numbers, but the velocity of light in certain simple
>circumstances is such a limit. The limit this gives us for the
>world population is 5.39 x 10^50 and this will occur in 9,477 years
>if the growth rate is one percent per year. At that time the
>radius of the earth, covered with humans at three cubic feet per
>human, will race outward at the speed of light.
>
>I will not be glad to provide the details of the calculation only
>because I have no easy way to write equations here, but if anyone
>wishes, I will describe the calculation. I would be happy to have
>anyone check the precision of these important numbers.
>
This calculation is, to say the least, rather inexact. So inexact as
to make Malthus look precise, or Jay Adams for that matter. If anyone out
there is actually interested in the subtle nature of this problem (or if
anyone mistook Jay Hanson or Mason Clark as individuals who posessed clues)
would be advised to read Joel E. Cohen's new book, _How Many People Can the
Earth Support?_. He is the director of the Laboratory of Populations at
Rockefellar University and he finds that the answer is far from clear. Even
if such an answer were clear, it would be of little value to us since we have
no way of allocating this population limit across nations and cultural groups.