So why is everyone so pissed off? (long)
ma...@public-record.co.uk
by a couple of themes, (notably immigration, the EU/NATzO/WTO/UN/NWO
and the problems of liberal capitalism) reflecting what I believe are
reactions to three trends in the wider world. These trends are a mixed
blessing, and my concern is that a blunt, or indiscriminate response
is potentially damaging.
Consider briefly the 'reactions'.
1) Anti-immigrant feeling across a broad spectrum, ranging from the
frankly ignorant and prejudiced to a more open-minded exploration of
the net contribution of immigrants to modern British society. The
presence of so much emotional rubbish on this subject, and the
resonance it appears to evoke among people who 'ought to know better'
is suggestive to me that this issue addresses something important,
well beyond childish, atavistic xenophobia. I note that 'PC' is being
wrapped into this debate
2) An increasingly weird collection of 'NWO' conspiracy theories. At
the lunatic fringe, the UN is amassing tanks in Minnesota to take out
Texas. Closer to home perhaps, the Jews (as ever) are taking over the
world. And the EU is becoming less and less accountable, the euro is
an attack on civil rights and so on.
3) An endless stream of 'anti-capitalist' positions, exclusively
devoted to complaining about 'the system'. Culminating in the (frankly
pathetic) thread that was supposed to be only about 'what's wrong with
capitalism', not 'compare capitalism with anything else'. But not all
posters go so far, there are positions against all privatisation, just
some, just Railtrack. Take your pick.
Note that (even) I agree with some of these positions: I'm not sure
that elements of the community (especially, I am unhappy to say,
blacks) are helping themselves move forward or others' perceptions of
them. The recent article in "The Voice" that was the subject of a
thread on this newsgroup suggested the same. I do accept that the euro
may be a liberty issue, as one esteemed (by me at least) poster
suggests. And the privatisation of the railways has been done badly,
though I will disagree with some on where the fault lies, and what
exactly has gone wrong.
Nonetheless, there is a shrillness in the positions that makes me
think that more is afoot than initially appears.
I see three trends operating in the external world that are driving
this. The first (A) is economic liberalism, and the 'inevitable'
outcome - increased meritocracy. Secondly (B), I see a decline in the
ability of everyone to influence anything - liberalism implies that
nobody is 'controlling' anything, and that outcomes are more
'emergent' than we are traditionally comfortable with. The final trend
is the 'bowling alone' phenomenon (C). I don't know how true this is,
but I think it probably is real. And if so, it increases the distance
between different people in society, and reduces their sympathy with
each other as the distance and ignorance grows. This of course
interacts with the first trend - meritocracy appears to imply
individualism; individual struggle and success or failure.
(A)
Look first at economic liberalism. Though few people appear to have
bothered to read the data, recent (e.g. over the last two-three
decades) economic liberalism has delivered the fastest rise out of
poverty for the largest number of people in history. Though the data
are dominated by the impact of Chinese growth following Deng's
liberalisation, much of SE Asia has emerged from poverty, and India is
now better positioned for growth than ever before.
Whilst this does of course throw up new and urgent questions regarding
the sustainability of growth under the existing (hydrocarbon-fuelled)
models, these questions do not invalidate the hugely positive impact
on the wealth of the poor nations, as well as the rich.
Nor, IMO, is it plausible that we are moving towards a 'world of
leisure', where most people are redundant. I expect, certainly over
the next five decades that there will always be more work, because
there will always be more demand. Lower teacher-pupil ratios, better
healthcare, more massages, better coffee etc. Just because the base of
Mazlow's pyramid is increasingly satisfied, doesn't mean that the top
of the pyramid won't expand to keep demand for new services high.
What is a more valid concern, again IMO, is the rising difference
between the top and bottom of the income scales. It is probably worth
being clear that these income differentials are 'real' in the sense
that the most productive people in society are *vastly* more
productive than the least. They represent real differences in economic
value created. A colossal body of literature, again largely unread,
shows how significant are the differences between the most productive
and the least productive. What the income differentials do not
represent are 'moral value', however individuals tend to assign it.
Capitalism as practised tends to merge economic and societal value by
equating 'rich' with 'successful'. In so doing, liberal capitalism
tends to set up a situation in which people are told (indirectly,
through advertising etc) that they must be wealthy - then denies that
status (as wealth is somewhat relative) to most of the population.
This denial of status is behind much of the complaints about liberal
capitalism IMO. I do not know how to address it.
(B)
The second trend is partly to do with this 'globalisation' - the
creation of institutions that can police the behaviour of the states
that with to benefit from the liberalisation. The obvious examples are
the WTO - object of the Seattle protests, and to a lesser extent (in
the UK at least), the UN. But the EU is another excellent example, and
NATO also comes in for criticism (though I think that this is a
different case in many respects, not least that it's primary purpose
is 'national security' (in the sense that 'defence' means 'attack')
and it preceded the more recent economic globalisation. These
institutions are too distant from the man in the street to be
accountable. MPs and national governments seem more accountable, they
do respond to public opinion (on occasion), and the man in the street
does have some ability to 'keep the bastards honest' - as Neil
Hamilton found out to his cost last time around.
The large global institutions are not accountable to the man in the
street in any meaningful way. Yet they are clearly powerful actors on
the world stage. And national governments like to pass the blame on to
these faceless organisations: Why can't we offer some subsidy to
maintain your job - the EU forbids it.
What this means is that the role of the individual and the local
community in deciding their joint fate appears to be declining. Is
this an accurate perception? Hard to know, but I imagine that the
populace had little enough say in fighting WWI for example.
Note that national governments are also struggling with this lack of
control. IMO, this lies in part behind the endless attacks on civil
liberties (if you can't control through patronage, do so through
compulsion)
(C)
The third trend is this 'bowling alone' phenomenon. It appears to be
rising, and it aligned with the expected impact of greater
individualism. It reinforces the sense of powerlessness that clearly
some struggle with - as atoms we are less powerful than together. It
exacerbates and is exacerbated by the income inequality created by
liberalism. And it serves to increase intolerance, the 'us and them'
mentality. It makes it far easier to hold the other in *contempt* -
based on a total lack of understanding of the other's position,
mindset, lifestyle, basic conditions of existence.
Ok, so we have three reactions
1) Anti-immigrant
2) Increasing distrust of 'global' institutions
3) Anti-capitalism
to three main trends
A) Economic liberalism
B) The rise of global institutions
C) Declining 'community spirit'
To me, this raises a few further questions:
(1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
alleviation of poverty in history?
(2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
to ameliorate them?
(3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
(4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
cheers
matt
Cliff Morrison
ma...@public-record.co.uk wrote:
--------------------------
Well, I reckon the latest article by Chossudovsky covers a lot of what is
directly or through its knock-on effects forcing people to take harder and
more uncompromising stand (or rather stands, as there are often more than
one response to parts of the situation).
The megalomanic fatcat bastards at the top of the presently imposed System
(ie. their own) are out to juggernaut all opposition that they can't
subvert into quislings via tokenism. It is increasingly a case of them or
us, a battle for survival in a world in which all sides cannot coexist,
not when one (theirs) is out to crush the rest - and that in itself does,
naturally enough, generate a response of to hell with them, with
subservience to them, and with their structures and their allies.
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
THE QUEBEC WALL: What lies behind Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)?
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa [18 April 2001]
The Summit of the Americas will be held inside a four kilometer "bunker"
made of concrete and galvanized steel fencing. The 10 feet high "Quebec
Wall" encircles part of the historic city center including the
parliamentary compound of the National Assembly, hotels and shopping
areas. Cars will enter through closely guarded checkpoints;
laissez-passers have been issued to official delegations, to the CEOs of
major banks and corporations, as well as approved media and "selected
invitees." (Click to see map of the "Security Perimeter" at
http://www.securitesommet.ca/pages/p_citoyen/p_cito_pe_f.html).
Outside the bunker, more than 6,000 police and security forces are on
hand, equipped not only with "pepper spray" but also with "multi-shot"
Arwen 37 guns shooting hard-coated plastic bullets. The latter --according
to a RCMP spokesperson-- are
"... 'meant to crack a rib and put them in a lot of pain', ... Tactical
squads are usually required to test such less-lethal weapons --such as
Tasers, which deliver electric shocks-- on themselves. But Toronto Police
Constable Leighton said it would be 'too dangerous' to do so with the
Arwen." 1
With Canadian Armed Forces personnel dispatched to Quebec's capital from
military bases in Nova Scotia, the security apparatus in Quebec promises
to be "better organized" than at the Seattle WTO Millenium Summit in 1999.
In Seattle, the city's riot police was integrated with Gang Squads and
SWAT teams of the Tactical Operations Divisions constituting the "more
militarized components" of the police force.
By any standard this is the largest police operation in North America
directed against ordinary citizens. Rather than "cordoning off" the
conference center which is standard practice in international summits--
the Canadian authorities have chosen to "fence in" a large part of the
downtown area --not only denying the rights of citizens to protest but
also preventing residents from moving around within their own city.
And those who defy the Quebec Wall will be taken to Orsainville
penitentiary which has been emptied of its entire prison population
(including several members of the Hells Angels) to make room for these
more dangerous "troublemakers."
THE QUEBEC WALL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Barely a week before the Summit, the Canadian and provincial governments,
the City of Quebec and Quebec City's Police force were taken to court by a
Montreal lawyer and the Vancouver based Canadian Liberty Committee (CLC).
In a signed affidavit, the Canadian government representative stated that
democracy was not under threat, to ensure:
''freedom of expression ... the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade has [sent] invitations to the Summit to approximately
60 representatives of interest groups and lobby groups." 2
Moreover, "alternative protest sites" ("sites alternatifs de
manifestation") have been designated --on the other side of the Wall-- so
that the rank and file of these same civil society organisations can do
their own thing.
The "People's Summit", organized by NGOs and major trade unions-- will
receive "financial contributions for the holding of seminars, colloquia
and public meetings."3 The federal government has allocated Can$287,000--
a comfortable amount of money, but "peanuts" in comparison to the 46
million dollar budget allocated by Ottawa for the police operation and the
erection of the Wall.
WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT
The official list of civil society invitees has not been made public but
we have a good idea who the "partner" civil society organizations are. The
invitees include leaders of major trade union federations as well as
several CEOs of mainstream NGOs. 4
The ritual is broadly similar to that of the 1999 Seattle World Trade
Organization (WTO) Millenium Summit. Several months ahead of time, the WTO
and Western governments had called for a "dialogue" with the leaders of
selected civil society organisations. A carefully worded AFL-CIO petition
had been drafted urging the WTO Summit to adopt "trade and investment
rules [which] protect workers' rights and the environment". In Seattle,
Labor's buzzword was to "make the global economy work for working
families". 5
Similarly, last January at the global business Summit in Davos
--regrouping the World's top corporate execs, heads of State and VIPs, the
leaders of some 59 "civil society" organisations --including the CEOs of
Greenpeace, Oxfam UK, Amnesty International and Save the Children
Alliance-- were also in attendance.
The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders "whom we can
trust" and integrate them into a "dialogue", cut them off from their rank
and file, make them feel that they are "global citizens" acting on behalf
of their fellow workers but make them act in a way which serves the
interests of the corporate establishment:
The participation of NGOs in the Annual Meeting in Davos is evidence of
the fact that [we] purposely seek to integrate a broad spectrum of the
major stakeholders in society in ... defining and advancing the global
agenda ... We believe the [Davos] World Economic Forum provides the
business community with the ideal framework for engaging in collaborative
efforts with the other principal stakeholders [NGOs] of the global economy
to "improve the state of the world," which is the Forum's mission. 6
AFL-CIO's John Sweeney and Canadian Labor Congress (CLC) Ken Georgetti
--together with Bill Jordan of the International Confederation of Free
trade Unions (ICTFU)-- were also in Davos, mingling in a friendly
environment with financier George Soros, Microsoft's Bill Gates and World
Bank President James Wolfensohn. Meanwhile the rank and file protesters of
these "civil society" organisations were being beaten with clubs and
assaulted with water cannons by the Swiss riot police "outside" the
Conference venue at the "counter-Davos."
RITUAL OF DISSENT
In the New World Order, the ritual of inviting "civil society" leaders
into the inner circles of power --while simultaneously repressing the rank
and file-- serves several important functions. First, it says to the World
that the critics of globalization "must make concessions" to earn the
right to mingle. Second, it conveys the illusion that while the global
elites should --under what is euphemistically called democracy-- be
subject to criticism, they nonetheless rule legitimately. And third, it
says "there is no alternative" to globalization: fundamental change is not
possible and the most we can hope is to engage with these rulers in an
ineffective "give and take".
While the "Globalizers" may adopt a few progressive phrases to demonstrate
they have good intentions, their fundamental goals are not challenged. And
what this "civil society mingling" does is to reinforce the clutch of the
corporate establishment while weakening and dividing the protest movement.
An understanding of this process of co-optation is important, because tens
of thousands of the most principled young people in Seattle, Prague and
Quebec City are involved in the anti-globalization protests because they
reject the notion that money is everything, because they reject the
impoverishment of millions and the destruction of fragile Earth so that a
few may get richer. This rank and file and some of their leaders as well,
are to be applauded. But we need to go further. We need to challenge the
right of the "Globalizers" to rule. This requires that we rethink the
strategy of protest. Can we move to a higher plane, by launching mass
movements in our respective countries, movements that bring the message of
what globalization is doing, to ordinary people? For they are the force
that must be mobilized to challenge those who would plunder the Globe.
THE FTAA: PRIVATIZATION OF A HEMISPHERE, UNDER U.S. CONTROL
The FTAA is a good deal more than a trade agreement. Throughout the
Americas, it would radically transform the social existence of sovereign
nations.
Fundamental economic, social and institutional relations would be
enshrined into a set of legally binding conditions. All public services
that are at least in part subsidized by the State, would be opened up to
international tender under the terms of the proposed clauses on "national
treatment." If a government finances health or education, this service
must be opened to international bidding. And who would bid? The large
corporations would take control, all community based facilities would be
transformed into profit-making undertakings ---schools, sports clubs,
day-care centers, everything.
Moreover, the FTAA clauses would literally allow for the privatization of
municipalities. Water, sewer systems, roads and municipal services would
be owned and operated by private companies (rather than by citizens) much
in the same way as the "gated communities" in the US. More generally, the
FTAA would destroy local economies, depress wages and impoverish millions
of people. The agreement --entrenched in international law-- would annul
or invalidate national laws.
The FTAA would also allow for the privatization of water, inter-city
highways as well as entire urban areas. The FTAA would also lead to the
demise of national, regional and municipal governments.
IMF MEDICINE BECOMES PERMANENT
Moreover, under FTAA rules, the enforcement of the IMF's deadly "economic
medicine" --which has served to destroy national economies and impoverish
developing countries --would no longer hinge upon cumbersome loan
agreements, which for the governments had the advantage that they were not
"legally binding" documents.
But under FTAA rules, Latin American governments would have no political
leverage whatsoever; they would loose their "right" to even negotiate with
their creditors: the "economic medicine" would become permanently
entrenched in international law. Countries would not longer be "bonded" by
external debt; they would be permanently "enslaved" by their creditors.
CHARTER OF RIGHTS FOR CORPORATIONS
The FTAA would grant a "charter of rights" to corporations, which would
not only override national laws but would also enable private companies to
sue national governments, demand the annulment of national laws and
receive compensation for potential lost profits which result from
government regulations.
While some of these broad issues will be debated at the People's Summit,
they have not been included in the demands of trade union leaders from the
US, Canada and Latin America. Regrouped under the umbrella of the ICFTU,
The trade unions have called upon the FTAA Summit to include the usual
core labor standards, environmental and human rights clauses in the
agreement.
THE AMERICAN EMPIRE
This is not a trade deal; it is the American Empire. Behind the FTAA are
the powers of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. Ironically,
while local economies including public services would be deregulated,
under the FTAA the production of weapons of mass destruction by America's
major defense contractors would remain heavily subsidized...
Although not officially on the FTAA agenda, the militarization of South
America under "Plan Colombia", the signing of a "parallel" military
cooperation protocol by 27 countries of the Americas (the so-called
Declaration of Manaus) is an integral part of the process of hemispheric
integration. US strategic interests are at stake.
The imposition of "free" trade by Washington is an instrument of economic
conquest which serves US corporate interests as well as those of the
military-intelligence-apparatus. Trade Negotiator Richard Zoellnick --who
is slated to play a key role in Quebec City-- is part of the Bush National
Security Team working closely with National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
DOLLARISATION
The deregulation of national banking institutions is part and parcel of
the Summit agenda. Supported by the Bush administration, Wall Street wants
to extend its control throughout the hemisphere, eventually displacing or
taking over existing national financial institutions.
With the help of the IMF, Washington is also bullying Latin American
countries into accepting the US dollar as their national currency. The
greenback has already been imposed on five Latin American countries
including Ecuador, Argentina, Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala.
The economic and social consequences of "dollarisation" have been
devastating. In these countries, Wall Street and the US Federal Reserve
system directly control monetary policy. The entire structure of public
expenditure is controlled by US creditors. Real wages have collapsed,
social programs have been destroyed, large sectors of the population have
been driven into abysmal poverty.
While not officially part of the FTAA Summit agenda, the adoption of the
US dollar as the common currency for the Western Hemisphere is being
discussed behind closed doors.
Militarisation and "dollarisation" are the essential building blocks of
the American Empire.
DISARMING THE NEW WORLD ORDER
With mounting dissent from all sectors of society against the FTAA, the
official Summit desperately needs the token participation of "civil
society" leaders "on the inside", to give the appearance of being
"democratic." The Summit is seeking the endorsement of these organizations
in exchange for token modifications of the Agreement, which do not put
into doubt the overall legitimacy of the FTAA nor modify substantially the
workings of the proposed free trade area.
The hidden agenda is to weaken and divide the protest movement and orient
the anti-globalization movement into areas that do not directly threaten
the interests of the business establishment and --more importantly-- which
do not raise the broader issue of Washington's political hegemony in the
Western Hemisphere.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush's trade negotiator Robert Zoellnick is preparing
fast-track legislation packaged under the "presidential trade promotion
authority", with a view to rushing the FTAA (without amendments) through
the US Congress. In other words, instating the American Empire will not be
subjected to the uncertainties of parliamentary consent.
In turn, in consultation with the AFL-CIO, the powerful Business
Roundtable (BR) and The Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT)
--integrated by the representatives of America's largest corporations--
are pushing the line of the trade union bosses, they are demanding the
Bush administration "to make labor and environmental standards part of
future trade talks."6
While most of the protesters who have converged on Quebec City (including
Quebec's vibrant student movement) reject the trade deal outright, the
leaders of some of the mainstream "civil society" groups want to get their
human rights, democracy, labor and environmental clauses embedded into the
official texts and then "cry victory," we've done it! 7 However, by doing
this they would not only go against their rank and file, they would also
provide --without fully realizing the implications-- legitimacy to an all
encompassing process which destroys institutions and impoverishes millions
of people.
The American Empire cannot be amended; it must be rejected, fought and
defeated. The FTAA must be closed down!
ENDNOTES
1. Toronto Star, 22 March 2001.
2. Canada, Province de Quebec, District de Quebec, Cours supÈrieure, No.
200-05-014848-019, Affidavit de Denis Ricard, Section II, paragragh 16).
3. According to the signed affidavit, Canada, Province de QuÈbec, op cit.
4. CLC K. Georgetti and AFL-CIO J. Sweeney are also on the guest list of
the official FTAA Summit in Quebec City. While the Council of Canadians
(COC) has stated that it will decline Ottawa's invitation, Matthew Coon
Come, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations has accepted. Among
union leaders, the President of the Quebec's FTQ Henry MassÈ has accepted,
while making clear that he will also be participating (outside the bunker)
in the People's Summit in solidarity with his rank and file.
5. See AFL-CIO, "Make the Global Economy Work for Working Families",
http://www.wslc.org/wto/index.htm. , October 1999)
6. See World Economic Forum, Press Release,
http://www.weforum.org/whatwedo.nsf/documents/what+we+do?Open 5 January
2001.
7. In these Times, 16 April 2001
Related texts by Michel Chossudovsky:
Seattle and Beyond: Disarming the New World Order, November 1999 at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/seattle.htm
Global Poverty in the Late 20th Century, Journal of International Affairs,
Fall 1999 at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/chossu.htm .
CBC "Commentary", on the FTAA and the likely fate of the Canadian Dollar,
CBC, 9 April 2001.
C Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, April 2001. All rights
reserved. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial
community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the
copyright note is displayed. The text can also be photocopied for
non-commercial distribution. To publish this text in printed and/or other
forms contact the author at chossu...@videotron.ca, fax: 1-514-4256224.
Lord Limbic
<ma...@public-record.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lfeqdtsn9bsbgl8ir...@4ax.com...
> Watching the recent developments on this newsgroup, I have been struck
> by a couple of themes, (notably immigration, the EU/NATzO/WTO/UN/NWO
> and the problems of liberal capitalism) reflecting what I believe are
> reactions to three trends in the wider world. These trends are a mixed
> blessing, and my concern is that a blunt, or indiscriminate response
> is potentially damaging.
>
>
> Consider briefly the 'reactions'.
> 1) Anti-immigrant feeling across a broad spectrum, ranging from the
> frankly ignorant and prejudiced to a more open-minded exploration of
> the net contribution of immigrants to modern British society. The
> presence of so much emotional rubbish on this subject, and the
> resonance it appears to evoke among people who 'ought to know better'
> is suggestive to me that this issue addresses something important,
> well beyond childish, atavistic xenophobia. I note that 'PC' is being
> wrapped into this debate
What are your thoughts Matt (i.e. what do you think about immigration?)
>
> 2) An increasingly weird collection of 'NWO' conspiracy theories. At
> the lunatic fringe, the UN is amassing tanks in Minnesota to take out
> Texas. Closer to home perhaps, the Jews (as ever) are taking over the
> world. And the EU is becoming less and less accountable, the euro is
> an attack on civil rights and so on.
This is probably the American X-files/area 51/black
helicopter/militia/Jewnited nations/Illuminati/Freemasons etc etc etc lunacy
gradually seeping into British minds. This stuff started in earnest in the
1990 in the USA and is still massive. Check out http://www.disinfo.com
> 3) An endless stream of 'anti-capitalist' positions, exclusively
> devoted to complaining about 'the system'. Culminating in the (frankly
> pathetic) thread that was supposed to be only about 'what's wrong with
> capitalism', not 'compare capitalism with anything else'. But not all
> posters go so far, there are positions against all privatisation, just
> some, just Railtrack. Take your pick.
LOL! I noticed this too. I am not sure why this is happening right now.
Perhaps the lack of a major external ideological threat means that the
revolutionaries (cause there are always some) must act from the inside out.
> Note that (even) I agree with some of these positions: I'm not sure
> that elements of the community (especially, I am unhappy to say,
> blacks) are helping themselves move forward or others' perceptions of
> them. The recent article in "The Voice" that was the subject of a
> thread on this newsgroup suggested the same.
It is less 'blacks' and more people claiming to speak for blacks - often
whites and wealth blacks, a comprador class - who do real damage to race
relations by constantly going on about the invidious nature of the white
race and racism - usually to justify increased powers for themselves or
their agencies. There are massive misapprehensions about the 'black
community. The black community is no more a community than the 'white'
community. All that unites it is the shared sense of collective wrongdoing
at the hands of whites. As this dissipates - the myth of black homogeneity
dissolves with it. That is a good thing. It is trapping people in
stereotypes, makes it hard for black people to criticize members of their
own community for fear of being branded sell-out or Oreos or helping racists
whites. It is similar to charges levelled against people in public life and
on this newsgroup that racial matters are off topic because they may be used
may be used by unsavoury people.
>I do accept that the euro
> may be a liberty issue, as one esteemed (by me at least) poster
> suggests.
I have not see this particular thread (or failed to notice it). Do you
remember the name?
>And the privatisation of the railways has been done badly,
> though I will disagree with some on where the fault lies, and what
> exactly has gone wrong.
> Nonetheless, there is a shrillness in the positions that makes me
> think that more is afoot than initially appears.
Agreed.
Interesting point - and similar to the points made by J.G. Ballard in
Cocaine Nights. The more people you have enjoying leisure - the greater the
number of people who tend to them grows.
> What is a more valid concern, again IMO, is the rising difference
> between the top and bottom of the income scales. It is probably worth
> being clear that these income differentials are 'real' in the sense
> that the most productive people in society are *vastly* more
> productive than the least.
Does this mean that their rewards (pay, bonus' etc) are congruent with their
productivity?
>They represent real differences in economic
> value created. A colossal body of literature, again largely unread,
> shows how significant are the differences between the most productive
> and the least productive. What the income differentials do not
> represent are 'moral value', however individuals tend to assign it.
> Capitalism as practised tends to merge economic and societal value by
> equating 'rich' with 'successful'. In so doing, liberal capitalism
> tends to set up a situation in which people are told (indirectly,
> through advertising etc) that they must be wealthy - then denies that
> status (as wealth is somewhat relative) to most of the population.
> This denial of status is behind much of the complaints about liberal
> capitalism IMO. I do not know how to address it.
This is fascinating. Could you clear up what you mean by "complaints about
liberal capitalism".
Do you mean that when people are unhappy it is not really about material
deprivation (after all we are all super rich compared to our forefathers) -
but about status and its attendant self respect/esteem?
Whether we were prepared to or not is nearly irrelevant - the market is a
machine that will grow until it runs out of resources. The market also lives
on economic liberalism. I do not think we could 'stop' or 'suspend economic
liberalism even if we wanted to.
> (2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
> we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
> to ameliorate them?
Redundancy for many many people.
>
> (3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
> institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
> national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
> rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
Elect their officials though massive popular votes.
> (4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
> community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
> requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
Toughest question of the lot. Can we undo secular humanism, can we undo
consumerism, can we undo individualism?
The complexities involved in the bowling alone syndrome are intimidating
intricate. Have you actually read Putnam's book? I want to know if I should
buy it or not.
I need to do some more mulling before I respond any more.
An excellent post by the way. It is a pity so may people will be put off by
the size. Why don't you publish it on the web.
Regards
Lord Limbic
James Hammerton
> Watching the recent developments on this newsgroup, I have been struck
> by a couple of themes, (notably immigration, the EU/NATzO/WTO/UN/NWO
> and the problems of liberal capitalism) reflecting what I believe are
> reactions to three trends in the wider world. These trends are a mixed
> blessing, and my concern is that a blunt, or indiscriminate response
> is potentially damaging.
Firstly thanks for a thoughtful and thought provoking post. I'm not
sure how to respond to much of it, but a few comments are posted here.
> Consider briefly the 'reactions'.
> 1) Anti-immigrant feeling across a broad spectrum, ranging from the
> frankly ignorant and prejudiced to a more open-minded exploration of
> the net contribution of immigrants to modern British society. The
> presence of so much emotional rubbish on this subject, and the
> resonance it appears to evoke among people who 'ought to know better'
> is suggestive to me that this issue addresses something important,
> well beyond childish, atavistic xenophobia. I note that 'PC' is being
> wrapped into this debate
>
> 2) An increasingly weird collection of 'NWO' conspiracy theories. At
> the lunatic fringe, the UN is amassing tanks in Minnesota to take out
> Texas. Closer to home perhaps, the Jews (as ever) are taking over the
> world. And the EU is becoming less and less accountable, the euro is
> an attack on civil rights and so on.
>
> 3) An endless stream of 'anti-capitalist' positions, exclusively
> devoted to complaining about 'the system'. Culminating in the (frankly
> pathetic) thread that was supposed to be only about 'what's wrong with
> capitalism', not 'compare capitalism with anything else'. But not all
> posters go so far, there are positions against all privatisation, just
> some, just Railtrack. Take your pick.
>
> Note that (even) I agree with some of these positions: I'm not sure
> that elements of the community (especially, I am unhappy to say,
> blacks) are helping themselves move forward or others' perceptions of
^^^^^^
I suspect you are either referring to the small minority of blacks
that commit crime or the attitudes of some of those who claim to
represent blacks or attitudes often voiced by some blacks. I doubt all
blacks support all or necessarily even any of these groups.
Then of course there's the question of who precisely "blacks" are,
though this can be finessed to a certain extent by defining them as
those who regard themselves as black.
ISTM that when discussing the attitudes or behaviour of humans, our
language often hides some fallacies
E.g. saying that "The English are prone to football hooliganism" has
the most likely unintended effect of suggesting that anyone who supports
an English football team poses a threat at football matches.
To avoid this, the speaker should probably say something along the
lines of "when football hooliganism has occurred in recent years,
supporters of English teams have often been involved."
I have often observed people making statements that (intentionally or
otherwise) appear to apply to every member, or a majority, of an often
ill-defined group when it patently doesn't e.g.:
"The English are prone to football hooliganism",
"Racism and xenophobia lurk inside all white britons",
"Blacks are prone to committing crime",
"Scots tend to hate the English",
"The Tories are extremely racist",
"Liberal bigots oppose the expression of dissenting views",
"Racists believe that whites are superior to blacks", or
"Euro-sceptics are xenophobic little Englanders hankering after the
past".
I'd add I have been guilty of this too and ISTM very easy to fall into
the trap.
[snip]
> I see three trends operating in the external world that are driving
> this. The first (A) is economic liberalism, and the 'inevitable'
> outcome - increased meritocracy. Secondly (B), I see a decline in the
> ability of everyone to influence anything - liberalism implies that
> nobody is 'controlling' anything, and that outcomes are more
> 'emergent' than we are traditionally comfortable with. The final trend
> is the 'bowling alone' phenomenon (C). I don't know how true this is,
> but I think it probably is real. And if so, it increases the distance
> between different people in society, and reduces their sympathy with
> each other as the distance and ignorance grows. This of course
> interacts with the first trend - meritocracy appears to imply
> individualism; individual struggle and success or failure.
Might it also be possible that a contributor to (C) is the
disappearance/reduced role of various community structures that
traditionally created ties between the people in a community, partly
due to the state taking over many functions they used to provide and
partly due to various social, economic and technological changes
making them less relevant or less accessible to people today?
[snip]
> equating 'rich' with 'successful'. In so doing, liberal capitalism
> tends to set up a situation in which people are told (indirectly,
> through advertising etc) that they must be wealthy - then denies that
> status (as wealth is somewhat relative) to most of the population.
> This denial of status is behind much of the complaints about liberal
> capitalism IMO. I do not know how to address it.
I'm not sure how to address this problem either. A question worth
asking is whether the activities of the state help or hinder this
situation.
> (C)
> The third trend is this 'bowling alone' phenomenon. It appears to be
> rising, and it aligned with the expected impact of greater
> individualism. It reinforces the sense of powerlessness that clearly
> some struggle with - as atoms we are less powerful than together. It
> exacerbates and is exacerbated by the income inequality created by
> liberalism. And it serves to increase intolerance, the 'us and them'
> mentality. It makes it far easier to hold the other in *contempt* -
> based on a total lack of understanding of the other's position,
> mindset, lifestyle, basic conditions of existence.
>
> Ok, so we have three reactions
> 1) Anti-immigrant
> 2) Increasing distrust of 'global' institutions
> 3) Anti-capitalism
> to three main trends
> A) Economic liberalism
> B) The rise of global institutions
> C) Declining 'community spirit'
Do A, B and C constitute necessary consequences of liberal capitalism?
James
--
James Hammerton, WWW pages: www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
PGP Public Key: www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/james/mykey.asc (or: pgp5.ai.mit.edu)
Details of the attack on Britain's civil liberties at:
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/civlib.html
James Hammerton
But might it be that the current system, although good at producing
economic growth, also involves a lot of power and privilege accruing
to a small elite, combined with a loss of control by individuals over
their own affairs, or by communities over their affairs and that there
is also therefore a reaction against it for that reason?
> > Note that (even) I agree with some of these positions: I'm not sure
> > that elements of the community (especially, I am unhappy to say,
> > blacks) are helping themselves move forward or others' perceptions of
> > them. The recent article in "The Voice" that was the subject of a
> > thread on this newsgroup suggested the same.
>
> It is less 'blacks' and more people claiming to speak for blacks - often
> whites and wealth blacks, a comprador class - who do real damage to race
> relations by constantly going on about the invidious nature of the white
> race and racism - usually to justify increased powers for themselves or
> their agencies. There are massive misapprehensions about the 'black
> community. The black community is no more a community than the 'white'
> community. All that unites it is the shared sense of collective wrongdoing
> at the hands of whites. As this dissipates - the myth of black homogeneity
> dissolves with it. That is a good thing. It is trapping people in
> stereotypes, makes it hard for black people to criticize members of their
> own community for fear of being branded sell-out or Oreos or helping racists
> whites. It is similar to charges levelled against people in public life and
> on this newsgroup that racial matters are off topic because they may be used
> may be used by unsavoury people.
Well said.
> >I do accept that the euro
> > may be a liberty issue, as one esteemed (by me at least) poster
> > suggests.
>
> I have not see this particular thread (or failed to notice it). Do you
> remember the name?
Abelard's essay on the euro (see his site) argues that it is a civil
liberties issue. Mind you, I've not seen a thread on this for a while
(unless you count Bob Sims blaming everything that is bad/wrong on the
EU).
[snip]
> > Ok, so we have three reactions
> > 1) Anti-immigrant
> > 2) Increasing distrust of 'global' institutions
> > 3) Anti-capitalism
> > to three main trends
> > A) Economic liberalism
> > B) The rise of global institutions
> > C) Declining 'community spirit'
> >
> >
> > To me, this raises a few further questions:
> >
> > (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
> > liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
> > alleviation of poverty in history?
>
> Whether we were prepared to or not is nearly irrelevant - the market is a
> machine that will grow until it runs out of resources. The market also lives
> on economic liberalism. I do not think we could 'stop' or 'suspend economic
> liberalism even if we wanted to.
I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
for the better?
ma...@public-record.co.uk
Morrison) wrote:
>Well, I reckon the latest article by Chossudovsky covers a lot of what is
>directly or through its knock-on effects forcing people to take harder and
>more uncompromising stand (or rather stands, as there are often more than
>one response to parts of the situation).
Agreed.
>The megalomanic fatcat bastards at the top of the presently imposed System
>(ie. their own) are out to juggernaut all opposition that they can't
>subvert into quislings via tokenism.
Can you give examples of such quislings? (Not that I doubt it, but I
am trying to better understand your position)
>It is increasingly a case of them or
>us, a battle for survival in a world in which all sides cannot coexist,
>not when one (theirs) is out to crush the rest - and that in itself does,
>naturally enough, generate a response of to hell with them, with
>subservience to them, and with their structures and their allies.
I am not so sure that this is the case, though I am more concerned by
the reaction of the US in particular. Notably, I find that the
Economist appears almost schizophrenic on this issue - their European
writers seem (for example on global warming) to be in a quite
different place than their Yank brothers.
>THE QUEBEC WALL: What lies behind Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)?
>by Michel Chossudovsky
>Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa [18 April 2001]
>
>http://emperors-clothes.com
>
>The Summit of the Americas will be held inside a four kilometer "bunker"
>made of concrete and galvanized steel fencing. The 10 feet high "Quebec
>Wall" encircles part of the historic city center including the
>parliamentary compound of the National Assembly, hotels and shopping
>areas. Cars will enter through closely guarded checkpoints;
>laissez-passers have been issued to official delegations, to the CEOs of
>major banks and corporations, as well as approved media and "selected
>invitees." (Click to see map of the "Security Perimeter" at
>http://www.securitesommet.ca/pages/p_citoyen/p_cito_pe_f.html).
[snip]
>By any standard this is the largest police operation in North America
>directed against ordinary citizens. Rather than "cordoning off" the
>conference center which is standard practice in international summits--
>the Canadian authorities have chosen to "fence in" a large part of the
>downtown area --not only denying the rights of citizens to protest but
>also preventing residents from moving around within their own city.
[snip]
>WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT
>
>The official list of civil society invitees has not been made public but
>we have a good idea who the "partner" civil society organizations are. The
>invitees include leaders of major trade union federations as well as
>several CEOs of mainstream NGOs. 4
So this is quite a varied list. If none of these people represent
'our' interests - whoever we are, then why not? What can we do about
this other than rant on usenet? Is our impotence, if that's what it
is, a manifestation of 'bowling alone'?
[snip]
>AFL-CIO's John Sweeney and Canadian Labor Congress (CLC) Ken Georgetti
>--together with Bill Jordan of the International Confederation of Free
>trade Unions (ICTFU)-- were also in Davos, mingling in a friendly
>environment with financier George Soros, Microsoft's Bill Gates and World
>Bank President James Wolfensohn. Meanwhile the rank and file protesters of
>these "civil society" organisations were being beaten with clubs and
>assaulted with water cannons by the Swiss riot police "outside" the
>Conference venue at the "counter-Davos."
OK. But it then seems like there are no organisations that represent
the 'ordinary man'. I don't believe this. There are two issues here
for me:
1) That there are seemingly disproportionate security measures that
impede freedom of assembly and protest
2) That the people in the meetings are all 'bussies and so not
represent the 'common man'
The first seems to be true, and is, IMO, a very bad thing. However, I
do not know much about the secutiry threats faced, and so ought to
reserve judgement a little. The second to me seems an inevitable
result of there being no coherent attack on 'global liberalisation'. I
see a lot of complaints, but I do not see any common thread behind
them, and I do not see them different attacks as being consistent. For
example, I see anti-poverty campaigners arguing against globalisation
because it doesn't aid economic growth (which is rubbish) and
environmentalists arguing against it because it does aid growth.
The protesters are not a righteous band of colleagues but give the
impression of being the world's (richer) malcontents
>An understanding of this process of co-optation is important, because tens
>of thousands of the most principled young people in Seattle, Prague and
>Quebec City are involved in the anti-globalization protests because they
>reject the notion that money is everything, because they reject the
>impoverishment of millions and the destruction of fragile Earth so that a
>few may get richer.
So, for example, this is just rubbish. Never have so many people been
lilfted out of pverty to quickly. A few may get mega-rich, but more
than ever, the poorest have rising incomes
>CHARTER OF RIGHTS FOR CORPORATIONS
>
>The FTAA would grant a "charter of rights" to corporations, which would
>not only override national laws but would also enable private companies to
>sue national governments, demand the annulment of national laws and
>receive compensation for potential lost profits which result from
>government regulations.
Note that this is like the EU. And is covered by my second point about
the rise of multinational organisations. Everyone knows this is taking
place, the question is 'how' and 'to what effect'?
>THE AMERICAN EMPIRE
>
>This is not a trade deal; it is the American Empire. Behind the FTAA are
>the powers of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. Ironically,
>while local economies including public services would be deregulated,
>under the FTAA the production of weapons of mass destruction by America's
>major defense contractors would remain heavily subsidized...
One major difference between the FTAA and EU is that the FTAA is
dominated by the US....
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> > 3) An endless stream of 'anti-capitalist' positions, exclusively
>> > devoted to complaining about 'the system'. Culminating in the (frankly
>> > pathetic) thread that was supposed to be only about 'what's wrong with
>> > capitalism', not 'compare capitalism with anything else'. But not all
>> > posters go so far, there are positions against all privatisation, just
>> > some, just Railtrack. Take your pick.
>>
>> LOL! I noticed this too. I am not sure why this is happening right now.
>> Perhaps the lack of a major external ideological threat means that the
>> revolutionaries (cause there are always some) must act from the inside out.
>
>But might it be that the current system, although good at producing
>economic growth, also involves a lot of power and privilege accruing
>to a small elite,
Yes
> combined with a loss of control by individuals over
>their own affairs,
Not necessarily, though the rise of multinational law-making
organisations (whether 'federal' or 'intergovt') may distance
individuals from decision making, But generally, individuals get to
make more decisions in liberal environments
>or by communities over their affairs and that there
>is also therefore a reaction against it for that reason?
Maybe, maybe not. I don't see this, and would look for specific
examples
>> > (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>> > liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>> > alleviation of poverty in history?
>>
>> Whether we were prepared to or not is nearly irrelevant - the market is a
>> machine that will grow until it runs out of resources. The market also lives
>> on economic liberalism. I do not think we could 'stop' or 'suspend economic
>> liberalism even if we wanted to.
>
>I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
>on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
>for the better?
I think that the system is far more fragile than many assume. Can it
be reformed? I think so, but only if a common agenda for
transformation is found. I do not see this - existing protesters seemt
o have a very disparate agenda
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> Watching the recent developments on this newsgroup, I have been struck
>> by a couple of themes, (notably immigration, the EU/NATzO/WTO/UN/NWO
>> and the problems of liberal capitalism) reflecting what I believe are
>> reactions to three trends in the wider world. These trends are a mixed
>> blessing, and my concern is that a blunt, or indiscriminate response
>> is potentially damaging.
>
>Firstly thanks for a thoughtful and thought provoking post. I'm not
>sure how to respond to much of it, but a few comments are posted here.
Cheers. Prompted by your own freedom essay, plus a little goading from
Limbic and zero
>> 3) An endless stream of 'anti-capitalist' positions, exclusively
>> devoted to complaining about 'the system'. Culminating in the (frankly
>> pathetic) thread that was supposed to be only about 'what's wrong with
>> capitalism', not 'compare capitalism with anything else'. But not all
>> posters go so far, there are positions against all privatisation, just
>> some, just Railtrack. Take your pick.
>>
>> Note that (even) I agree with some of these positions: I'm not sure
>> that elements of the community (especially, I am unhappy to say,
>> blacks) are helping themselves move forward or others' perceptions of
> ^^^^^^
>
>I suspect you are either referring to the small minority of blacks
Indeed
>that commit crime or the attitudes of some of those who claim to
>represent blacks or attitudes often voiced by some blacks. I doubt all
>blacks support all or necessarily even any of these groups.
No doubt
>E.g. saying that "The English are prone to football hooliganism" has
>the most likely unintended effect of suggesting that anyone who supports
>an English football team poses a threat at football matches.
>
>To avoid this, the speaker should probably say something along the
>lines of "when football hooliganism has occurred in recent years,
>supporters of English teams have often been involved."
Indeed
>> I see three trends operating in the external world that are driving
>> this. The first (A) is economic liberalism, and the 'inevitable'
>> outcome - increased meritocracy. Secondly (B), I see a decline in the
>> ability of everyone to influence anything - liberalism implies that
>> nobody is 'controlling' anything, and that outcomes are more
>> 'emergent' than we are traditionally comfortable with. The final trend
>> is the 'bowling alone' phenomenon (C). I don't know how true this is,
>> but I think it probably is real. And if so, it increases the distance
>> between different people in society, and reduces their sympathy with
>> each other as the distance and ignorance grows. This of course
>> interacts with the first trend - meritocracy appears to imply
>> individualism; individual struggle and success or failure.
>
>Might it also be possible that a contributor to (C) is the
>disappearance/reduced role of various community structures that
>traditionally created ties between the people in a community, partly
>due to the state taking over many functions they used to provide and
>partly due to various social, economic and technological changes
>making them less relevant or less accessible to people today?
Yes. I think that the rise of regional govt would be very good for the
UK - powerful enough to matter (i.e. people have some incentive to
vote) and yet local enough that people will choose to vote and have
their say. I imagine:
North West
North East
Midlands
Wales
Scotland
London
South East
South West
East Anglia
for example. Such regional barons might 'report' to the reformed HoL -
remade as the House of review/Senate.
>> equating 'rich' with 'successful'. In so doing, liberal capitalism
>> tends to set up a situation in which people are told (indirectly,
>> through advertising etc) that they must be wealthy - then denies that
>> status (as wealth is somewhat relative) to most of the population.
>> This denial of status is behind much of the complaints about liberal
>> capitalism IMO. I do not know how to address it.
>
>I'm not sure how to address this problem either. A question worth
>asking is whether the activities of the state help or hinder this
>situation.
I think they help - cf the 'gongs' handed out to civil servants.
'Gongs' are value symbols that are not cash. So are gold medals for
sportsmen/women
>> (C)
>> The third trend is this 'bowling alone' phenomenon. It appears to be
>> rising, and it aligned with the expected impact of greater
>> individualism. It reinforces the sense of powerlessness that clearly
>> some struggle with - as atoms we are less powerful than together. It
>> exacerbates and is exacerbated by the income inequality created by
>> liberalism. And it serves to increase intolerance, the 'us and them'
>> mentality. It makes it far easier to hold the other in *contempt* -
>> based on a total lack of understanding of the other's position,
>> mindset, lifestyle, basic conditions of existence.
>>
>> Ok, so we have three reactions
>> 1) Anti-immigrant
>> 2) Increasing distrust of 'global' institutions
>> 3) Anti-capitalism
>> to three main trends
>> A) Economic liberalism
>> B) The rise of global institutions
>> C) Declining 'community spirit'
>
>Do A, B and C constitute necessary consequences of liberal capitalism?
I think so, or almost necessary. I wish I was wrong...
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Consider briefly the 'reactions'.
>> 1) Anti-immigrant feeling across a broad spectrum, ranging from the
>> frankly ignorant and prejudiced to a more open-minded exploration of
>> the net contribution of immigrants to modern British society. The
>> presence of so much emotional rubbish on this subject, and the
>> resonance it appears to evoke among people who 'ought to know better'
>> is suggestive to me that this issue addresses something important,
>> well beyond childish, atavistic xenophobia. I note that 'PC' is being
>> wrapped into this debate
>
>What are your thoughts Matt (i.e. what do you think about immigration?)
Depends. I don't like the quality of much of the debate on this issue
that goes on on this newsgroup, and so I try to steer clear of it.
Nonetheless, I will have an (abelardian) go at the question...
'Immigration' is just a word. I have no opinion on it. A seemingly
trivial point, but it does raise the question of what is being mapped
onto it.
I am in favour of a generous policy towards asylum seekers in those
cases where asylum is even plausible. I do so for three reasons:
1) Moral: I am in favour of helping those who have had few chances to
get another crack at life's pleasures.
2) Economic: I do not think that this country is so poor that it can
not afford to look after those who have no chance at a safe life in
their own country. Expressed differently, I am happy to pay for those
who have been abused to start again here
3) Political: It is in the interests fo all of us that people struggle
in their own countries to defeat corrupt govts and so on. Not only
does it improve us all morally, it aids their economic growth (and
thus ours through trade), and provides another place where democracy
thrives, thus keeping the pressure on our own govts to continually
extend liberty at home.
The incentive to stick your head above the parapet at home is, I
imagine, significantly enhanced if you are confident of getting out
and being able to start again if it all goes wrong.
How far should this extend? Certainly to a nuclear family, otherwise
the right is so restricted as to be meaningless. Beyond this it needs
to be on a case-by-case basis. This is expensive, and runs the risk of
being arbitrary, but I consider it worth the candle (in the absence of
decent info to the contrary)
With regard to wider (economic) immigration - I would happily say that
anyone with a degree from a recognised university can come in, period.
There might be a large quota to stop there being ten million new
people, but I would be quite happy to leave that to the details. For
the rest, I would take on a few additional people who had skill sets
that were needed.
I would not necessarily allow anyone beyond the nuclear family of an
economic migrant in. Again a case-by-case basis, and I would happily
make it 'means-tested'.
>> 2) An increasingly weird collection of 'NWO' conspiracy theories. At
>> the lunatic fringe, the UN is amassing tanks in Minnesota to take out
>> Texas. Closer to home perhaps, the Jews (as ever) are taking over the
>> world. And the EU is becoming less and less accountable, the euro is
>> an attack on civil rights and so on.
>
>This is probably the American X-files/area 51/black
>helicopter/militia/Jewnited nations/Illuminati/Freemasons etc etc etc lunacy
>gradually seeping into British minds. This stuff started in earnest in the
>1990 in the USA and is still massive. Check out http://www.disinfo.com
Indeed. So the question is: why does anyone believe this crap?
>> 3) An endless stream of 'anti-capitalist' positions, exclusively
>> devoted to complaining about 'the system'. Culminating in the (frankly
>> pathetic) thread that was supposed to be only about 'what's wrong with
>> capitalism', not 'compare capitalism with anything else'. But not all
>> posters go so far, there are positions against all privatisation, just
>> some, just Railtrack. Take your pick.
>
>LOL! I noticed this too. I am not sure why this is happening right now.
>Perhaps the lack of a major external ideological threat means that the
>revolutionaries (cause there are always some) must act from the inside out.
Maybe. Maybe it's just whining. What I am disappointed about, is that,
as ever, there is so little dissemination of what is known. Why do
people argue that they are 'slaves to the wage'? Weren't Neanderthals
'slaves to the hunt'? It's just a feature of the human condition that
'everyone has to serve someone'
>> Note that (even) I agree with some of these positions: I'm not sure
>> that elements of the community (especially, I am unhappy to say,
>> blacks) are helping themselves move forward or others' perceptions of
>> them. The recent article in "The Voice" that was the subject of a
>> thread on this newsgroup suggested the same.
>
>It is less 'blacks'
Indeed. And it's only some 'blacks'.
>and more people claiming to speak for blacks - often
>whites and wealth blacks, a comprador class - who do real damage to race
>relations by constantly going on about the invidious nature of the white
>race and racism - usually to justify increased powers for themselves or
>their agencies.
No doubt there is some of that going on. Nor can there be any real
doubt that the police and other institutions are racist, in the sense
that the individuals share prejudices about races. What is so sad is
that these institutions are forced to 'defend' themselves, when the
correct response IMO is to say 'yes we're racist - are you telling me
you are not?'
IMExperience, we are all racist at some level. I see a stupid person
on the tube - if they're white I say 'stupid bastard', if they're
black I think 'dumb black bastard'. Combine that with some different
cultural norms, (e.g. black youths are generally noisier IME) and you
have a set of prejudice compounded by 'anecdotal evidence'.
None of this excuses the more egregious examples of racism, nor
removes the need for all of us to consider our role in this unfolding
disaster.
Nor does it excusse those who, as you suggest, try to make capital out
of the inherently difficult task of accepting and living with 'the
other'
>There are massive misapprehensions about the 'black
>community. The black community is no more a community than the 'white'
>community. All that unites it is the shared sense of collective wrongdoing
>at the hands of whites. As this dissipates - the myth of black homogeneity
>dissolves with it.
Indeed
>That is a good thing. It is trapping people in
>stereotypes, makes it hard for black people to criticize members of their
>own community for fear of being branded sell-out or Oreos or helping racists
>whites. It is similar to charges levelled against people in public life and
>on this newsgroup that racial matters are off topic because they may be used
>may be used by unsavoury people.
Indeed. And the quality of debate on this newsgroup on race is so
poor, that I rarely if ever choose to participate
>>I do accept that the euro
>> may be a liberty issue, as one esteemed (by me at least) poster
>> suggests.
>
>I have not see this particular thread (or failed to notice it). Do you
>remember the name?
Check abe's site on this issue. I am sure that there have been threads
on it, but the source is on his site
>> Nor, IMO, is it plausible that we are moving towards a 'world of
>> leisure', where most people are redundant. I expect, certainly over
>> the next five decades that there will always be more work, because
>> there will always be more demand. Lower teacher-pupil ratios, better
>> healthcare, more massages, better coffee etc. Just because the base of
>> Mazlow's pyramid is increasingly satisfied, doesn't mean that the top
>> of the pyramid won't expand to keep demand for new services high.
>
>
>Interesting point - and similar to the points made by J.G. Ballard in
>Cocaine Nights. The more people you have enjoying leisure - the greater the
>number of people who tend to them grows.
Indeed.
>> What is a more valid concern, again IMO, is the rising difference
>> between the top and bottom of the income scales. It is probably worth
>> being clear that these income differentials are 'real' in the sense
>> that the most productive people in society are *vastly* more
>> productive than the least.
>
>Does this mean that their rewards (pay, bonus' etc) are congruent with their
>productivity?
Hard to know. On balance I would argue, probably yes. Maybe it's too
far out of whack in the US, I don't know. I do know that I was part of
small team (under 20) that created about half a billion quid last
year. So conservatively my worth in this was 20 million quid. Others
played bigger part. They were worth maybe 50 million quid. In the same
company, there are people who just cover their salary - worth nearly
zero. They might get 30K, so what's a 50 million quid person worth?
>>They represent real differences in economic
>> value created. A colossal body of literature, again largely unread,
>> shows how significant are the differences between the most productive
>> and the least productive. What the income differentials do not
>> represent are 'moral value', however individuals tend to assign it.
>> Capitalism as practised tends to merge economic and societal value by
>> equating 'rich' with 'successful'. In so doing, liberal capitalism
>> tends to set up a situation in which people are told (indirectly,
>> through advertising etc) that they must be wealthy - then denies that
>> status (as wealth is somewhat relative) to most of the population.
>> This denial of status is behind much of the complaints about liberal
>> capitalism IMO. I do not know how to address it.
>
>This is fascinating. Could you clear up what you mean by "complaints about
>liberal capitalism".
I see much of the leftist economics on this group as being of this
sort. 'The bosses take all the wealth', 'capitalism is slavery', 'it's
all about screwing the poor' etc
>Do you mean that when people are unhappy it is not really about material
>deprivation (after all we are all super rich compared to our forefathers) -
>but about status and its attendant self respect/esteem?
Absolutely. To the extent that poverty is a cause of unhappiness, a
proportion of it can be alleviated through absolute rises in wealth.
For example - having your mum die early fucks you up. If you have 50
bucks, you can buy the antibiotics that allow you to save her.
Another proportion is due to your relative position - "am I so
worthless compared to him/her? I don't feel it. Why does society value
me so lowly?"
Again there are studies that show that bushmen are not any less happy
than modern man. Perhaps there is a lot in the saying that happiness
equals "reality less expectations"
>> To me, this raises a few further questions:
>>
>> (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>> liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>> alleviation of poverty in history?
>
>Whether we were prepared to or not is nearly irrelevant - the market is a
>machine that will grow until it runs out of resources. The market also lives
>on economic liberalism. I do not think we could 'stop' or 'suspend economic
>liberalism even if we wanted to.
The market, free economics, these are choices. We can reverse them, as
happened in the first world war. As is happening over social freedoms.
They require active effort to maintain.
>> (2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
>> we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
>> to ameliorate them?
>
>Redundancy for many many people.
But unemployment is *lower* in liberal societies...
Job security is less though... for those with nothing to offer
prospective employers. But whther the unskilled get jobs is far more a
function of whether they have other sources of income than it is on
their 'opportunities'. After all, to a genuinely starving man,
sweeping the streets is an 'opportunity'
>> (3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
>> institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
>> national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
>> rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
>
>Elect their officials though massive popular votes.
What would be the turnout do you think for the head of the WTO? How
wold you asses his/her performance? I don't know that it could be
done... Maybe it could
>> (4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
>> community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
>> requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
>
>Toughest question of the lot. Can we undo secular humanism, can we undo
>consumerism, can we undo individualism?
(In turn:) I hope not, I hope so, I think we need this in balance.
>The complexities involved in the bowling alone syndrome are intimidating
>intricate. Have you actually read Putnam's book? I want to know if I should
>buy it or not.
No, but I should (along with the thirty thousand others). A good
precis was offered by a poster recently...
>I need to do some more mulling before I respond any more.
>
>An excellent post by the way. It is a pity so may people will be put off by
>the size. Why don't you publish it on the web.
Cheers, I might do this. Your cajoling on this issue was helpful
cheers
matt
James Hammerton
OK, here goes. Big businesses have a comparable level of power to
shape events as governments have. In many cases if a government
pursues a policy big business does not like they can threaten to pull
out and undermine that country's economy. But big business is not
accountable to the people who suffer the impact of such decisions.
You might argue that it is accountable to its consumers and
shareholders -- however a big multinational company can e.g. play one
group of consumers off against the another, influence the government
to adopt policies that make it difficult for new companies to enter
the market, or for adverse information/publicity about the company to
enter the public domain.
ISTM there are only 2 ways big business gets held to account --
subject them to government regulation so that they can be held to
account by democratically elected officials or remove the obstacles to
new entrants to their markets and enable consumers to exercise their
power to take custom elsewhere. But because such businesses are so
influential it can be difficult do either in a truly effective manner.
> >> > (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
> >> > liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
> >> > alleviation of poverty in history?
> >>
> >> Whether we were prepared to or not is nearly irrelevant - the market is a
> >> machine that will grow until it runs out of resources. The market also lives
> >> on economic liberalism. I do not think we could 'stop' or 'suspend economic
> >> liberalism even if we wanted to.
> >
> >I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
> >on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
> >for the better?
>
> I think that the system is far more fragile than many assume.
Why? What points of fragility exist?
> Can it
> be reformed? I think so, but only if a common agenda for
> transformation is found. I do not see this - existing protesters seemt
> o have a very disparate agenda
Agreed.
James Hammerton
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:48:03 +0100, "Lord Limbic"
> <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Consider briefly the 'reactions'.
> >> 1) Anti-immigrant feeling across a broad spectrum, ranging from the
> >> frankly ignorant and prejudiced to a more open-minded exploration of
> >> the net contribution of immigrants to modern British society. The
> >> presence of so much emotional rubbish on this subject, and the
> >> resonance it appears to evoke among people who 'ought to know better'
> >> is suggestive to me that this issue addresses something important,
> >> well beyond childish, atavistic xenophobia. I note that 'PC' is being
> >> wrapped into this debate
> >
> >What are your thoughts Matt (i.e. what do you think about immigration?)
>
> Depends. I don't like the quality of much of the debate on this issue
> that goes on on this newsgroup, and so I try to steer clear of it.
> Nonetheless, I will have an (abelardian) go at the question...
>
> 'Immigration' is just a word. I have no opinion on it. A seemingly
> trivial point, but it does raise the question of what is being mapped
> onto it.
ISTM those talking about immigration refer to the movement of people
from another country into their country and the policies that apply to
that, although they may refer only to people from specific
countries, or arriving under certain circumstances or who have certain
characteristics.
> I am in favour of a generous policy towards asylum seekers in those
> cases where asylum is even plausible. I do so for three reasons:
>
> 1) Moral: I am in favour of helping those who have had few chances to
> get another crack at life's pleasures.
>
> 2) Economic: I do not think that this country is so poor that it can
> not afford to look after those who have no chance at a safe life in
> their own country. Expressed differently, I am happy to pay for those
> who have been abused to start again here
>
> 3) Political: It is in the interests fo all of us that people struggle
> in their own countries to defeat corrupt govts and so on. Not only
> does it improve us all morally, it aids their economic growth (and
> thus ours through trade), and provides another place where democracy
> thrives, thus keeping the pressure on our own govts to continually
> extend liberty at home.
> The incentive to stick your head above the parapet at home is, I
> imagine, significantly enhanced if you are confident of getting out
> and being able to start again if it all goes wrong.
Some reasonable points.
> How far should this extend? Certainly to a nuclear family, otherwise
> the right is so restricted as to be meaningless. Beyond this it needs
> to be on a case-by-case basis. This is expensive, and runs the risk of
> being arbitrary, but I consider it worth the candle (in the absence of
> decent info to the contrary)
How should asylum seekers be treated whilst their cases are processsed?
What would you do about immigrants who for whatever reason try and
stay in the country illegally (i.e. without gaining legal permission
to become resident in some way)?
> With regard to wider (economic) immigration - I would happily say that
> anyone with a degree from a recognised university can come in, period.
Doesn't this attract talent away from other countries?
> There might be a large quota to stop there being ten million new
> people, but I would be quite happy to leave that to the details. For
> the rest, I would take on a few additional people who had skill sets
> that were needed.
Do you believe there is a limit to how many people live in the UK at
any one time?
anton
ma...@public-record.co.uk wrote in message ...
[snip]
>
>Ok, so we have three reactions
>1) Anti-immigrant
>2) Increasing distrust of 'global' institutions
>3) Anti-capitalism
>to three main trends
>A) Economic liberalism
>B) The rise of global institutions
>C) Declining 'community spirit'
I don't differ much from many of your points, but I think the summary above
is misleading. You identify 3 reactions, and 3 trends, but the reactions
are not to the trends, with the possible exception of 2) & B).
Anti-immigrant reactions are surely a function of the amount of immigration,
and to some extent the level of unemployment i.e. not A), B), or C).
Anti-capitalism 3) hangs its hat to some extent on the WTO, for instance,
but is it genuinely a product of the rise of the WTO?- I don't think so: if
the WTO didn't exist I think the same people would feel strongly about, for
instance, the oil giants.
>To me, this raises a few further questions:
>
>(1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>alleviation of poverty in history?
Why does this question arise? I didn't notice anything you've said to
suggest that slowing economic liberalism would help any of the problems you
raise.[If there was & I've snipped it, I apologise]
>(2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
>we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we >do to
ameliorate them?
>
>(3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
>institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
>national governments? How can we get assurance that decision >making rights
are as close to the people they affect as possible?
Surely the thrust of {economic?} liberalism is towards people making the
decisions about themselves, and governments [at any level]making fewer
decisions? You can't get closer "decision-making rights" than that.
>(4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
>community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
>requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
Mmmm- 'sense of community' to me suggests much broader issues than the
tax/benefit system, which is what you seem to be referring to above.
Clearly competent delivery (of whatever system) is a necessary condition-
and that requires a simple, straightforward system in order to train the
benefit clerks, and for the community at large to understand it.
Complicator Brown has of course set off fast in the opposite direction- with
an increasingly complex system of benefits that inevitably leads to messy
bits where they interact.
The more general sense of community is a big subject: maybe another time ;-)
My personal answer to the header question is that there is a widespread
feeling of frustration with this govt. Those sympathetic to Labour have not
got what they were hoping for: I know some hospital staff who feel betrayed,
for instance, and the anti-hunting people have only seen posturing. Those
like me who are not sympathetic to Labour strongly dislike some of the
things they have done: the fascism of the party list system and the
structure of the Lords, for instance. Frustration arises because the
opinion polls suggest that they are likely to get a second term, despite
what they've done and not done.
--
Anton
Paris
> (A)
> Look first at economic liberalism. Though few people appear to have
> bothered to read the data, recent (e.g. over the last two-three
> decades) economic liberalism has delivered the fastest rise out of
> poverty for the largest number of people in history.
No, the exponential technology curve has done that.
Economics is what people study when they aren't bright enough to know that
technology is
actually driving forward the human race.
It is no better than witchcraft.
<snip>
For your delictation:
>that the most productive people in society are *vastly* more
> productive than the least.
It is amusing to think that these people actually believe that financial
disparity is caused solely by
the achievements of individuals.
They place no emphesis on education, background, up-brining, breaks, social
handicaps, glass ceilings and so on...
That is why these people should be given no credit for intelligence.. Their
whole world view is based on a subjective
assesment on reality which is founded on a fatuous assumption.
<snip>
Grrr..
<Rest Snipped>
> (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
> liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
> alleviation of poverty in history?
It hasn't.
> (2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
> we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
> to ameliorate them?
The side effects are a gradual slide towards an anarchy which is tilted
towards those with large amounts of capital.
This will be a move away from society and all the benefits that it brings.
> (3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
> institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
> national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
> rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
We cannot. When you cede power to a group or individual under conditions of
Anarchy, they recieve total power.
Before long, the laws which have hitherto defended the small against the
powerful will fall under the juristiction of the
people who are now running the world.
This has happened to a large extent already, hence the various wars...
What Thatcher started at the behest of others is the demolition of genuine
democracy and the ceding of power to the
financially strong.
> (4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
> community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
> requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
We can push forward nationalism without racism.
Push forward Secular Humanism instead of cultural/religious freedom, this
would ensure that most people would behave
in a socially responsible manner to EVERYONE regardless of religion or race.
Set up powerful institutions to monitor and control commerce.
Educate our populace.
--
Paris. Not the City
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> Not necessarily, though the rise of multinational law-making
>> organisations (whether 'federal' or 'intergovt') may distance
>> individuals from decision making, But generally, individuals get to
>> make more decisions in liberal environments
>>
>> >or by communities over their affairs and that there
>> >is also therefore a reaction against it for that reason?
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. I don't see this, and would look for specific
>> examples
>
>OK, here goes. Big businesses have a comparable level of power to
>shape events as governments have.
I don't know that I agree with this. I am currently (for example)
looking at the ways that business could influence education. I don't
see as many as the government has. (Though it is also true to say that
business can assist govt by providing working models)
>In many cases if a government
>pursues a policy big business does not like they can threaten to pull
>out and undermine that country's economy.
Not really. Worth considering this more carefully. There are (at
least) three ways this isn't the case:
1) The government can and still does regulate who can sell to "its"
consumers. Fortunately free trade is reducing this, but the advances
of free trade are subject to govt approval.
2) In some cases, the resources required by business are more-or-less
directly controlled by govt. The most obviousl example of this is oil,
but there are plenty of others - from mobile phone spectrum to
limestone for cement. If you include human resources, then govts have
huge influence through employment law
These two are smaller or eroding, but the biggest point is this third
3) A business can not leave unless another government is able to offer
better. The country's economy is being undermined by excessive
legslation (in the classical example), not by the company's decision
to move. If the company remains, and makes no money, then it will
still be doing the country no real good anyway
>But big business is not
>accountable to the people who suffer the impact of such decisions.
But they are to some extent. The shareholders are affected by such
decisions. If the company does not leave, shareholders will withdraw
capital in the end. The workforce does not get huge say in the matter
in anglo-saxon capitalism, but they get an enormous say in other
forms. Worker influence is not impossible in free-market capitalism at
all
>You might argue that it is accountable to its consumers and
>shareholders -- however a big multinational company can e.g. play one
>group of consumers off against the another,
Only by losing some
>influence the government
>to adopt policies that make it difficult for new companies to enter
>the market,
Which is explicitly anti-free-market
>ISTM there are only 2 ways big business gets held to account --
Accountable to whom?
>subject them to government regulation so that they can be held to
>account by democratically elected officials
Yes
>or remove the obstacles to
>new entrants to their markets and enable consumers to exercise their
>power to take custom elsewhere.
Yes
>But because such businesses are so
>influential it can be difficult do either in a truly effective manner.
Only because (to the extent that) goverment does not meet its
obligations to free up markets.Hence the need for multinational
institutions
>> >I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
>> >on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
>> >for the better?
>>
>> I think that the system is far more fragile than many assume.
>
>Why? What points of fragility exist?
Bananas, Pat Robertson, the French, hormone beef, environmental laws,
Seattle, french farmers, CAP, large corporates with weak governments,
the rise of 'free trade areas' etc
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> (A)
>> Look first at economic liberalism. Though few people appear to have
>> bothered to read the data, recent (e.g. over the last two-three
>> decades) economic liberalism has delivered the fastest rise out of
>> poverty for the largest number of people in history.
>
>No, the exponential technology curve has done that.
So tell me how it's made the Chinese so much richer
>Economics is what people study when they aren't bright enough to know that
>technology is actually driving forward the human race.
Hardly. The two (economics and bellief in technology) are not
exclusive. Perhaps you should study some econimics.
>It is no better than witchcraft.
Right
>>that the most productive people in society are *vastly* more
>> productive than the least.
>
>It is amusing to think that these people actually believe that financial
>disparity is caused solely by the achievements of individuals.
I don't know if anyone does.
>They place no emphesis on education, background, up-brining, breaks, social
>handicaps, glass ceilings and so on...
None of these are exlcuded by my original comment
>That is why these people should be given no credit for intelligence.. Their
>whole world view is based on a subjective
>assesment on reality which is founded on a fatuous assumption.
Whatever. Go back and read the post
>> (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>> liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>> alleviation of poverty in history?
>
>It hasn't.
And your evidence?
>> (2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
>> we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
>> to ameliorate them?
>
>The side effects are a gradual slide towards an anarchy which is tilted
>towards those with large amounts of capital.
Yet the evidence suggests that the role of the state is increasing to
the extent that civil liberties and freedoms are being reduced. This
doesnt end in anarchy, but fascism
>> (3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
>> institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
>> national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
>> rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
>
>We cannot. When you cede power to a group or individual under conditions of
>Anarchy, they recieve total power.
>Before long, the laws which have hitherto defended the small against the
>powerful will fall under the juristiction of the
>people who are now running the world.
>This has happened to a large extent already, hence the various wars...
Please expand...
>What Thatcher started at the behest of others is the demolition of genuine
>democracy and the ceding of power to the financially strong.
At the behest of the Illuminati?
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
<anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>I don't differ much from many of your points, but I think the summary above
>is misleading. You identify 3 reactions, and 3 trends, but the reactions
>are not to the trends, with the possible exception of 2) & B).
OK
>Anti-immigrant reactions are surely a function of the amount of immigration,
>and to some extent the level of unemployment i.e. not A), B), or C).
I don't agree. Free markets imply free movement of labour, which
implies more immigration.
>Anti-capitalism 3) hangs its hat to some extent on the WTO, for instance,
>but is it genuinely a product of the rise of the WTO?- I don't think so: if
>the WTO didn't exist I think the same people would feel strongly about, for
>instance, the oil giants.
Sure. I do think though that the two are concomitant with liberalism.
Economic liberalism stimulates anti-capitalism on a grand scale and
the WTO
>>(1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>>liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>>alleviation of poverty in history?
>
>Why does this question arise? I didn't notice anything you've said to
>suggest that slowing economic liberalism would help any of the problems you
>raise.[If there was & I've snipped it, I apologise]
I don't think that there is. I wouldn't reverse the liberalisation.
But many would. I want to know both how we liberals will ameliorate
the effects fo liberalism , and how the others will provide the growth
>>(3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
>>institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
>>national governments? How can we get assurance that decision >making rights
>are as close to the people they affect as possible?
>
>Surely the thrust of {economic?} liberalism is towards people making the
>decisions about themselves, and governments [at any level]making fewer
>decisions? You can't get closer "decision-making rights" than that.
To some extent. But decisions on bananas aren't made by us. Nor on
hormone treated beef. Or dolphin-friendly tuna. They're made by the EU
and WTO
>>(4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
>>community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
>>requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
>
>Mmmm- 'sense of community' to me suggests much broader issues than the
>tax/benefit system, which is what you seem to be referring to above.
Good point
>Clearly competent delivery (of whatever system) is a necessary condition-
>and that requires a simple, straightforward system in order to train the
>benefit clerks, and for the community at large to understand it.
>Complicator Brown has of course set off fast in the opposite direction- with
>an increasingly complex system of benefits that inevitably leads to messy
>bits where they interact.
Indeed
>My personal answer to the header question is that there is a widespread
>feeling of frustration with this govt. Those sympathetic to Labour have not
>got what they were hoping for: I know some hospital staff who feel betrayed,
>for instance, and the anti-hunting people have only seen posturing. Those
>like me who are not sympathetic to Labour strongly dislike some of the
>things they have done: the fascism of the party list system and the
>structure of the Lords, for instance. Frustration arises because the
>opinion polls suggest that they are likely to get a second term, despite
>what they've done and not done.
I think it goes a long way past this govt. It's in all countries...
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> 'Immigration' is just a word. I have no opinion on it. A seemingly
>> trivial point, but it does raise the question of what is being mapped
>> onto it.
>
>ISTM those talking about immigration refer to the movement of people
>from another country into their country and the policies that apply to
>that, although they may refer only to people from specific
>countries, or arriving under certain circumstances or who have certain
>characteristics.
OK. But that leaves a lot of lattitude
>> How far should this extend? Certainly to a nuclear family, otherwise
>> the right is so restricted as to be meaningless. Beyond this it needs
>> to be on a case-by-case basis. This is expensive, and runs the risk of
>> being arbitrary, but I consider it worth the candle (in the absence of
>> decent info to the contrary)
>
>How should asylum seekers be treated whilst their cases are processsed?
I would be happy for them to be allowed to do as they please,
including getting work. I am happy for food and shelter to be
provided. I would perhaps not pay benefits - this forces those without
independent means to check in to gain food and shelter. Of course,
this is only tenable if applicatoin times are kept short. I am happy
to pay some additional tax to shorten the wait times
>What would you do about immigrants who for whatever reason try and
>stay in the country illegally (i.e. without gaining legal permission
>to become resident in some way)?
Expel them unless they would otherwise qualify
>> With regard to wider (economic) immigration - I would happily say that
>> anyone with a degree from a recognised university can come in, period.
>
>Doesn't this attract talent away from other countries?
Yes. That's the purpose of the policy. Not to worry - plenty will send
cash back in remittances
>> There might be a large quota to stop there being ten million new
>> people, but I would be quite happy to leave that to the details. For
>> the rest, I would take on a few additional people who had skill sets
>> that were needed.
>
>Do you believe there is a limit to how many people live in the UK at
>any one time?
Not in the strict sense, but in the abstract/general sense yes.
cheers
matt
Cliff Morrison
<odes...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Yes.
Imho, you make some exceedingly pertinent points there.
Cliff Morrison
<anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
> Surely the thrust of {economic?} liberalism is towards people making the
> decisions about themselves, and governments [at any level]making fewer
> decisions? You can't get closer "decision-making rights" than that.
Pretty-pretty theorising, but in reality it is just more weaselling fatcat
bullshit when examined from the perspective of the un-rich.
Cliff Morrison
ma...@public-record.co.uk wrote:
> To some extent. But decisions on bananas aren't made by us. Nor on
> hormone treated beef. Or dolphin-friendly tuna. They're made by the EU
> and WTO
Because the reality is that behind their public control freakery and
bullying facade, when it comes to dealing with organisations or even
individuals that they cannot easily trample underfoot the so-called
British "governments" have time and again been exposed as snivelling sacks
of jellified rent-a-polly pus.
Cliff Morrison
ma...@public-record.co.uk wrote:
> Yet the evidence suggests that the role of the state is increasing to
> the extent that civil liberties and freedoms are being reduced. This
> doesnt end in anarchy, but fascism
Which would not preclude corporate anarchy (in the sense of the pollys'
paymasters being free to do as they will) or social anarchy (in the sense
of fear and chronic insecurity at local level being used to demoralise and
fragment the population and thus keep it in line)....
Hammer and anvil.
James Hammerton
> On 18 Apr 2001 22:57:47 +0100, James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not necessarily, though the rise of multinational law-making
> >> organisations (whether 'federal' or 'intergovt') may distance
> >> individuals from decision making, But generally, individuals get to
> >> make more decisions in liberal environments
> >>
> >> >or by communities over their affairs and that there
> >> >is also therefore a reaction against it for that reason?
> >>
> >> Maybe, maybe not. I don't see this, and would look for specific
> >> examples
> >
> >OK, here goes. Big businesses have a comparable level of power to
> >shape events as governments have.
>
> I don't know that I agree with this. I am currently (for example)
They can often influence governments to pass laws that help them out.
It is in their interests to do so.
> looking at the ways that business could influence education. I don't
> see as many as the government has. (Though it is also true to say that
> business can assist govt by providing working models)
So now we'll have product placement in our classrooms? Kids told to
use certain companies' products at school from a young age?
> >In many cases if a government
> >pursues a policy big business does not like they can threaten to pull
> >out and undermine that country's economy.
>
> Not really. Worth considering this more carefully. There are (at
> least) three ways this isn't the case:
>
> 1) The government can and still does regulate who can sell to "its"
> consumers.
And large multinational companies can move from country to country to
get the best deal from a country's government.
> Fortunately free trade is reducing this, but the advances
> of free trade are subject to govt approval.
>
> 2) In some cases, the resources required by business are more-or-less
> directly controlled by govt. The most obviousl example of this is oil,
> but there are plenty of others - from mobile phone spectrum to
> limestone for cement. If you include human resources, then govts have
> huge influence through employment law
Indeed, influence which the companies will often buy.
> These two are smaller or eroding, but the biggest point is this third
>
> 3) A business can not leave unless another government is able to offer
> better.
A large multinational business can do so and thus play one government
off against another.
> The country's economy is being undermined by excessive
> legslation (in the classical example),
Legislation which can help big companies by reducing the threat of
competition and opening up the country's markets to their products.
> not by the company's decision to move.
A company can use the threat of moving to get a better deal...
> If the company remains, and makes no money, then it will
> still be doing the country no real good anyway
The question is whether it does the company any good. It can stay and
make money via persuading the government to enact policies that reduce
competition.
> >But big business is not
> >accountable to the people who suffer the impact of such decisions.
>
> But they are to some extent. The shareholders are affected by such
> decisions.
That depends on how many shareholders are in the counrty being
withdrawn from.
> >You might argue that it is accountable to its consumers and
> >shareholders -- however a big multinational company can e.g. play one
> >group of consumers off against the another,
>
> Only by losing some
Not necessarily -- and even if so if they get a deal that enables them
to dominate the markets of one country/area that may make up for it in
increased profits due to the ability to charge higher prices.
> >influence the government
> >to adopt policies that make it difficult for new companies to enter
> >the market,
>
> Which is explicitly anti-free-market
And something it is in the interests of both governments and companies
to do. My point being that collusion between the state (or even the
anarcho-capitalist law enforcement agencies) and big business is an
ever present threat to the "free" market.
> >ISTM there are only 2 ways big business gets held to account --
>
> Accountable to whom?
The people who suffer the consequences of its decisions.
> >subject them to government regulation so that they can be held to
> >account by democratically elected officials
>
> Yes
>
> >or remove the obstacles to
> >new entrants to their markets and enable consumers to exercise their
> >power to take custom elsewhere.
>
> Yes
>
> >But because such businesses are so
> >influential it can be difficult do either in a truly effective manner.
>
> Only because (to the extent that) goverment does not meet its
> obligations to free up markets.Hence the need for multinational
> institutions
There is another reason which is that big business and governments
have a common interest in colluding in order to hold onto their
power.
> >> >I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
> >> >on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
> >> >for the better?
> >>
> >> I think that the system is far more fragile than many assume.
> >
> >Why? What points of fragility exist?
>
> Bananas, Pat Robertson, the French, hormone beef, environmental
> laws, Seattle, french farmers, CAP, large corporates with weak
> governments, the rise of 'free trade areas' etc
I fail to see how any of these are points of fragility, i.e. things
that could bring the system tumbling down.
Lord Limbic
"James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:qapueao...@omega.tardis.ed.ac.uk...
> "Lord Limbic" <limb...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
SNIP
> > LOL! I noticed this too. I am not sure why this is happening right now.
> > Perhaps the lack of a major external ideological threat means that the
> > revolutionaries (cause there are always some) must act from the inside
out.
>
> But might it be that the current system, although good at producing
> economic growth, also involves a lot of power and privilege accruing
> to a small elite, combined with a loss of control by individuals over
> their own affairs, or by communities over their affairs and that there
> is also therefore a reaction against it for that reason?
Excellent point.
SNIP
> > >I do accept that the euro
> > > may be a liberty issue, as one esteemed (by me at least) poster
> > > suggests.
> >
> > I have not see this particular thread (or failed to notice it). Do you
> > remember the name?
>
> Abelard's essay on the euro (see his site) argues that it is a civil
> liberties issue. Mind you, I've not seen a thread on this for a while
> (unless you count Bob Sims blaming everything that is bad/wrong on the
> EU).
Thanks, I will take a look at Abe's essay.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Ok, so we have three reactions
> > > 1) Anti-immigrant
> > > 2) Increasing distrust of 'global' institutions
> > > 3) Anti-capitalism
> > > to three main trends
> > > A) Economic liberalism
> > > B) The rise of global institutions
> > > C) Declining 'community spirit'
> > >
> > >
> > > To me, this raises a few further questions:
> > >
> > > (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
> > > liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
> > > alleviation of poverty in history?
> >
> > Whether we were prepared to or not is nearly irrelevant - the market is
a
> > machine that will grow until it runs out of resources. The market also
lives
> > on economic liberalism. I do not think we could 'stop' or 'suspend
economic
> > liberalism even if we wanted to.
>
> I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
> on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
> for the better?
Precisely. That or we wait around for external circumstances to ruin it. The
US militia nutcases hoped and prayed that Y2K would fatally damage the world
economy and spark of a neo-primitive society in which they would be masters
and the 'race war' they long for could happen. Maybe we need to start hoping
for something similar (but for different reasons)?
Then again, maybe it is time for me to re-read Society of the Spectacle
again? [ http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5 ]
Kind regards
Lord Limbic
Lord Limbic
<ma...@public-record.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eetrdtg8tn8nacvt7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:48:03 +0100, "Lord Limbic"
> <limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Consider briefly the 'reactions'.
> >> 1) Anti-immigrant feeling across a broad spectrum, ranging from the
> >> frankly ignorant and prejudiced to a more open-minded exploration of
> >> the net contribution of immigrants to modern British society. The
> >> presence of so much emotional rubbish on this subject, and the
> >> resonance it appears to evoke among people who 'ought to know better'
> >> is suggestive to me that this issue addresses something important,
> >> well beyond childish, atavistic xenophobia. I note that 'PC' is being
> >> wrapped into this debate
> >
> >What are your thoughts Matt (i.e. what do you think about immigration?)
>
> Depends. I don't like the quality of much of the debate on this issue
> that goes on on this newsgroup, and so I try to steer clear of it.
> Nonetheless, I will have an (abelardian) go at the question...
Yeah, it is getting worse and I am sorry to say I have sunk into the mire
too often lately.
> 'Immigration' is just a word. I have no opinion on it. A seemingly
> trivial point, but it does raise the question of what is being mapped
> onto it.
>
> I am in favour of a generous policy towards asylum seekers in those
> cases where asylum is even plausible. I do so for three reasons:
>
> 1) Moral: I am in favour of helping those who have had few chances to
> get another crack at life's pleasures.
Morally sound - altruistic - but practical?
> 2) Economic: I do not think that this country is so poor that it can
> not afford to look after those who have no chance at a safe life in
> their own country. Expressed differently, I am happy to pay for those
> who have been abused to start again here
That is noble. Do you begrudge your fellow citizens who do not share that
sentiment? You not think that it might be better and fairer to your fellow
citizens to give your money(?) to those improving the homelands of these
people rather then bring them here. You help could reach them there as
easily as here. Give a man a fish and all that. The supply of people is
growing not dwindling. Eventually you will supplant so many people here that
you will simply mirror conditions in their homeland - except for a
privileged elite who's wealth keeps them safe. Another way of seeing it is -
don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by inviting people to mine
the gold *inside* the goose.
> 3) Political: It is in the interests fo all of us that people struggle
> in their own countries to defeat corrupt govts and so on. Not only
> does it improve us all morally, it aids their economic growth (and
> thus ours through trade), and provides another place where democracy
> thrives, thus keeping the pressure on our own govts to continually
> extend liberty at home.
Do wee need to supplant whole populations to do this? Surely just the
leaders will do?
> The incentive to stick your head above the parapet at home is, I
> imagine, significantly enhanced if you are confident of getting out
> and being able to start again if it all goes wrong.
I see your point.
> How far should this extend? Certainly to a nuclear family, otherwise
> the right is so restricted as to be meaningless. Beyond this it needs
> to be on a case-by-case basis. This is expensive, and runs the risk of
> being arbitrary, but I consider it worth the candle (in the absence of
> decent info to the contrary)
A difficult question and a very difficult situation to manage. Nuclear
family - mom dad kids. What about brothers, sisters, grandparents etc. Also
the scale is enormous. As it is we have 195,000 inbound a year - a whole
London borough. We need to be honest about the financial and social cost of
all this before we 'inflict' it on people.
> With regard to wider (economic) immigration - I would happily say that
> anyone with a degree from a recognised university can come in, period.
So many degrees are useless economically. We would be better of getting
tradesmen, skilled labourers and IT people. Degree is too wide, I think.
> There might be a large quota to stop there being ten million new
> people, but I would be quite happy to leave that to the details. For
> the rest, I would take on a few additional people who had skill sets
> that were needed.
Ten million - in a years, 10 years - over what timescale?
> I would not necessarily allow anyone beyond the nuclear family of an
> economic migrant in. Again a case-by-case basis, and I would happily
> make it 'means-tested'.
Again the red tape, the abuse by criminals, the protests at home. I do not
think it workable or fair to those here already. If they held a referendum
and asked maybe - otherwise - no.
> >> 2) An increasingly weird collection of 'NWO' conspiracy theories. At
> >> the lunatic fringe, the UN is amassing tanks in Minnesota to take out
> >> Texas. Closer to home perhaps, the Jews (as ever) are taking over the
> >> world. And the EU is becoming less and less accountable, the euro is
> >> an attack on civil rights and so on.
> >
> >This is probably the American X-files/area 51/black
> >helicopter/militia/Jewnited nations/Illuminati/Freemasons etc etc etc
lunacy
> >gradually seeping into British minds. This stuff started in earnest in
the
> >1990 in the USA and is still massive. Check out http://www.disinfo.com
>
> Indeed. So the question is: why does anyone believe this crap?
Secular religions filling the vacuum created by the decline of Christianity.
>
> >> 3) An endless stream of 'anti-capitalist' positions, exclusively
> >> devoted to complaining about 'the system'. Culminating in the (frankly
> >> pathetic) thread that was supposed to be only about 'what's wrong with
> >> capitalism', not 'compare capitalism with anything else'. But not all
> >> posters go so far, there are positions against all privatisation, just
> >> some, just Railtrack. Take your pick.
> >
> >LOL! I noticed this too. I am not sure why this is happening right now.
> >Perhaps the lack of a major external ideological threat means that the
> >revolutionaries (cause there are always some) must act from the inside
out.
>
> Maybe. Maybe it's just whining. What I am disappointed about, is that,
> as ever, there is so little dissemination of what is known. Why do
> people argue that they are 'slaves to the wage'? Weren't Neanderthals
> 'slaves to the hunt'? It's just a feature of the human condition that
> 'everyone has to serve someone'
Have another look at those old Situationists
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/35
>
> >> Note that (even) I agree with some of these positions: I'm not sure
> >> that elements of the community (especially, I am unhappy to say,
> >> blacks) are helping themselves move forward or others' perceptions of
> >> them. The recent article in "The Voice" that was the subject of a
> >> thread on this newsgroup suggested the same.
> >
> >It is less 'blacks'
>
> Indeed. And it's only some 'blacks'.
True.
>
> >and more people claiming to speak for blacks - often
> >whites and wealth blacks, a comprador class - who do real damage to race
> >relations by constantly going on about the invidious nature of the white
> >race and racism - usually to justify increased powers for themselves or
> >their agencies.
>
> No doubt there is some of that going on. Nor can there be any real
> doubt that the police and other institutions are racist, in the sense
> that the individuals share prejudices about races. What is so sad is
> that these institutions are forced to 'defend' themselves, when the
> correct response IMO is to say 'yes we're racist - are you telling me
> you are not?'
Excellent point. Un-demonise it and the malaise will out - people will feel
confident enough to try and take courses or consciously avoid stereotypes or
automatic thinking.
> IMExperience, we are all racist at some level. I see a stupid person
> on the tube - if they're white I say 'stupid bastard', if they're
> black I think 'dumb black bastard'.
This is one of the hallmarks of humanity. It is common to all groups and
'races'.
>Combine that with some different
> cultural norms, (e.g. black youths are generally noisier IME) and you
> have a set of prejudice compounded by 'anecdotal evidence'.
This is called story-based thinking. Get yourself and excellent book called
Everyday Irrationality by Robyn M. Dawes - worth the read.
> None of this excuses the more egregious examples of racism, nor
> removes the need for all of us to consider our role in this unfolding
> disaster.
You should look at the Peter Sutherland chapter I posted about
http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/ingroups_outgroups.htm .
Fascinating.
> Nor does it excusse those who, as you suggest, try to make capital out
> of the inherently difficult task of accepting and living with 'the
> other'
True
> >There are massive misapprehensions about the 'black
> >community. The black community is no more a community than the 'white'
> >community. All that unites it is the shared sense of collective
wrongdoing
> >at the hands of whites. As this dissipates - the myth of black
homogeneity
> >dissolves with it.
>
> Indeed
>
> >That is a good thing. It is trapping people in
> >stereotypes, makes it hard for black people to criticize members of their
> >own community for fear of being branded sell-out or Oreos or helping
racists
> >whites. It is similar to charges levelled against people in public life
and
> >on this newsgroup that racial matters are off topic because they may be
used
> >may be used by unsavoury people.
>
> Indeed. And the quality of debate on this newsgroup on race is so
> poor, that I rarely if ever choose to participate
Wise. Very wise.
>
> >>I do accept that the euro
> >> may be a liberty issue, as one esteemed (by me at least) poster
> >> suggests.
> >
> >I have not see this particular thread (or failed to notice it). Do you
> >remember the name?
>
> Check abe's site on this issue. I am sure that there have been threads
> on it, but the source is on his site
James say's so too, I will look.
SNIP
> >> What is a more valid concern, again IMO, is the rising difference
> >> between the top and bottom of the income scales. It is probably worth
> >> being clear that these income differentials are 'real' in the sense
> >> that the most productive people in society are *vastly* more
> >> productive than the least.
> >
> >Does this mean that their rewards (pay, bonus' etc) are congruent with
their
> >productivity?
>
> Hard to know. On balance I would argue, probably yes. Maybe it's too
> far out of whack in the US, I don't know. I do know that I was part of
> small team (under 20) that created about half a billion quid last
> year. So conservatively my worth in this was 20 million quid. Others
> played bigger part. They were worth maybe 50 million quid. In the same
> company, there are people who just cover their salary - worth nearly
> zero. They might get 30K, so what's a 50 million quid person worth?
Very hard to assess.
>
> >>They represent real differences in economic
> >> value created. A colossal body of literature, again largely unread,
> >> shows how significant are the differences between the most productive
> >> and the least productive. What the income differentials do not
> >> represent are 'moral value', however individuals tend to assign it.
> >> Capitalism as practised tends to merge economic and societal value by
> >> equating 'rich' with 'successful'. In so doing, liberal capitalism
> >> tends to set up a situation in which people are told (indirectly,
> >> through advertising etc) that they must be wealthy - then denies that
> >> status (as wealth is somewhat relative) to most of the population.
> >> This denial of status is behind much of the complaints about liberal
> >> capitalism IMO. I do not know how to address it.
> >
> >This is fascinating. Could you clear up what you mean by "complaints
about
> >liberal capitalism".
>
> I see much of the leftist economics on this group as being of this
> sort. 'The bosses take all the wealth', 'capitalism is slavery', 'it's
> all about screwing the poor' etc
Agreed.
>
> >Do you mean that when people are unhappy it is not really about material
> >deprivation (after all we are all super rich compared to our
forefathers) -
> >but about status and its attendant self respect/esteem?
>
> Absolutely. To the extent that poverty is a cause of unhappiness, a
> proportion of it can be alleviated through absolute rises in wealth.
> For example - having your mum die early fucks you up. If you have 50
> bucks, you can buy the antibiotics that allow you to save her.
>
> Another proportion is due to your relative position - "am I so
> worthless compared to him/her? I don't feel it. Why does society value
> me so lowly?"
>
> Again there are studies that show that bushmen are not any less happy
> than modern man. Perhaps there is a lot in the saying that happiness
> equals "reality less expectations"
Excellent points
>
> >> To me, this raises a few further questions:
> >>
> >> (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
> >> liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
> >> alleviation of poverty in history?
> >
> >Whether we were prepared to or not is nearly irrelevant - the market is a
> >machine that will grow until it runs out of resources. The market also
lives
> >on economic liberalism. I do not think we could 'stop' or 'suspend
economic
> >liberalism even if we wanted to.
>
> The market, free economics, these are choices. We can reverse them, as
> happened in the first world war. As is happening over social freedoms.
> They require active effort to maintain.
True
>
> >> (2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
> >> we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
> >> to ameliorate them?
> >
> >Redundancy for many many people.
>
> But unemployment is *lower* in liberal societies...
True...
> Job security is less though... for those with nothing to offer
> prospective employers. But whther the unskilled get jobs is far more a
> function of whether they have other sources of income than it is on
> their 'opportunities'. After all, to a genuinely starving man,
> sweeping the streets is an 'opportunity'
>
> >> (3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
> >> institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
> >> national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
> >> rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
> >
> >Elect their officials though massive popular votes.
>
> What would be the turnout do you think for the head of the WTO? How
> wold you asses his/her performance? I don't know that it could be
> done... Maybe it could
Accountability is the problem.
>
> >> (4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
> >> community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
> >> requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
> >
> >Toughest question of the lot. Can we undo secular humanism, can we undo
> >consumerism, can we undo individualism?
>
> (In turn:) I hope not, I hope so, I think we need this in balance.
OK : )
> >The complexities involved in the bowling alone syndrome are intimidating
> >intricate. Have you actually read Putnam's book? I want to know if I
should
> >buy it or not.
>
> No, but I should (along with the thirty thousand others). A good
> precis was offered by a poster recently...
I saw it.
>
> >I need to do some more mulling before I respond any more.
> >
> >An excellent post by the way. It is a pity so may people will be put off
by
> >the size. Why don't you publish it on the web.
>
> Cheers, I might do this. Your cajoling on this issue was helpful
Just do it - as the corporate brand slave meme bots might chant.
Regards
Lord Limbic
Anton
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cliffm-1904...@th-gt144-149.pool.dircon.co.uk...
I find it interesting that a "middle class" agenda takes up so much of
politics today. There are a lot of people around who couldn't give a stuff
about dolphin-friendly tuna, and would be much more interested if a Labour
Chancellor dropped the penal taxes on booze and fags, or raised the basic
state pension instead of fannying around with tax offsets for working
middle class mothers. The capture of the Labour agenda by the knit-your-
own yoghurt agenda seems to have disenfranchised these people- which I
think long-term is very dangerous.
The chancellor taking so much income from the unrich via taxes on booze,
fags
& petrol, and the rise of the proportion of people getting means-tested
benefits is not theorising- it's fact. Unprecedented in modern times, the
Tories
held the proportion of GDP taken by the State at around the same level for
17 years. As Brown rakes more & more money in for him to spend, the
unrich in particular have their choices [or "decision-making rights"]
reduced.
--
Anton
Cliff Morrison
>> >I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
>> >on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
>> >for the better?
If that is the case then to get a degree of change (though it would pretty
much be on their terms, afaics with their *political* power basically left
intact) campaign for the "Binary Economics" approach.
I considered the binary economics proposal but rejected it as I think the
system is way too rotten right the way through for it to be a genuine
solution; there's a serious danger that the present system would (mis)use
such partial reform as a means of saving, entrenching and sustaining
itself.
Anton
<ma...@public-record.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ttcudtkmvdfn3navv...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:21:28 +0100, "anton"
> <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Anti-immigrant reactions are surely a function of the amount of
immigration,
> >and to some extent the level of unemployment i.e. not A), B), or C).
>
> I don't agree. Free markets imply free movement of labour,
Agreed- certainly within a country.
> which implies more immigration.
I don't see why free markets can't co-exist with with a wide range of
different policies on immigration (or asylum-seeking). At the moment,
if there's a shortage of nurses willing to work for the current pay &
condition in London, the govt imports some. It would be just as
compatible with free markets to move the hospitals, or raise the pay,
or improve the terms of service. [I'm not saying that importing nurses is
wrong, just that it is not a necessary result of a freeish market system.]
> >Anti-capitalism 3) hangs its hat to some extent on the WTO, for instance,
> >but is it genuinely a product of the rise of the WTO?- I don't think so:
if
> >the WTO didn't exist I think the same people would feel strongly about,
for
> >instance, the oil giants.
>
> Sure. I do think though that the two are concomitant with liberalism.
> Economic liberalism stimulates anti-capitalism on a grand scale and
> the WTO
Anti-capitalism on a *grand* scale? I dunno what a small scale would be,
then. Compared with, let's say, the demos & protest movements in the
late 1960s, I would have thought that today's anti-capitalists would
recognise
that they are a fleabite.
> >>(1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
> >>liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
> >>alleviation of poverty in history?
> >
> >Why does this question arise? I didn't notice anything you've said to
> >suggest that slowing economic liberalism would help any of the problems
you
> >raise.[If there was & I've snipped it, I apologise]
>
> I don't think that there is. I wouldn't reverse the liberalisation.
> But many would. I want to know both how we liberals will ameliorate
> the effects fo liberalism ,
But what are these effects that are so bad?
> and how the others will provide the growth
They won't- the other systems of State/Communist/Fascist control have
failed,
or are failing.
> >>(3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
> >>institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
> >>national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
rights
> >are as close to the people they affect as possible?
> >
> >Surely the thrust of {economic?} liberalism is towards people making the
> >decisions about themselves, and governments [at any level]making fewer
> >decisions? You can't get closer "decision-making rights" than that.
>
> To some extent. But decisions on bananas aren't made by us. Nor on
> hormone treated beef. Or dolphin-friendly tuna. They're made by the EU
> and WTO
Well, you really want to take a lot of decisions, don't you? The decisions
on dolphin-friendly tuna were taken daily by millions of shoppers. Some
bought the d-f t as soon as it was available, some didn't. I'm sure that if
Tesco at any point had had a million letters saying it was irresponsible to
stock non d-f t, they would have stopped immediately. I'm beginning
to worry about the "us" that you want to take the decisions. Who are "us"?
[snip]
>
> >My personal answer to the header question is that there is a widespread
> >feeling of frustration with this govt [snip]
> I think it goes a long way past this govt. It's in all countries...
The spoilt little rich kids on the streets of Seattle are not a movement
yet, and
they may never become one. The concerns of many, if not most, people are
much nearer home: jobs, friends, family, money, health- maybe crime, or time
taken
to get to work. The frustration felt by parts of the environmental
movements is a
middle-class agenda that frankly is not pre-eminent in most people's lives,
and I
suspect is likely to stay that way.
What concerns me greatly is that while the Islington politicians eat their
health
food, the discussions in the Dagenham pubs are of another nature completely.
While special interest groups on animal rights, environmental issues, etc
fill the
airwaves & the printed media, there is a gulf developing. This gulf is the
disenfranchisement & alienation of many ordinary working people from the
political parties, *not* the frustration of committed, educated, caring,
wonderful,
middle-class environmentally-friendly usenet people. If it continues &
widens
then what sort of political creature will appear to fill it?
--
Anton
Gordon Monohan
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The complexities involved in the bowling alone syndrome are intimidating
>intricate. Have you actually read Putnam's book? I want to know if I should
>buy it or not.
Chapter 1 is in several places on the net. A portion of a review
was:
"In a groundbreaking book based on vast new data,
Putnam shows how we have become increasingly
disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and our
democratic structures-- ... "
...
"Putnam warns that our stock of social capital - the very
fabric of our connections with each other, has
plummeted, impoverishing our lives and communities.
Putnam draws on evidence including nearly 500,000
interviews over the last quarter century to show that we
sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know
our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even
socialize with our families less often. We're
even bowling alone. More Americans are bowling than ever before, but
they are not bowling in leagues. Putnam shows how changes in work,
family structure, age, suburban life, television, computers, women's
roles and other factors have contributed to this decline. "
Credit and thanks to wherever I got that from, it was early. :-)
And the frog boils,
-gm
"Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything."
- - Joseph Stalin
Gordon Monohan
>>> 2) An increasingly weird collection of 'NWO' conspiracy theories. At
>>> the lunatic fringe, the UN is amassing tanks in Minnesota to take out
>>> Texas. Closer to home perhaps, the Jews (as ever) are taking over the
>>> world. And the EU is becoming less and less accountable, the euro is
>>> an attack on civil rights and so on.
>>
>>This is probably the American X-files/area 51/black
>>helicopter/militia/Jewnited nations/Illuminati/Freemasons etc etc etc lunacy
>>gradually seeping into British minds. This stuff started in earnest in the
>>1990 in the USA and is still massive. Check out http://www.disinfo.com
>
>Indeed. So the question is: why does anyone believe this crap?
Possibly a more incisively pertinent question would be why do the same
people who 10 years ago would have dismissed all 'conspiracy' theories
out of hand now give some of them a second look.
Why did an average non-political guy tell me 20 minutes ago that he
was already familiar with(though had not read) the book 'bowling
alone', and that although he was not sure what it was about he knew
that it was concerned with the reasons that his this society and
hence, his life, was no longer as it once was.
-gm
"When it rains, the righteous get just as wet as the wicked."
Jeremy Barker
record.co.uk writes
>Watching the recent developments on this newsgroup, I have been struck
>by a couple of themes, (notably immigration, the EU/NATzO/WTO/UN/NWO
>and the problems of liberal capitalism) reflecting what I believe are
>reactions to three trends in the wider world. These trends are a mixed
>blessing, and my concern is that a blunt, or indiscriminate response
>is potentially damaging.
>
>
>1) Anti-immigrant feeling across a broad spectrum, ranging from the
>frankly ignorant and prejudiced to a more open-minded exploration of
>the net contribution of immigrants to modern British society. The
>presence of so much emotional rubbish on this subject, and the
>resonance it appears to evoke among people who 'ought to know better'
>is suggestive to me that this issue addresses something important,
>well beyond childish, atavistic xenophobia. I note that 'PC' is being
>wrapped into this debate
>
embedded in our culture. The difficult thing is to treat it rationally,
and it is quite understandable when many do not. Greater availability of
information and ease of travel increases the number of people who want
to move. Thus there is a genuine problem, though it is commonly
exaggerated. What evidence I have seen does not show that immigration is
either a specially large or burning issue.
>2) An increasingly weird collection of 'NWO' conspiracy theories. At
>the lunatic fringe, the UN is amassing tanks in Minnesota to take out
>Texas. Closer to home perhaps, the Jews (as ever) are taking over the
>world. And the EU is becoming less and less accountable, the euro is
>an attack on civil rights and so on.
>
It is easy to demonise distant objects. There are good
and bad aspects to most international organisations and some people
specialise in emphasising the bad.
>3) An endless stream of 'anti-capitalist' positions, exclusively
>devoted to complaining about 'the system'. Culminating in the (frankly
>pathetic) thread that was supposed to be only about 'what's wrong with
>capitalism', not 'compare capitalism with anything else'. But not all
>posters go so far, there are positions against all privatisation, just
>some, just Railtrack. Take your pick.
>
There is plenty to criticise. Capitalism is changing
rapidly, and it takes time for popular thinking to catch up. So it is
naturally hard to reach a balanced opinion.
snip
>I see three trends operating in the external world that are driving
>this.
>(A)
>Look first at economic liberalism. Though few people appear to have
>bothered to read the data, recent (e.g. over the last two-three
>decades) economic liberalism has delivered the fastest rise out of
>poverty for the largest number of people in history. Though the data
>are dominated by the impact of Chinese growth following Deng's
>liberalisation, much of SE Asia has emerged from poverty, and India is
>now better positioned for growth than ever before.
>Whilst this does of course throw up new and urgent questions regarding
>the sustainability of growth under the existing (hydrocarbon-fuelled)
>models, these questions do not invalidate the hugely positive impact
>on the wealth of the poor nations, as well as the rich.
Agreed.
>
>Nor, IMO, is it plausible that we are moving towards a 'world of
>leisure', where most people are redundant. I expect, certainly over
>the next five decades that there will always be more work, because
>there will always be more demand. Lower teacher-pupil ratios, better
>healthcare, more massages, better coffee etc. Just because the base of
>Mazlow's pyramid is increasingly satisfied, doesn't mean that the top
>of the pyramid won't expand to keep demand for new services high.
Again agreed. There is a wide variety of work patterns
even amongst the rich countries. It would be nice to see a greater
choice in this country. One gets a picture of people being burnt out by
50 through stress and long hours.
>What is a more valid concern, again IMO, is the rising difference
>between the top and bottom of the income scales. It is probably worth
>being clear that these income differentials are 'real' in the sense
>that the most productive people in society are *vastly* more
>productive than the least. They represent real differences in economic
>value created. A colossal body of literature, again largely unread,
>shows how significant are the differences between the most productive
>and the least productive.
>What the income differentials do not
>represent are 'moral value', however individuals tend to assign it.
Income differentials have widened dramatically for
technological reasons. But cultural values also play an important part.
Differentials are low in Japan even though its manufacturing industries
are mostly the best in the world. The same to a lesser extent in
Germany. All work to be successful has to be co-operative.
>Capitalism as practised tends to merge economic and societal value by
>equating 'rich' with 'successful'. In so doing, liberal capitalism
>tends to set up a situation in which people are told (indirectly,
>through advertising etc) that they must be wealthy - then denies that
>status (as wealth is somewhat relative) to most of the population.
>This denial of status is behind much of the complaints about liberal
>capitalism IMO. I do not know how to address it.
>
Wealth may bring status, but they are not the same thing
- see below about "positional" goods.
>(B)
>The second trend is partly to do with this 'globalisation' - the
>creation of institutions that can police the behaviour of the states
>that with to benefit from the liberalisation.
I think we are in danger of mixing up several different
strands. The WTO is successor to GATT. There is nothing new in these
organisations themselves. One big change has been the freeing of capital
flows. It is easy to see its economic advantages but it has also brought
severe problems with it. Somehow it needs taming. The other change is
the revolution in communications. However, the bulk of international
trade is still between the rich countries.
Where production has been moved from a rich to a poor
country, I think the poor country has usually gained, the rich country
may or may not have gained, and usually the multinationals have gained
more than either.
I don't doubt the gains that in the world as a whole
have been achieved, but you can see from the above that there is plenty
of scope for grumbling.
>The obvious examples are
>the WTO - object of the Seattle protests, and to a lesser extent (in
>the UK at least), the UN. But the EU is another excellent example, and
>NATO also comes in for criticism (though I think that this is a
>different case in many respects, not least that it's primary purpose
>is 'national security' (in the sense that 'defence' means 'attack')
>and it preceded the more recent economic globalisation. These
>institutions are too distant from the man in the street to be
>accountable. MPs and national governments seem more accountable, they
>do respond to public opinion (on occasion), and the man in the street
>does have some ability to 'keep the bastards honest' - as Neil
>Hamilton found out to his cost last time around.
>The large global institutions are not accountable to the man in the
>street in any meaningful way. Yet they are clearly powerful actors on
>the world stage. And national governments like to pass the blame on to
>these faceless organisations: Why can't we offer some subsidy to
>maintain your job - the EU forbids it.
>What this means is that the role of the individual and the local
>community in deciding their joint fate appears to be declining. Is
>this an accurate perception? Hard to know, but I imagine that the
>populace had little enough say in fighting WWI for example.
>Note that national governments are also struggling with this lack of
>control. IMO, this lies in part behind the endless attacks on civil
>liberties (if you can't control through patronage, do so through
>compulsion)
>
Positional goods are those which are by their nature
limited in their supply. Only one person can be PM. The house with the
best view is only available to one owner. And this applies to all sorts
of things in varying degrees throughout society. Thus as society gets
richer the very rich may achieve their ambition but the next in line may
be frustrated. (The concept was developed by Fred Hirsch in his book
"Limits to Social Growth").
>(C)
>The third trend is this 'bowling alone' phenomenon. It appears to be
>rising, and it aligned with the expected impact of greater
>individualism. It reinforces the sense of powerlessness that clearly
>some struggle with - as atoms we are less powerful than together. It
>exacerbates and is exacerbated by the income inequality created by
>liberalism. And it serves to increase intolerance, the 'us and them'
>mentality. It makes it far easier to hold the other in *contempt* -
>based on a total lack of understanding of the other's position,
>mindset, lifestyle, basic conditions of existence.
>
There are now far more educated and informed people who
would like to take part in our democracy than a few years ago. But it is
very difficult to create a meaningful consultation process, and the more
involved the more difficult it is. So the recurrent theme that the
government takes no notice of us is hardly surprising. The decline in
socialising has, as you say, made things worse.
>Ok, so we have three reactions
>1) Anti-immigrant
>2) Increasing distrust of 'global' institutions
>3) Anti-capitalism
>to three main trends
>A) Economic liberalism
>B) The rise of global institutions
>C) Declining 'community spirit'
>
>
>To me, this raises a few further questions:
>
>(1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>alleviation of poverty in history?
>
There are lots of modifications that can be made without
slowing down growth. I agree that we should be careful not to put
spanners into the system.
>(2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
>we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
>to ameliorate them?
>
There are many possible trade-offs and each would have
to be considered separately.
>(3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
>institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
>national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
>rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
>
Nearly all multinationals are based in one country. So
we have a direct influence over those in Britain. I guess there has to
be some co-ordination of policy with other countries.
>(4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
>community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
>requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
Don't know. I feel some redistribution of income is
necessary. There has to be a long hard slog to bring back deprived and
isolated communities into main stream society. We have to find ways for
people to participate in local affairs and if possible in national
affairs too. (I don't see why junior ministers couldn't hold open court
on the net to deal with some of the repeated criticisms they get).
Jeremy Barker
Innumerable forms of evaluation haunt our simplest decisions
Iris Murdoch
James Hammerton
> >> >I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
> >> >on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
> >> >for the better?
>
> If that is the case then to get a degree of change (though it would pretty
> much be on their terms, afaics with their *political* power basically left
> intact) campaign for the "Binary Economics" approach.
What is binary economics?
Paris
news:r7dudtco85t1590gd...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:16:31 +0100, "Paris" <odes...@my-deja.com>
> >No, the exponential technology curve has done that.
>
> So tell me how it's made the Chinese so much richer
I suppose electrons are positively charged under a national socialist
regime?
> >Economics is what people study when they aren't bright enough to know
that
> >technology is actually driving forward the human race.
>
> Hardly. The two (economics and bellief in technology) are not
> exclusive. Perhaps you should study some econimics.
But if people continue to attribute the rise in living standards of this
century to anything other than
the march of technology, then they are deluding themselves.
Economics is just mud in the water, throw away your Keynes books..
Good..
Now we've taken a step towards Star Trek, and a step away from blade runner.
> >It is no better than witchcraft.
>
> Right
It does nothing.. It is utterly false...
My life is enhanced by technology, not economics.
I'm no better off in England than I would be in many other countries...
despite our 'G7' Status.
Has our economics given my country a much better standard of living than the
Japanese?
I suppose it is economics that is responsible for 3rd world under
achievement?
> >It is amusing to think that these people actually believe that financial
> >disparity is caused solely by the achievements of individuals.
>
> I don't know if anyone does.
You just did.
> >They place no emphesis on education, background, up-brining, breaks,
social
> >handicaps, glass ceilings and so on...
>
> None of these are exlcuded by my original comment
You implied that success is wholly dependant on personal input.
> >That is why these people should be given no credit for intelligence..
Their
> >whole world view is based on a subjective
> >assesment on reality which is founded on a fatuous assumption.
>
> Whatever. Go back and read the post
Yeah yeah...
> >> (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
> >> liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
> >> alleviation of poverty in history?
> >
> >It hasn't.
>
> And your evidence?
Did Marx invent the Microwave oven?
Perhaps some other famous economist was responsible for the manufacturing of
Breeze Blocks?
With technology at elizibethan levels, you'd live like an elizibethan
(Ist)...
NOTHING has changed except technology in the history of mankind..
Read The Odyssey... See for yourself.....
People laugh, cry, live and die the same as the ever have.. Only now they do
it in space age fleecy warmth...
Can you tell me how you see that economics is responsible for the increase
in our standard of living?
> >> (2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
> >> we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
> >> to ameliorate them?
> >
> >The side effects are a gradual slide towards an anarchy which is tilted
> >towards those with large amounts of capital.
>
> Yet the evidence suggests that the role of the state is increasing to
> the extent that civil liberties and freedoms are being reduced. This
> doesnt end in anarchy, but fascism
This is your slightly humerous take on socialism
The capitalist mantra is CAPITALISM=FREEDOM and SOCIALISM=RESTRICTION
But surely this depends upon your vantage point?
Am I free when I am denied education or healthcare.. Will my children be
free?
You want to eat your cake and have it... You want freedom to not have to pay
tax... and freedom not to
have to answer for the damage such policies cause to the advancement of
humanity.
Your policies are simply the policies of base greed, they have no
intellectual value whatsoever...
> >> (3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
> >> institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
> >> national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
> >> rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
> >
> >We cannot. When you cede power to a group or individual under conditions
of
> >Anarchy, they recieve total power.
> >Before long, the laws which have hitherto defended the small against the
> >powerful will fall under the juristiction of the
> >people who are now running the world.
> >This has happened to a large extent already, hence the various wars...
>
> Please expand...
It's that simple.. Under conditions of anarchy, power is absolute.
> >What Thatcher started at the behest of others is the demolition of
genuine
> >democracy and the ceding of power to the financially strong.
> At the behest of the Illuminati?
You can sneer all you like....
If I openly professed to belong to an organisation with political
aspirations and openly used nepotism to put like minded people
in positions of notable authority....
If the objectives I professed to want were visibly being fulfilled, and the
methods I said I was going to use are visibly being used...
Would you not be even a little suspicious when people claimed that I wasn't
doing anything?
'Just because I am paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't watching me..'
You see, you don't care who is behind the NWO, how it came about, is being
fostered, or what it's objectives are...
You only care about counting beans...You stand in the trough of the wave of
history and claim to have a machine which can see over them...
You don't care about what has been smashed to make way for it, or what might
have been where it not for it.... I do.
Cliff Morrison
<ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison) writes:
>
> > >> >I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
> > >> >on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
> > >> >for the better?
> >
> > If that is the case then to get a degree of change (though it would pretty
> > much be on their terms, afaics with their *political* power basically left
> > intact) campaign for the "Binary Economics" approach.
>
> What is binary economics?
Oh dear.
Outside of the really far-intoit econo buffs,
I'm one of the few who would even try explaining it!
*Very* roughly, It's sort of stakeholding; everyone being allocated a
representation of a basket of dividend-bearing shares (afaik,
non-transferrable) in the big corporates. Suppose it might appeal to
libertarians as a potential withering away of the State, but (although
more or less within the existing system I do approve the Alaska citizens
dividend) there is too much else in the corporate/political/social nexus
as is that I'm opposed to, for me to be willing to risk its attaining any
(false) legitimacy via the adoption of BE...
--------------------
James, I'll send you the e-mail of one of BE's leading advocates (it isn't
fringe economics, btw) in case you want to ask more about it; very nice
chap, but he'd probably say my description is all wrong...
Lord Limbic
Thanks
>
> --------------------
>
> James, I'll send you the e-mail of one of BE's leading advocates (it isn't
> fringe economics, btw) in case you want to ask more about it; very nice
> chap, but he'd probably say my description is all wrong...
Please copy me in : )
Regards
Lord Limbic
ma...@public-record.co.uk
What is 'binary economics'?
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
<limb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Depends. I don't like the quality of much of the debate on this issue
>> that goes on on this newsgroup, and so I try to steer clear of it.
>> Nonetheless, I will have an (abelardian) go at the question...
>
>Yeah, it is getting worse and I am sorry to say I have sunk into the mire
>too often lately.
Maybe we should try to produce a FAQ?
>> 1) Moral: I am in favour of helping those who have had few chances to
>> get another crack at life's pleasures.
>
>Morally sound - altruistic - but practical?
If I'm paying the tax, then yes. Most of the people I hear whining on
this group do not pay the piper...
>> 2) Economic: I do not think that this country is so poor that it can
>> not afford to look after those who have no chance at a safe life in
>> their own country. Expressed differently, I am happy to pay for those
>> who have been abused to start again here
>
>That is noble. Do you begrudge your fellow citizens who do not share that
>sentiment? You not think that it might be better and fairer to your fellow
>citizens to give your money(?) to those improving the homelands of these
>people rather then bring them here.
Depends on how effective the vehicles for improvement are. I have
little or no confidence in the NGOs, and none at all in most
devleoping country govts.
>You help could reach them there as
>easily as here. Give a man a fish and all that. The supply of people is
>growing not dwindling. Eventually you will supplant so many people here that
>you will simply mirror conditions in their homeland - except for a
>privileged elite who's wealth keeps them safe. Another way of seeing it is -
>don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by inviting people to mine
>the gold *inside* the goose.
I don't see most immigrants as fucking up the goose.
>> 3) Political: It is in the interests fo all of us that people struggle
>> in their own countries to defeat corrupt govts and so on. Not only
>> does it improve us all morally, it aids their economic growth (and
>> thus ours through trade), and provides another place where democracy
>> thrives, thus keeping the pressure on our own govts to continually
>> extend liberty at home.
>
>Do wee need to supplant whole populations to do this? Surely just the
>leaders will do?
Sure. Find me a reliable way of remving leaders and putting good
people in place....
>> The incentive to stick your head above the parapet at home is, I
>> imagine, significantly enhanced if you are confident of getting out
>> and being able to start again if it all goes wrong.
>
>I see your point.
Good
>> How far should this extend? Certainly to a nuclear family, otherwise
>> the right is so restricted as to be meaningless. Beyond this it needs
>> to be on a case-by-case basis. This is expensive, and runs the risk of
>> being arbitrary, but I consider it worth the candle (in the absence of
>> decent info to the contrary)
>
>A difficult question and a very difficult situation to manage. Nuclear
>family - mom dad kids. What about brothers, sisters, grandparents etc. Also
>the scale is enormous. As it is we have 195,000 inbound a year - a whole
>London borough. We need to be honest about the financial and social cost of
>all this before we 'inflict' it on people.
Sure. Let's do some sums on this. Brothers, sisters are out.
(Infertile) grannies I am ambivalent on.
>> With regard to wider (economic) immigration - I would happily say that
>> anyone with a degree from a recognised university can come in, period.
>
>So many degrees are useless economically. We would be better of getting
>tradesmen, skilled labourers and IT people. Degree is too wide, I think.
Sure. We can be much more sophisticated if we wish to be
>> There might be a large quota to stop there being ten million new
>> people, but I would be quite happy to leave that to the details. For
>> the rest, I would take on a few additional people who had skill sets
>> that were needed.
>
>Ten million - in a years, 10 years - over what timescale?
Depends on the skill shortages. And the rate of decline of the
indigenous population. Again, need to do some sums
>> I would not necessarily allow anyone beyond the nuclear family of an
>> economic migrant in. Again a case-by-case basis, and I would happily
>> make it 'means-tested'.
>
>Again the red tape, the abuse by criminals, the protests at home. I do not
>think it workable or fair to those here already. If they held a referendum
>and asked maybe - otherwise - no.
Whatever. I see no real reason to pander to ignorant, selfish bigots,
merely because 'they are already here'. But you have to do some sums
again
>> Maybe. Maybe it's just whining. What I am disappointed about, is that,
>> as ever, there is so little dissemination of what is known. Why do
>> people argue that they are 'slaves to the wage'? Weren't Neanderthals
>> 'slaves to the hunt'? It's just a feature of the human condition that
>> 'everyone has to serve someone'
>
>Have another look at those old Situationists
>http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/35
OK
>> No doubt there is some of that going on. Nor can there be any real
>> doubt that the police and other institutions are racist, in the sense
>> that the individuals share prejudices about races. What is so sad is
>> that these institutions are forced to 'defend' themselves, when the
>> correct response IMO is to say 'yes we're racist - are you telling me
>> you are not?'
>
>Excellent point. Un-demonise it and the malaise will out - people will feel
>confident enough to try and take courses or consciously avoid stereotypes or
>automatic thinking.
Indeed. The trouble though is that there are too few people (using
this ng as data) with whom this conversation can take place with some
chance of progressing
>> IMExperience, we are all racist at some level. I see a stupid person
>> on the tube - if they're white I say 'stupid bastard', if they're
>> black I think 'dumb black bastard'.
>
>This is one of the hallmarks of humanity. It is common to all groups and
>'races'.
Indeed, though not to all individuals
>>Combine that with some different
>> cultural norms, (e.g. black youths are generally noisier IME) and you
>> have a set of prejudice compounded by 'anecdotal evidence'.
>
>This is called story-based thinking. Get yourself and excellent book called
>Everyday Irrationality by Robyn M. Dawes - worth the read.
Cheers, might do just that
>> None of this excuses the more egregious examples of racism, nor
>> removes the need for all of us to consider our role in this unfolding
>> disaster.
>
>You should look at the Peter Sutherland chapter I posted about
>http://website.lineone.net/~usenet_evidence/ingroups_outgroups.htm .
>Fascinating.
>> Indeed. And the quality of debate on this newsgroup on race is so
>> poor, that I rarely if ever choose to participate
>
>Wise. Very wise.
Indeed. But again, the FAQ may raise this. I have not been a fan of a
FAQ before, but I consider it increasingly important/useful
>> Hard to know. On balance I would argue, probably yes. Maybe it's too
>> far out of whack in the US, I don't know. I do know that I was part of
>> small team (under 20) that created about half a billion quid last
>> year. So conservatively my worth in this was 20 million quid. Others
>> played bigger part. They were worth maybe 50 million quid. In the same
>> company, there are people who just cover their salary - worth nearly
>> zero. They might get 30K, so what's a 50 million quid person worth?
>
>Very hard to assess.
Indeed. Again, real data needed
>> The market, free economics, these are choices. We can reverse them, as
>> happened in the first world war. As is happening over social freedoms.
>> They require active effort to maintain.
>
>True
Liberty always requires defence. Economic and social
>> What would be the turnout do you think for the head of the WTO? How
>> wold you asses his/her performance? I don't know that it could be
>> done... Maybe it could
>
>Accountability is the problem.
Indeed. *Perceived* accoutnability is also a problem - "justice must
not oly be done, it must be *seen* to be done"
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> >No, the exponential technology curve has done that.
>>
>> So tell me how it's made the Chinese so much richer
>
>I suppose electrons are positively charged under a national socialist
>regime?
That doesn't constitute an answer
>> Hardly. The two (economics and bellief in technology) are not
>> exclusive. Perhaps you should study some econimics.
>
>But if people continue to attribute the rise in living standards of this
>century to anything other than
>the march of technology, then they are deluding themselves.
Oh right. So if two countries have access to the same technology, then
they ahve the same wealth? Like, the UK and US?
>Economics is just mud in the water, throw away your Keynes books..
>Good..
>Now we've taken a step towards Star Trek, and a step away from blade runner.
Only in the sense that Star Trek is fantasy...
>I suppose it is economics that is responsible for 3rd world under
>achievement?
No. But it does help understand it
>> >It is amusing to think that these people actually believe that financial
>> >disparity is caused solely by the achievements of individuals.
>>
>> I don't know if anyone does.
>
>You just did.
As ever, you have no idea what I believe. If you want to know, ask
>> None of these are exlcuded by my original comment
>
>You implied that success is wholly dependant on personal input.
Not so.
>> >> (1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>> >> liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>> >> alleviation of poverty in history?
>> >
>> >It hasn't.
>>
>> And your evidence?
>
>Did Marx invent the Microwave oven?
And this constitues evidence?
>Can you tell me how you see that economics is responsible for the increase
>in our standard of living?
An understanding of economics, and economic policy helps by making the
most of the resources available to any group or individual. Technology
is one such resource, but only one. Others include human capital
(education), physical assets (oil, gas, spectrum), and the utilisation
of these resources (regulations, policies)
Perhaps you should read David Landes' book on "The wealth and poverty
of nations"
>> Yet the evidence suggests that the role of the state is increasing to
>> the extent that civil liberties and freedoms are being reduced. This
>> doesnt end in anarchy, but fascism
>
>This is your slightly humerous take on socialism
>The capitalist mantra is CAPITALISM=FREEDOM and SOCIALISM=RESTRICTION
Depends on your defintions of all four words
>But surely this depends upon your vantage point?
>Am I free when I am denied education or healthcare.. Will my children be
>free?
>You want to eat your cake and have it... You want freedom to not have to pay
>tax... and freedom not to
>have to answer for the damage such policies cause to the advancement of
>humanity.
Depends on whether you think the policies advance humanity or not
>Your policies are simply the policies of base greed, they have no
>intellectual value whatsoever...
Whatever
>> >Before long, the laws which have hitherto defended the small against the
>> >powerful will fall under the juristiction of the
>> >people who are now running the world.
>> >This has happened to a large extent already, hence the various wars...
>>
>> Please expand...
>
>It's that simple.. Under conditions of anarchy, power is absolute.
And 'hence the various wars' refers to what?
>You see, you don't care who is behind the NWO, how it came about, is being
>fostered, or what it's objectives are...
>You only care about counting beans...
As before, you don't know what I care about. If you want to know, ask
>You stand in the trough of the wave of
>history and claim to have a machine which can see over them...
>You don't care about what has been smashed to make way for it, or what might
>have been where it not for it.... I do.
Whatever
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
<gmon...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Indeed. So the question is: why does anyone believe this crap?
>
>Possibly a more incisively pertinent question would be why do the same
>people who 10 years ago would have dismissed all 'conspiracy' theories
>out of hand now give some of them a second look.
>
>Why did an average non-political guy tell me 20 minutes ago that he
>was already familiar with(though had not read) the book 'bowling
>alone', and that although he was not sure what it was about he knew
>that it was concerned with the reasons that his this society and
>hence, his life, was no longer as it once was.
Wholly agree
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> >OK, here goes. Big businesses have a comparable level of power to
>> >shape events as governments have.
>>
>> I don't know that I agree with this. I am currently (for example)
>
>They can often influence governments to pass laws that help them out.
>It is in their interests to do so.
Sure. But if your route to power is through influencing another group,
then you can't really be considered as powerful as this other
(decision-making) group
>> looking at the ways that business could influence education. I don't
>> see as many as the government has. (Though it is also true to say that
>> business can assist govt by providing working models)
>
>So now we'll have product placement in our classrooms? Kids told to
>use certain companies' products at school from a young age?
Doesn't follow, though some companies have gone down this route, and
not been punished by parents or education purchasers
>> Not really. Worth considering this more carefully. There are (at
>> least) three ways this isn't the case:
>>
>> 1) The government can and still does regulate who can sell to "its"
>> consumers.
>
>And large multinational companies can move from country to country to
>get the best deal from a country's government.
Not so easily. And see the third point
>> Fortunately free trade is reducing this, but the advances
>> of free trade are subject to govt approval.
>>
>> 2) In some cases, the resources required by business are more-or-less
>> directly controlled by govt. The most obviousl example of this is oil,
>> but there are plenty of others - from mobile phone spectrum to
>> limestone for cement. If you include human resources, then govts have
>> huge influence through employment law
>
>Indeed, influence which the companies will often buy.
Depends on how accountable the electorate holds the govt. If you're
french, you hold a beauty contest and get little cash but lots of
ability to rig the outcome. If not, you hold and auction and pay down
the national debt. If the govt is bent, then it's interactions with
the corporate sector will also be bent
>> These two are smaller or eroding, but the biggest point is this third
>>
>> 3) A business can not leave unless another government is able to offer
>> better.
>
>A large multinational business can do so and thus play one government
>off against another.
Good. Tell me why this is a bad thing. Do you believe in 'harmful tax
competition'?
>> The country's economy is being undermined by excessive
>> legslation (in the classical example),
>
>Legislation which can help big companies by reducing the threat of
>competition and opening up the country's markets to their products.
Can do. Depends on the honesty of the government
>> not by the company's decision to move.
>
>A company can use the threat of moving to get a better deal...
A govt can ignore the blackmailer, if its economic policy is broadly
sound
>> If the company remains, and makes no money, then it will
>> still be doing the country no real good anyway
>
>The question is whether it does the company any good. It can stay and
>make money via persuading the government to enact policies that reduce
>competition.
Sure. Depends on how honest the govt is
>> >But big business is not
>> >accountable to the people who suffer the impact of such decisions.
>>
>> But they are to some extent. The shareholders are affected by such
>> decisions.
>
>That depends on how many shareholders are in the counrty being
>withdrawn from.
No it doesn't. Not withdrawing (which is the same decision, different
outcome) affects all shareholders.
>> >You might argue that it is accountable to its consumers and
>> >shareholders -- however a big multinational company can e.g. play one
>> >group of consumers off against the another,
>>
>> Only by losing some
>
>Not necessarily -- and even if so if they get a deal that enables them
>to dominate the markets of one country/area that may make up for it in
>increased profits due to the ability to charge higher prices.
Sure. So we're all in favour of a vigourous competition policy
>> >influence the government
>> >to adopt policies that make it difficult for new companies to enter
>> >the market,
>>
>> Which is explicitly anti-free-market
>
>And something it is in the interests of both governments and companies
>to do.
Not in the govts interests, though individuals may choose to pursue
this
>My point being that collusion between the state (or even the
>anarcho-capitalist law enforcement agencies) and big business is an
>ever present threat to the "free" market.
Sure
>> >ISTM there are only 2 ways big business gets held to account --
>>
>> Accountable to whom?
>
>The people who suffer the consequences of its decisions.
Let's get specific...
>> >Why? What points of fragility exist?
>>
>> Bananas, Pat Robertson, the French, hormone beef, environmental
>> laws, Seattle, french farmers, CAP, large corporates with weak
>> governments, the rise of 'free trade areas' etc
>
>I fail to see how any of these are points of fragility, i.e. things
>that could bring the system tumbling down.
Watch and see
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
<popi...@btNOSPAMconnect.com> wrote:
>> I don't agree. Free markets imply free movement of labour,
>
>Agreed- certainly within a country.
>
>> which implies more immigration.
>
>I don't see why free markets can't co-exist with with a wide range of
>different policies on immigration (or asylum-seeking).
"Free markets" tends to imply "free (product) markets". But it
shouldn't be so assumed
>At the moment,
>if there's a shortage of nurses willing to work for the current pay &
>condition in London, the govt imports some. It would be just as
>compatible with free markets to move the hospitals, or raise the pay,
>or improve the terms of service. [I'm not saying that importing nurses is
>wrong, just that it is not a necessary result of a freeish market system.]
Free *labour* markets
>> I don't think that there is. I wouldn't reverse the liberalisation.
>> But many would. I want to know both how we liberals will ameliorate
>> the effects fo liberalism ,
>
>But what are these effects that are so bad?
Rising income inequality is the main one. Which leadsto rising crime
IMO
>> To some extent. But decisions on bananas aren't made by us. Nor on
>> hormone treated beef. Or dolphin-friendly tuna. They're made by the EU
>> and WTO
>
>Well, you really want to take a lot of decisions, don't you? The decisions
>on dolphin-friendly tuna were taken daily by millions of shoppers. Some
>bought the d-f t as soon as it was available, some didn't. I'm sure that if
>Tesco at any point had had a million letters saying it was irresponsible to
>stock non d-f t, they would have stopped immediately. I'm beginning
>to worry about the "us" that you want to take the decisions. Who are "us"?
Individual consumers, groups of consumers, nations of consumers. I
personally could leave a lot of decisions to the individual - e.g.
those on beef. But we don't get to make these decisions. In other
areas, insisting on labelling food is regarded as a non-tarrif barrier
and disallowed by trade rules.
>What concerns me greatly is that while the Islington politicians eat their
>health food, the discussions in the Dagenham pubs are of another nature completely.
Sure
>While special interest groups on animal rights, environmental issues, etc
>fill the airwaves & the printed media, there is a gulf developing. This gulf is the
>disenfranchisement & alienation of many ordinary working people from the
>political parties, *not* the frustration of committed, educated, caring,
>wonderful, middle-class environmentally-friendly usenet people. If it continues &
>widens then what sort of political creature will appear to fill it?
I agree this is the issue. We are already seeing what sort of
Widdicombe comes to fill it
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
<j...@jbark.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snipped large areas of broad agreement]
> Positional goods are those which are by their nature
>limited in their supply. Only one person can be PM. The house with the
>best view is only available to one owner. And this applies to all sorts
>of things in varying degrees throughout society. Thus as society gets
>richer the very rich may achieve their ambition but the next in line may
>be frustrated. (The concept was developed by Fred Hirsch in his book
>"Limits to Social Growth").
Good points
> There are now far more educated and informed people who
>would like to take part in our democracy than a few years ago. But it is
>very difficult to create a meaningful consultation process, and the more
>involved the more difficult it is. So the recurrent theme that the
>government takes no notice of us is hardly surprising. The decline in
>socialising has, as you say, made things worse.
Indeed
>>(1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>>liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>>alleviation of poverty in history?
>>
> There are lots of modifications that can be made without
>slowing down growth. I agree that we should be careful not to put
>spanners into the system.
What sort of modifications wold you be in favour of?
>>(2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
>>we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
>>to ameliorate them?
>>
> There are many possible trade-offs and each would have
>to be considered separately.
Such as?
>>(3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
>>institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
>>national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
>>rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
>>
> Nearly all multinationals are based in one country. So
>we have a direct influence over those in Britain. I guess there has to
>be some co-ordination of policy with other countries.
Through what sort of mechanisms?
>>(4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
>>community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
>>requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
>
> Don't know. I feel some redistribution of income is
>necessary. There has to be a long hard slog to bring back deprived and
>isolated communities into main stream society. We have to find ways for
>people to participate in local affairs and if possible in national
>affairs too. (I don't see why junior ministers couldn't hold open court
>on the net to deal with some of the repeated criticisms they get).
Agreed on much of this. On what basis would you redistribute income?
cheers
matt
Lord Limbic
"Gordon Monohan" <gmon...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:srg0et011vh6mc5kg...@4ax.com...
Thanks. I am going to buy it.
>
>
> And the frog boils,
Very good : ) Mr Handy would be proud....
Regards
Lord Limbic
David J Rainey
odes...@my-deja.com says...
> But if people continue to attribute the rise in living standards of this
> century to anything other than
> the march of technology, then they are deluding themselves.
I agree that technology has played the largest single part, but you also
have to look into the context of how the technology came to be developed.
Without, for example, specialisation of labour, we'd have almost none of
the technology we enjoy today.
> Economics is just mud in the water, throw away your Keynes books..
Economics is like physics. There are many things that there is an almost
universal consensus (supply and demand), some things that are somewhat
contentious (laffer curve - though that is more to do with the shape) and
some things which are regarded as lunatic fringe (insert favourite example
here).
Without economics, how do explain how the same technology is used more
effectively under some conditions than others? Why did Japanese machine
tool workers produce 3 times the output per hour that their British
equivalents did?
[Economics]
> It does nothing.. It is utterly false...
What do you mean? "Economics is utterly false" doesn't make sense.
Economics is simply the name for the study of how resources are most
effectively allocated. What's to disagree with?
> I suppose it is economics that is responsible for 3rd world under
> achievement?
Economics isn't responsible for anything. The application of flawed
economic theory might be. How is this difference to the harm caused by
misapplication of physics theory?
> With technology at elizibethan levels, you'd live like an elizibethan
Indeed.
> Can you tell me how you see that economics is responsible for the increase
> in our standard of living?
Because applying the right economic theory allows you to benefit from
technology. We have invented Mag-Lev technology but at present it does not
make sense to use it to replace existing rail systems.
Without (IMO) a rational economic analysis of the costs and benefits, we
could spend a lot of money which may only deliver marginal benefits.
It was interesting to read some of the industry press regarding the
announcement of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. I have to say that personally, I
don't think it makes sense. I don't know they make the plane cruise
efficiently in the transonic region, ie the fuel burn rate per mile will
be higher in this region. I believe that the market is more sensitive to
price than to speed.
However, Boeing are not dumb and this is a big gamble, so these basic
objections of mine must have answers. Then I see a comment by the fleet
manager of, I think, Qantas. He said that the biggest single advantage of
the faster cruise time to them was that it enabled them to fly more long
distance routes. For example, he said that, for certain long haul routes,
only two rational departure times that work for the customers and for the
landing/take off noise regs at each end. But with a 20% faster plane, he
reckoned that this would mean he could have three good times. Which means
that the very expensive aircraft is being used more often and that the
fixed cost of the machine itself is spread over many more passengers,
enabling them to retain a good margin without increasing prices.
That's economics.
In fact, it reminds me of a favourite saying of one of my Engineering
lecturers at Glasgow. "An engineer is someone who make for a penny what
any fool can make for a pound". Compare and contrast the TU-144 and
Concorde.
> Am I free when I am denied education or healthcare.
Is a doctor or a teacher free if they are compelled to provide this for
you?
> Will my children be free?
Yes, but the running costs mount up.....
> You want to eat your cake and have it.
Blimey, someone who gets the cake'n'eat it analogy correct. <doffs cap>
> You want freedom to not have to pay
> tax... and freedom not to
> have to answer for the damage such policies cause to the advancement of
> humanity.
Some tax money is well spent, I don't begrudge that. Other tax money is
spent foolishly and on things I actively do not want my money spent on. I
want the freedom to choose what is being done in my name.
> Your policies are simply the policies of base greed, they have no
> intellectual value whatsoever...
Do you get paid? Do you work for a salary?
regards
David
Anton
<ma...@public-record.co.uk> wrote in message
news:69g1et42orbgu35k5...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:06:41 +0100, "Anton"
> <popi...@btNOSPAMconnect.com> wrote:
>
which got a bit circular]
>
> >> I don't think that there is. I wouldn't reverse the liberalisation.
> >> But many would. I want to know both how we liberals will ameliorate
> >> the effects fo liberalism ,
> >
> >But what are these effects that are so bad?
>
> Rising income inequality is the main one.
Mmmm. Personally, I find it astonishing that residual Christian
temperance issues, allied to middle-class concerns about health &
the environment, lead to penal taxation on fags, booze, & cars
resulting in a skewed tax burden falling very heavily on the less
than well-off. I think there's room there for a populist political
party to drive a coach & horses through.
> Which leads to rising crime IMO
It's one influence among many.
> >> To some extent. But decisions on bananas aren't made by us. Nor on
> >> hormone treated beef. Or dolphin-friendly tuna. They're made by the EU
> >> and WTO
> >
> >Well, you really want to take a lot of decisions, don't you? The
decisions
> >on dolphin-friendly tuna were taken daily by millions of shoppers. Some
> >bought the d-f t as soon as it was available, some didn't. I'm sure that
if
> >Tesco at any point had had a million letters saying it was irresponsible
to
> >stock non d-f t, they would have stopped immediately. I'm beginning
> >to worry about the "us" that you want to take the decisions. Who are
"us"?
>
> Individual consumers, groups of consumers, nations of consumers. I
> personally could leave a lot of decisions to the individual - e.g.
> those on beef. But we don't get to make these decisions.
Well, if you buy your beef at the supermarket, you've only got a couple
of choices. You can buy your beef at a butchers, and then you
have a choice of different religion's way of preparing it. In an
increasing number of districts, you can buy your beef from the farmer
that raised the animal, and ask what he fed it on or make your
preferences known. Your choice- your decision But remember
that supermarkets thrive on commodities, where they can squeeze
the producer down to the lowest price.
> In other
> areas, insisting on labelling food is regarded as a non-tarrif barrier
> and disallowed by trade rules.
Free markets need information to function, and I regard the EU's
restrictions on labelling as corporatist nonsense.
> >What concerns me greatly is that while the Islington politicians eat
their
> >health food, the discussions in the Dagenham pubs are of another nature
completely.
>
> Sure
>
> >While special interest groups on animal rights, environmental issues, etc
> >fill the airwaves & the printed media, there is a gulf developing. This
gulf is the
> >disenfranchisement & alienation of many ordinary working people from the
> >political parties, *not* the frustration of committed, educated, caring,
> >wonderful, middle-class environmentally-friendly usenet people. If it
continues &
> >widens then what sort of political creature will appear to fill it?
>
> I agree this is the issue. We are already seeing what sort of
> Widdicombe comes to fill it.
If we go further down this road, you'll end up thinking of her as your
fairy godmother. ;-)
--
Anton
Paris
message news:MPG.154af4705...@news.claranews.com...
> In article <987795759.3076.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> odes...@my-deja.com says...
>
> > But if people continue to attribute the rise in living standards of this
> > century to anything other than
> > the march of technology, then they are deluding themselves.
>
> I agree that technology has played the largest single part, but you also
> have to look into the context of how the technology came to be developed.
> Without, for example, specialisation of labour, we'd have almost none of
> the technology we enjoy today.
It came about because science is not only a system for divining truth... it
is a way of living.
Science rejects mysticism and anything which cannot be backed by some form
of positively reproducable
reason.
The enlightenment is responsible for technology, because it fostered a way
of thinking.... That way of thinking
is under threat from people who persist in thinking the way that people did
before it....
Part of such thinking is modern economics... It has less to do with reason
than it does the infection of it's adherents minds
with a kind of circular logic... it is a form of mysticism.
> > Economics is just mud in the water, throw away your Keynes books..
>
> Economics is like physics. There are many things that there is an almost
> universal consensus (supply and demand), some things that are somewhat
> contentious (laffer curve - though that is more to do with the shape) and
> some things which are regarded as lunatic fringe (insert favourite example
> here).
>
> Without economics, how do explain how the same technology is used more
> effectively under some conditions than others?
You look at the reasons objectively...
The reason that technology hasn't permiated darkest africa has nothing to do
with calculus equations.. it has to
do with the history of Africa, it's divided society and the actively
aggressive foreign policies of the west...
> Why did Japanese machine
> tool workers produce 3 times the output per hour that their British
> equivalents did?
Culture.. Society... History... Politics
Are you saying that Japan's use of market protectionism contributed to it's
success?
Perhaps you forget about the billions of dollars and pounds it recieved
after the war?
Maybe it has something to do with their culture ancient social structure?
> [Economics]
> > It does nothing.. It is utterly false...
>
> What do you mean? "Economics is utterly false" doesn't make sense.
> Economics is simply the name for the study of how resources are most
> effectively allocated. What's to disagree with?
It's very existance.
It is simply a sophism.. Under current conditions.. states become wealthy by
being militarilly powerful, having united citizens, and having
strong allies... Might it right it has nothing to do with economics...
In order for that not to be the case there has to be a sea change in human
thinking...
Science and its philosophy, coupled with secular humanism is the only way to
instigate this change...
Economics and other such sophisms such as neo-liberalist global capitalism
and multi-culturalism are rocks in the river of
human evolution as we reach towards our possible futures and away from
caves, bones and rival clans..
The formula is simple : Respect for all human life.. Unity in the quest for
human achievement... Technology, Magnanimity, Society, Humanity
Economics is an abberation caused by the current status quo, it has no
relevance in the universal scale of things...
> > I suppose it is economics that is responsible for 3rd world under
> > achievement?
>
> Economics isn't responsible for anything. The application of flawed
> economic theory might be. How is this difference to the harm caused by
> misapplication of physics theory?
Where has an economic theory been misapplied?
Who is responsible for the misapplication of physics? Physicists.. or their
political masters?
Left to it's own devices science is only a force for good...
> > Can you tell me how you see that economics is responsible for the
increase
> > in our standard of living?
>
> Because applying the right economic theory allows you to benefit from
> technology. We have invented Mag-Lev technology but at present it does not
> make sense to use it to replace existing rail systems.
I see what you are saying... but that is not so much an economic decision as
one of common sense...
We have the power to convert lead into gold... but one doesn't need to spend
4 years at the LSE to
know that it is a foolish practice!
> Without (IMO) a rational economic analysis of the costs and benefits, we
> could spend a lot of money which may only deliver marginal benefits.
Money Shmoney..
Where does spent money go? it is evaporated by the sun and falls as rain in
the mountains, and trickles in some way to start the process again..
Inflation is a state of mind, as an economist (at least in this thread) you
should know that economics is 90% crap...
What would happen to economics should technology provide 'the replicator'..
(I know what politics would do!!)
Some of our greatest achievements arise from folly... The Pyramids..
Teflon.... :)
Pull on our end of the rope... it's much more productive!
> It was interesting to read some of the industry press regarding the
> announcement of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. I have to say that personally, I
> don't think it makes sense. I don't know they make the plane cruise
> efficiently in the transonic region, ie the fuel burn rate per mile will
> be higher in this region. I believe that the market is more sensitive to
> price than to speed.
We have had the discussion about concorde before have we not?
> However, Boeing are not dumb and this is a big gamble, so these basic
> objections of mine must have answers. Then I see a comment by the fleet
> manager of, I think, Qantas. He said that the biggest single advantage of
> the faster cruise time to them was that it enabled them to fly more long
> distance routes. For example, he said that, for certain long haul routes,
> only two rational departure times that work for the customers and for the
> landing/take off noise regs at each end. But with a 20% faster plane, he
> reckoned that this would mean he could have three good times. Which means
> that the very expensive aircraft is being used more often and that the
> fixed cost of the machine itself is spread over many more passengers,
> enabling them to retain a good margin without increasing prices.
>
> That's economics.
Yes it most certainly is....
Of course all of this fails to recognise that the folly of the wright
brothers is what allows you to push your pencil around...
Should technology provide the 'teleportation device' you have more pencil
pushing to do....
Should I set up a super state based on the advancement of science, and
defend it like a god sent sentinal against the advances of
globalist capitalism, how long do you think it would take before it bore
fruit?
While you sit and think about what is economically viable, we will waste our
money on folly.......
> In fact, it reminds me of a favourite saying of one of my Engineering
> lecturers at Glasgow. "An engineer is someone who make for a penny what
> any fool can make for a pound". Compare and contrast the TU-144 and
> Concorde.
My definition would be 'those who take theory from science, and give product
to the populace'.
If your friend is thinking hard about money... he should swap jobs...
The Germans prove that quality of design eventually bears fruit over cost of
production...
Creativity like art itself produces it's best when it is unfettered.
> > Am I free when I am denied education or healthcare.
>
> Is a doctor or a teacher free if they are compelled to provide this for
> you?
You own a small company of gifted individuals... Your brightest star comes
to you on a friday afternoon and says..
'I'm really good... I think I need a payrise'...
Do you give him the money, or smile sweetly and tell him that you think that
he is free to leave whever he wants and that when
he leaves he'll take your gratitude and good will?
The brain drain is a fallacy.. In a society we deliver what we are good at
delivering and should be praised for doing so..
If the good doctor feels that he would be happier delivering in belise or
LA, then let him go.
> > Will my children be free?
>
> Yes, but the running costs mount up.....
Of course it does... But we are buying quality...
Let those who don't want to be part of the purchase go elsewhere....
> > You want to eat your cake and have it.
>
> Blimey, someone who gets the cake'n'eat it analogy correct. <doffs cap>
:)
> > You want freedom to not have to pay
> > tax... and freedom not to
> > have to answer for the damage such policies cause to the advancement of
> > humanity.
>
> Some tax money is well spent, I don't begrudge that. Other tax money is
> spent foolishly and on things I actively do not want my money spent on. I
> want the freedom to choose what is being done in my name.
I agree entirely... Tax and spend is not the best system..
It does indeed leave itself open to abuse and mismanagement....
But is this a reason to abandon it as a system?
The system can be successful.. .Sweden, Israel....
> > Your policies are simply the policies of base greed, they have no
> > intellectual value whatsoever...
>
> Do you get paid? Do you work for a salary?
Yes... do you want to step over diseased bodies on your way to work?
Which would you rather the future of our nation be taught : Nothing/Ancient
History and Science/WWF?
James Hammerton
> In article <qasnj35...@davros.tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton
> <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison) writes:
> >
> > > >> >I.e. the system is so heavily entrenched and we are all so dependent
> > > >> >on it that we have to instead find ways of gradually transforming it
> > > >> >for the better?
> > >
> > > If that is the case then to get a degree of change (though it would pretty
> > > much be on their terms, afaics with their *political* power basically left
> > > intact) campaign for the "Binary Economics" approach.
> >
> > What is binary economics?
>
> Oh dear.
> Outside of the really far-intoit econo buffs,
> I'm one of the few who would even try explaining it!
>
> *Very* roughly, It's sort of stakeholding; everyone being allocated a
> representation of a basket of dividend-bearing shares (afaik,
> non-transferrable) in the big corporates. Suppose it might appeal to
> libertarians as a potential withering away of the State, but (although
Non-transferability would worry free marketeers ISTM as a restriction
on the trade of the shares.
> more or less within the existing system I do approve the Alaska citizens
> dividend) there is too much else in the corporate/political/social nexus
> as is that I'm opposed to, for me to be willing to risk its attaining any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What aspects of the "nexus" do you refer to here?
> (false) legitimacy via the adoption of BE...
>
>
> --------------------
>
> James, I'll send you the e-mail of one of BE's leading advocates (it isn't
> fringe economics, btw) in case you want to ask more about it; very nice
> chap, but he'd probably say my description is all wrong...
Thanks. I'll see if I can follow that up. I did do a web search and
found some sites that try to explain it. One of the people you
mentioned did come up that way...
James Hammerton
> On 20 Apr 2001 00:08:50 +0100, James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> >OK, here goes. Big businesses have a comparable level of power to
> >> >shape events as governments have.
> >>
> >> I don't know that I agree with this. I am currently (for example)
> >
> >They can often influence governments to pass laws that help them out.
> >It is in their interests to do so.
>
> Sure. But if your route to power is through influencing another group,
> then you can't really be considered as powerful as this other
> (decision-making) group
Not necessarily, it may be a two way thing for example. If the
government persuades a company to stay or expand its business that
helps the government persuade the voters to continue voting for
them. So we get a situation where each gets what it wants through its
influence on the other.
> >> looking at the ways that business could influence education. I don't
> >> see as many as the government has. (Though it is also true to say that
> >> business can assist govt by providing working models)
> >
> >So now we'll have product placement in our classrooms? Kids told to
> >use certain companies' products at school from a young age?
>
> Doesn't follow, though some companies have gone down this route, and
> not been punished by parents or education purchasers
What choices did those parents and purchasers have?
> >> Not really. Worth considering this more carefully. There are (at
> >> least) three ways this isn't the case:
> >>
> >> 1) The government can and still does regulate who can sell to "its"
> >> consumers.
> >
> >And large multinational companies can move from country to country to
> >get the best deal from a country's government.
>
> Not so easily.
What's to stop them?
> And see the third point
The third point only really matters if no other governments are
round.
> >> Fortunately free trade is reducing this, but the advances
> >> of free trade are subject to govt approval.
> >>
> >> 2) In some cases, the resources required by business are more-or-less
> >> directly controlled by govt. The most obviousl example of this is oil,
> >> but there are plenty of others - from mobile phone spectrum to
> >> limestone for cement. If you include human resources, then govts have
> >> huge influence through employment law
> >
> >Indeed, influence which the companies will often buy.
>
> Depends on how accountable the electorate holds the govt.
Which in turn depends on how well the electorate are informed about
the government's dealings with the companies, information which
neither the comapnies nor the government will be partiucularly keen to
advertise.
[snip]
> >> These two are smaller or eroding, but the biggest point is this third
> >>
> >> 3) A business can not leave unless another government is able to offer
> >> better.
> >
> >A large multinational business can do so and thus play one government
> >off against another.
>
> Good. Tell me why this is a bad thing.
They can do so over the wishes of the voters and they can do so to rig
the rules in their favour.
> Do you believe in 'harmful tax
> competition'?
Who said this would be restricted to how much tax people pay?
> >> The country's economy is being undermined by excessive
> >> legslation (in the classical example),
> >
> >Legislation which can help big companies by reducing the threat of
> >competition and opening up the country's markets to their products.
>
> Can do. Depends on the honesty of the government
Which in turn depends on how effective the mechanisms for holding both
the government and the corporation are.
> >> not by the company's decision to move.
> >
> >A company can use the threat of moving to get a better deal...
>
> A govt can ignore the blackmailer, if its economic policy is broadly
> sound
What if the blackmailers are the largest employers in the country?
> >> If the company remains, and makes no money, then it will
> >> still be doing the country no real good anyway
> >
> >The question is whether it does the company any good. It can stay and
> >make money via persuading the government to enact policies that reduce
> >competition.
>
> Sure. Depends on how honest the govt is
How honest are most governments?
> >> >But big business is not
> >> >accountable to the people who suffer the impact of such decisions.
> >>
> >> But they are to some extent. The shareholders are affected by such
> >> decisions.
> >
> >That depends on how many shareholders are in the counrty being
> >withdrawn from.
>
> No it doesn't. Not withdrawing (which is the same decision, different
> outcome) affects all shareholders.
Indeed, but if most shareholders are not in the country concerned and all
they care about are their dividends then they won't give a stuff about
the people in the country being withdrawn from who will lose their jobs.
> >> >You might argue that it is accountable to its consumers and
> >> >shareholders -- however a big multinational company can e.g. play one
> >> >group of consumers off against the another,
> >>
> >> Only by losing some
> >
> >Not necessarily -- and even if so if they get a deal that enables them
> >to dominate the markets of one country/area that may make up for it in
> >increased profits due to the ability to charge higher prices.
>
> Sure. So we're all in favour of a vigourous competition policy
Maybe, but how does one ensure such a policy will get adopted and
pursued?
> >> >influence the government
> >> >to adopt policies that make it difficult for new companies to enter
> >> >the market,
> >>
> >> Which is explicitly anti-free-market
> >
> >And something it is in the interests of both governments and companies
> >to do.
>
> Not in the govts interests, though individuals may choose to pursue
> this
But it is in the governments interests to avoid the bad publicity and
adverse economic consequences associated with lots of jobs being lost
due to the company (or companies) pulling out.
> >My point being that collusion between the state (or even the
> >anarcho-capitalist law enforcement agencies) and big business is an
> >ever present threat to the "free" market.
>
> Sure
So therefore some means of preventing this needs to be found or we end
up with a corporate state.
> >> >ISTM there are only 2 ways big business gets held to account --
> >>
> >> Accountable to whom?
> >
> >The people who suffer the consequences of its decisions.
>
> Let's get specific...
Those who lose their jobs, those who suffer the economic impact of the
decisions and the shareholders (who are the only ones to have both a
direct stake and a direct vote on the decisions). The latter are the
ones the company will pay most attention to.
> >> >Why? What points of fragility exist?
> >>
> >> Bananas, Pat Robertson, the French, hormone beef, environmental
> >> laws, Seattle, french farmers, CAP, large corporates with weak
> >> governments, the rise of 'free trade areas' etc
> >
> >I fail to see how any of these are points of fragility, i.e. things
> >that could bring the system tumbling down.
>
> Watch and see
What exactly are you planning then? :-)
Anton
Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:987878358.22343.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> David J Rainey <david....@nospamthankyouverymuch.btinternet.com> wrote
in
> message news:MPG.154af4705...@news.claranews.com...
> > In article <987795759.3076.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > odes...@my-deja.com says...
> >
> > In fact, it reminds me of a favourite saying of one of my Engineering
> > lecturers at Glasgow. "An engineer is someone who make for a penny what
> > any fool can make for a pound". Compare and contrast the TU-144 and
> > Concorde.
>
> My definition would be 'those who take theory from science, and give
product
> to the populace'.
> If your friend is thinking hard about money... he should swap jobs...
I take it you're not an engineer, and have never worked with one, then.
Engineers have to work with the materials, processes, money, time,
and people available, and all engineering is practical- there is no point
designing a bridge that falls down, or can't be made. Do you really think
that the pyramid engineer didn't *know* what it cost to clad them in
limestone?
--
Anton
David J Rainey
odes...@my-deja.com says...
> Science rejects mysticism and anything which cannot be backed by some form
> of positively reproducable reason.
Agreed, but I'm puzzled as to the relevance.
> The enlightenment is responsible for technology, because it fostered a way
> of thinking....
The enlightenment also fostered the way of thinking pioneered by the
University of Glasgow Professor of Moral Philosophy.
> That way of thinking
> is under threat from people who persist in thinking the way that people did
> before it....
I don't understand. What do you mean?
> Part of such thinking is modern economics... It has less to do with reason
> than it does the infection of it's adherents minds
> with a kind of circular logic... it is a form of mysticism.
I disagree. Economic thinking lends clarity to many situations. Science
and Technology not least among them.
For example, consider the case of Charles Babbage, who invented a
calculating machine that, when built later by two Swedes, did the work of
a dozen clerks. The only problem was it cost twice as much as a dozen
clerks. Today, that would be called technology for technology's sake.
> > Without economics, how do explain how the same technology is used more
> > effectively under some conditions than others?
> You look at the reasons objectively...
I do.
> The reason that technology hasn't permiated darkest africa has nothing to do
> with calculus equations.
I fear you are putting the cart before the horse.
> do with the history of Africa, it's divided society and the actively
> aggressive foreign policies of the west...
Which doesn't explain why it was dirt poor, even by the standards of the
time, before the West starting messing about.
History and Culture are all reasons, but are also economic reasons. For
example, a tribe may have a cultural policy that demands all members share
completely the spoils of the hunt. With certain cultures, this lead to
free riding, and with hunt technology being very basic. Other cultures,
such as New Zealand Maori, had almost a "monitored" sharing system, and
people who did not contribute in relation to what they consumed were
ostracised. Thus, all pulled their weight and were highly accomplished
hunters.
Some of this is culture, some is history (ie it happened in the past) but
it is also economics. We can learn from the study of it.
> > Why did Japanese machine
> > tool workers produce 3 times the output per hour that their British
> > equivalents did?
> Culture.. Society... History... Politics
Partly culture and Society. They were very obedient, and followed
instructions precisely. Managers were open to suggestions from the floor,
and they had an inclusive, if heirachical, system.
Partly History. They had just suffered a humiliating defeat and times were
very hard. Domestic goods were in very short supply and the fear of
complete poverty in those times of uncertainty made those who had jobs
save heavily, which provided additional investment capital.
Is none of this Economics?
Are we confused about our terms? AFAICS, Economics is bound up with almost
every other field of study, in the same way that Physics and Chemistry
bind at various points.
> Are you saying that Japan's use of market protectionism contributed to it's
> success?
No, it was a hinderance. As with their rice-import bans, it penalises
Japanese consumers at the expense of domestic growers and their society is
poorer as a result.
> Perhaps you forget about the billions of dollars and pounds it recieved
> after the war?
We got billions too, twice as much as Germany and France. But we spent it
wastefully on consumption rather than investing it in production.
> Maybe it has something to do with their culture ancient social structure?
Some of it is that, but an economist will try and identify why they were
successful and try and replicate that which is relevant and, indeed,
replicatable.
> > What do you mean? "Economics is utterly false" doesn't make sense.
> > Economics is simply the name for the study of how resources are most
> > effectively allocated. What's to disagree with?
> It's very existance.
> It is simply a sophism.
I think that is the weakest non-answer I've seen in 12 years of
Fidonet/Usenet.
The whole field of economics is a sophism? Why?
. Under current conditions.. states become wealthy by
> being militarilly powerful, having united citizens, and having
> strong allies.
Like Switzerland? Denmark?
> Might it right it has nothing to do with economics...
I'm coming to think that you don't know what Economics is. You could
produce an economic analysis of the returns of "might" and explore if that
was the reason for wealth.
> Economics and other such sophisms such as neo-liberalist global capitalism
> and multi-culturalism are rocks in the river of
> human evolution as we reach towards our possible futures and away from
> caves, bones and rival clans..
Very flowery. try communicating instead, it's far more effective.
> The formula is simple : Respect for all human life.
> Unity in the quest for human achievement
Oh, very simple. Ask a dozen people about what mankinds priorities should
be and you get, at least, a dozen different answers.
> Economics is an abberation caused by the current status quo, it has no
> relevance in the universal scale of things...
Resources are limited and have competing uses. That's pretty universal.
Economic decisions are made even if you don't know much about economics.
> Where has an economic theory been misapplied?
Depends on your point of view.
> Who is responsible for the misapplication of physics? Physicists.. or their
> political masters?
A good point, but it holds too for Economics. Many professional economists
advised governments of both colours, but it was the politicians who
applied the theories, good or bad.
> > We have invented Mag-Lev technology but at present it does not
> > make sense to use it to replace existing rail systems.
> I see what you are saying... but that is not so much an economic decision as
> one of common sense...
Is it common sense? A technology exists that would allow trains to run
very quietly and twice the speed they do now, and doesn't wear out with
friction. How can this not be a good idea?
It's not common sense at all, it only appears so when market costs are
considered. Money, shmoney, eh?
> We have the power to convert lead into gold... but one doesn't need to spend
> 4 years at the LSE to know that it is a foolish practice!
Which is a bit like saying the study of geology is a waste of time because
you can tell the difference between a lump of quartz and a tub of butter.
What about gold and Iron Pyrites? Between rocks that are of varying
probability of being from rich oilfields?
> > Without (IMO) a rational economic analysis of the costs and benefits, we
> > could spend a lot of money which may only deliver marginal benefits.
> Money Shmoney..
> Where does spent money go? it is evaporated by the sun and falls as rain in
> the mountains, and trickles in some way to start the process again..
You know, you really REALLY should have a look at Henry Hazlitt's
"Economics in One Lesson".
From what you say above, we could spend, say, 50 billion into making every
long distance rail link in the UK a Mag-Lev (which you acknowledge as daft
and it really wouldn't matter, because the money spent would flow to
construction, electrical and engineering companies and their employees,
shareholders. These employees and shareholders can then spent these wages
and dividends on other goods and so, in your words, they start the process
again.
Except, for our 50 billion we would get an improved transport network, but
not one that was 50 billion better. Let's say that the time saved by the
faster journeys and the enviromental improvements that happen as a result
of the quieter trains amount to 5 billion. That means that 45 billion is
gone. 45 billion worth fewer cars, pizzas, TVs, shoes, you name it. They
Taxpayer or the investor has bought a crisp fiver with a fifty pound note.
Media companies did very well out of the dot.com advertising spending, but
the investors in most of those start-ups lost virtually all their money,
and because they don't have that money any more, they can spend it on
other things.
Economics. Cost Benefits.
> Inflation is a state of mind, as an economist (at least in this thread) you
> should know that economics is 90% crap...
Economics is not 90% crap, though the amount of guff talked about it by
people who ought to know better is at least that.
Don't try and dismiss inflation. At the very least, you'll alert one of
Abelards yaks.....
> What would happen to economics should technology provide 'the replicator'..
This is a point, and I've tried to imagine what would happen if such a
device existed in, as you say, a "Star Trek" type future.
On a less imaginary note, there have been some well argued articles on
what would happen to society when we get VirtualReality to a plausible
level. Will we ever want to come out?
Did you read Bill Joy's "The Future Doesn't Need Us?"
> (I know what politics would do!!)
Yeah, ban them because they put the factory workers out of a job.
> Some of our greatest achievements arise from folly... The Pyramids..
I understand that the current thinking is that most if not all of the
"slaves" were in fact paid contractors (though presumably they didn't go
through the teeth sucking stage "Bigger than Giza, <ssssssssct>, phoawww,
that's not going to be a cheap job"). Could be wrong.
> Teflon.... :)
...not an Apollo spin-off, as far as I know.
> We have had the discussion about concorde before have we not?
I think you are confusing me with another poster.
> > That's economics.
> Yes it most certainly is....
And is it a valuable point, or, in your view, is it simply more sophism?
> Of course all of this fails to recognise that the folly of the wright
> brothers is what allows you to push your pencil around...
Pardon?
> Should technology provide the 'teleportation device' you have more pencil
> pushing to do....
What are you talking about?
> Should I set up a super state based on the advancement of science, and
> defend it like a god sent sentinal against the advances of
> globalist capitalism, how long do you think it would take before it bore
> fruit?
How will you balance the conflicting demands of your citizenship? How will
you allocate the limited resources between your science research teams and
your engineers? If you have a million tonnes of titanium, does that get
used in hypersonic aircraft, Mag-Lev trains or lightweight cars or even
racing bikes for the scientists to play with on their days off? If you can
produce a certain quantity of helium per year, how much should be allowed
to be used to fill party balloons?
I think your science super state would fail long before any "Five Year
Plan" came to fruition.
> While you sit and think about what is economically viable, we will waste our
> money on folly.......
Yes, you could, like a certain country did in the past, allocate resources
into fabulous research into space flight. This produced the first
artificial satellite, the first man in space. Aerospace and Engineering
research produced fabulously fast interceptors. Of course, the population
had to queue for hours to get a loaf of bread or buy some razor blades.
Economically viable is when you get more out than you put in. Spending a
billion on researching a new wing design which reduces drag and thus
reduces consumption of fuel is only economically viable if the cost of
fuel saved if more than a billion (DCF, etc).
You have objected above to me using money, so we can say that if you have
20 aero engineers, there is only so much work you can allocate to them. So
what work SHOULD be allocated to them? Should you have them work on
reducing fuel burn? On making it faster? Bigger? In a market economy, they
would be tasked to the work that produced the biggest return. If fuel
prices were high, they would work on efficiency. If fuel were cheap and
passengers willing to pay for shorter journeys, they would likely work on
making it faster.
This is how you get progress. Technology and Economics.
> > "An engineer is someone who make for a penny what
> > any fool can make for a pound".
> If your friend is thinking hard about money... he should swap jobs...
On the contrary, he is (or was) an excellent engineer.
> The Germans prove that quality of design eventually bears fruit over cost of
> production...
You are confused. German cars are successful because, despite their high
cost, they are good value because of good build quality and good design.
They are economically viable.
There is nothing contradictory in economics about making very expensive
goods of a very high quality. And when it delivers value, it is worthwhile
and viable.
> You own a small company of gifted individuals... Your brightest star comes
> to you on a friday afternoon and says..
> 'I'm really good... I think I need a payrise'...
> Do you give him the money, or smile sweetly and tell him that you think that
> he is free to leave whever he wants and that when
> he leaves he'll take your gratitude and good will?
It depends what he wants as a payrise. If he is the chief designer of our
main product he would likely be able to name his price, at the cost of
some golden handcuffs. If he wanted a billion dollars, then yes, I would
show him the door.
> The brain drain is a fallacy
Is it? Why?
> In a society we deliver what we are good at
> delivering and should be praised for doing so..
I don't see how this follows. In a market economy, you are encouraged by
the lure of higher wages to be honest about your capabilities and
incentivised to improve yourself.
> If the good doctor feels that he would be happier delivering in belise or
> LA, then let him go.
It's not a question of letting him go.
You asked if you are free if you are denied healthcare. I suspect you
don't mean that somewhere there is a law that prevents you from being
treated. So what do you mean?
> I agree entirely... Tax and spend is not the best system..
> It does indeed leave itself open to abuse and mismanagement....
> But is this a reason to abandon it as a system?
I agree that you have to guard against throwing the baby out with the
bathwater, and you can argue how much, if any, of the current system we
should keep.
> The system can be successful.. .Sweden, Israel....
That would be the Sweden that spends 12% more than it earns every year?
Israel I don't know much about, beyond the fact that it seems to get
Marshall Plan size wedges of cash every year from the US.
> do you want to step over diseased bodies on your way to work?
Step? I'll glide past them in my chauffer driven Mercedes S600, lighting
my fat cigars with 50 pound notes pulled from the band around my top hat,
the windows tinted so they do not offend my view, on the way to the dark
mills to exploit the populace.....or so you'd like to think.
> Which would you rather the future of our nation be taught : Nothing/Ancient
> History and Science/WWF?
Eh? What is it a choice between? WWF? World Wildlife Fund!?!
regards
David
Jeremy Barker
record.co.uk writes
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:53:19 +0100, Jeremy Barker
><j...@jbark.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>(1) Are we prepared to slow (even reverse) the spread of economic
>>>liberalism, despite acknowledging that it has brought the fastest
>>>alleviation of poverty in history?
>>>
>> There are lots of modifications that can be made without
>>slowing down growth. I agree that we should be careful not to put
>>spanners into the system.
>
>What sort of modifications wold you be in favour of?
>
workers' rights, where this government has made numerous changes which
some have argued interfere with the working of a flexible labour market.
The right to paid holidays, the limitations to hours worked at night,
and reducing discriminations against part-time workers are cases in
point.
Or at a more trivial level, the taxing of TV adverts,
with the proceeds financing a political channel.
>>>(2) If we are not prepared to slow it, what are the side-effects that
>>>we find most egregious, that most need amelioration? What will we do
>>>to ameliorate them?
>>>
>> There are many possible trade-offs and each would have
>>to be considered separately.
>
>Such as?
>
The minimum wage. The obvious trade-off is higher
unemployment, but there might be a subsidiary one of increased
investment if the minimum wage was raised enough.
>>>(3) How can we provide suffucient pressure on multinational
>>>institutions to get (at least) teh leverage over them that we had over
>>>national governments? How can we get assurance that decision making
>>>rights are as close to the people they affect as possible?
>>>
>> Nearly all multinationals are based in one country. So
>>we have a direct influence over those in Britain. I guess there has to
>>be some co-ordination of policy with other countries.
>
>Through what sort of mechanisms?
>
Through e.g. the EU. Standardisation of rules and
procedures is important, so that taxation, planning regulations etc. do
not get too far out of line in different countries.
>>>(4) What realistic steps can we take to rebuild some sense of
>>>community that both meets the financial needs of the poor and the
>>>requirement that taxpayers have that these are 'deserving' poor?
>>
>> Don't know. I feel some redistribution of income is
>>necessary. There has to be a long hard slog to bring back deprived and
>>isolated communities into main stream society. We have to find ways for
>>people to participate in local affairs and if possible in national
>>affairs too. (I don't see why junior ministers couldn't hold open court
>>on the net to deal with some of the repeated criticisms they get).
>
>Agreed on much of this. On what basis would you redistribute income?
>
Mainly by providing a solid base for the commonly
provided goods such as health, education. Maybe a little more through
taxation, a higher tax free allowance and perhaps a small extra at the
top end.
Paris
news:Z_yE6.21734$vk1.30394@NewsReader...
> I take it you're not an engineer, and have never worked with one, then.
> Engineers have to work with the materials, processes, money, time,
> and people available, and all engineering is practical- there is no point
> designing a bridge that falls down, or can't be made. Do you really think
> that the pyramid engineer didn't *know* what it cost to clad them in
> limestone?
I have an upper second (0.5% off a first) honours degree in Control Systems
Engineering.
The Engineers job it to produce that which is best for purpous under the
circumstances...
Sure Engineers will work around financial constraints if they have to, but
that doesn't change my
point that engineers produce their best work when there are no constraints..
dormouse
Unless of course they have Norman Foster drawing the plans for them.
--
dormouse
Paris
message
> > Science rejects mysticism and anything which cannot be backed by some
form
> > of positively reproducable reason.
>
> Agreed, but I'm puzzled as to the relevance.
Economics is an attempt to predict the actions of individuals (ultimately)
using tools which
are designed for approximation.
It does not factor in war and other major social change, the possible
technological redundancy of money,
the individual behaviour of groups determined to undermine approximate
models and so on..
It is open-loop and should be treated as nothing more than an attempt at a
guess.
We know how a nation becomes rich: They steal from others at the point of a
gun, or they work hard and
defend from others at the point of a gun. This is the economics of Plato,
this is how it is still done today.. There IS NO other way.
<snip>
> I disagree. Economic thinking lends clarity to many situations. Science
> and Technology not least among them.
It adds clarity to nothing.. I have told you how to become rich. What you
are talking about it mud in the water.
> For example, consider the case of Charles Babbage, who invented a
> calculating machine that, when built later by two Swedes, did the work of
> a dozen clerks. The only problem was it cost twice as much as a dozen
> clerks. Today, that would be called technology for technology's sake.
Yes. So what... Babbages machine is acknowledged as the worlds first
computer..
You would have us wait until it became economically viable? When would that
be exactly? :)
You'd still be flint napping. Have you ever read 'the hitchikers guide to
the galaxy'?
Economists were famously featured on the 'B Ark'...
> > do with the history of Africa, it's divided society and the actively
> > aggressive foreign policies of the west...
>
> Which doesn't explain why it was dirt poor, even by the standards of the
> time, before the West starting messing about.
We'll ignore Egypt and Sheba for the moment then...
We'll forget about the tide of Islam which swept away everything from
Byzantium to the Pilars of Hercules.
(yes ok mulsim onlookers.. it gave us algebra.. yada yada yada)
> History and Culture are all reasons, but are also economic reasons. For
> example, a tribe may have a cultural policy that demands all members share
> completely the spoils of the hunt. With certain cultures, this lead to
> free riding, and with hunt technology being very basic. Other cultures,
> such as New Zealand Maori, had almost a "monitored" sharing system, and
> people who did not contribute in relation to what they consumed were
> ostracised. Thus, all pulled their weight and were highly accomplished
> hunters.
Now if only they'd thought to organise their hunting in a more social
manner, used their biggest to form armies with which to
unite the tribes.. built grain stores and laders, aquaducts and sewers...
They might have killed more than they needed, allowing them time to sit with
full bellies
and stare at the stars.. They might have invented deep sea ships and set
forth accross the oceans to settle and conqueror....
<snip>
> Partly culture and Society. They were very obedient, and followed
> instructions precisely. Managers were open to suggestions from the floor,
> and they had an inclusive, if heirachical, system.
>
> Partly History. They had just suffered a humiliating defeat and times were
> very hard. Domestic goods were in very short supply and the fear of
> complete poverty in those times of uncertainty made those who had jobs
> save heavily, which provided additional investment capital.
>
> Is none of this Economics?
No, none of it...
> Are we confused about our terms? AFAICS, Economics is bound up with almost
> every other field of study, in the same way that Physics and Chemistry
> bind at various points.
You're right, economics is bound up in Politics....That's the problem.
And it is a field of study like Theology.
We all know that the truth is that there is no God.
But that doesn't stop Billions of pounds a year sloshing around in his
name...
We all know tha the key to national success is military force, with which
one ceases assets and protects those
assets that one has against others. The NWO is founded on Hiroshima, we
truly live under the shadow of the mushroom cloud.
This doesn't stop millions of pounds sloshing around in the name of
economics...
> > Are you saying that Japan's use of market protectionism contributed to
it's
> > success?
>
> No, it was a hinderance. As with their rice-import bans, it penalises
> Japanese consumers at the expense of domestic growers and their society is
> poorer as a result.
Yes, they look much worse off for their agricultural policy...
Do you really believe all the American propoganda about the Japanese
economy?
They are a country of similar proportions to America, their culture is
invading the west year upon year...
They're doing just fine...
> > Perhaps you forget about the billions of dollars and pounds it recieved
> > after the war?
>
> We got billions too, twice as much as Germany and France. But we spent it
> wastefully on consumption rather than investing it in production.
But Germany and France still adopt the rediculous policies which you claim
ruined us!!!!!
Who are you trying to fool, me or you?
> > > What do you mean? "Economics is utterly false" doesn't make sense.
> > > Economics is simply the name for the study of how resources are most
> > > effectively allocated. What's to disagree with?
> > It's very existance.
> > It is simply a sophism.
>
> I think that is the weakest non-answer I've seen in 12 years of
> Fidonet/Usenet.
It is not.. It is the truth..
Economics is a nothing study. It is irrelevant. Might is right... That is
the only economy.
> The whole field of economics is a sophism? Why?
See above.
> . Under current conditions.. states become wealthy by
> > being militarilly powerful, having united citizens, and having
> > strong allies.
>
> Like Switzerland? Denmark?
Yes.
I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that it
wanted to invade Denmark?
> > Might it right it has nothing to do with economics...
>
> I'm coming to think that you don't know what Economics is. You could
> produce an economic analysis of the returns of "might" and explore if that
> was the reason for wealth.
Ok, lets do that...
Lets look at the greatest civilisations on earth and try and factor out
their economic strengths?
Lets start with the Greeks. Move on to the Romans, The Vikings, Europe, The
British, And finally.... America.
What is the underlying theme there do you think?
Is it economics? Or is it the Aegis?
> > Economics and other such sophisms such as neo-liberalist global
capitalism
> > and multi-culturalism are rocks in the river of
> > human evolution as we reach towards our possible futures and away from
> > caves, bones and rival clans..
>
> Very flowery. try communicating instead, it's far more effective.
The future of the human race lies in unity or oblivion.
In order to unite we need to remove any reason why any individual may justly
think themselves different from any other individual..
This means the death of religion and all other anti-social sophisms.
Such a sophism is that there is an alternative to force and social unity,
unilateral/national if necessary.
> > The formula is simple : Respect for all human life.
> > Unity in the quest for human achievement
>
> Oh, very simple. Ask a dozen people about what mankinds priorities should
> be and you get, at least, a dozen different answers.
I doubt it. That is another sophism.
All humans want the same things because they all have a hypathalamus.
We all want Shelter/Food and the opportunity to procreate.
That is darwins big two. Then there is the last one. Protection of the
species.
This is technolgy, mans fight against nature.
> > Economics is an abberation caused by the current status quo, it has no
> > relevance in the universal scale of things...
>
> Resources are limited and have competing uses. That's pretty universal.
> Economic decisions are made even if you don't know much about economics.
Resources are limited you're right... That's why we have cruise missiles and
apache gunships. That's why
we fly over Q8 every day...
> > Where has an economic theory been misapplied?
>
> Depends on your point of view.
That's the whole point... It's hardly and exact science is it?
<snip>
> > I see what you are saying... but that is not so much an economic
decision as
> > one of common sense...
>
> Is it common sense? A technology exists that would allow trains to run
> very quietly and twice the speed they do now, and doesn't wear out with
> friction. How can this not be a good idea?
Because it doesn't really work that well, and it isn't genuinely failsafe..
PLUS it is very expensive.
It's not really a replacement for cold steel rails.
> It's not common sense at all, it only appears so when market costs are
> considered. Money, shmoney, eh?
The financial aspect is common sense.. Why bother fixing Rail.. It isn't
really broken..
> > We have the power to convert lead into gold... but one doesn't need to
spend
> > 4 years at the LSE to know that it is a foolish practice!
>
> Which is a bit like saying the study of geology is a waste of time because
> you can tell the difference between a lump of quartz and a tub of butter.
> What about gold and Iron Pyrites? Between rocks that are of varying
> probability of being from rich oilfields?
If a scientist has to rely on statistics to form the basis of a theory, they
hang their heads in shame...
F=MA That is a universal law... and I can use it to get to the moon and
back..
What has economics volunteered to humanity?
> > > Without (IMO) a rational economic analysis of the costs and benefits,
we
> > > could spend a lot of money which may only deliver marginal benefits.
> > Money Shmoney..
> > Where does spent money go? it is evaporated by the sun and falls as rain
in
> > the mountains, and trickles in some way to start the process again..
>
> You know, you really REALLY should have a look at Henry Hazlitt's
> "Economics in One Lesson".
Probably, and you might read some ancient history...
> From what you say above, we could spend, say, 50 billion into making every
> long distance rail link in the UK a Mag-Lev (which you acknowledge as daft
> and it really wouldn't matter, because the money spent would flow to
> construction, electrical and engineering companies and their employees,
> shareholders. These employees and shareholders can then spent these wages
> and dividends on other goods and so, in your words, they start the process
> again.
>
> Except, for our 50 billion we would get an improved transport network, but
> not one that was 50 billion better. Let's say that the time saved by the
> faster journeys and the enviromental improvements that happen as a result
> of the quieter trains amount to 5 billion. That means that 45 billion is
> gone. 45 billion worth fewer cars, pizzas, TVs, shoes, you name it. They
> Taxpayer or the investor has bought a crisp fiver with a fifty pound note.
There's just no point, there's nothing wrong with rail!
Only when something is significantly better, or the only available option
does anything really
change..
> Media companies did very well out of the dot.com advertising spending, but
> the investors in most of those start-ups lost virtually all their money,
> and because they don't have that money any more, they can spend it on
> other things.
Yes it was hilarious! I laughed and laughed!
The Dot Com bust was one of the best things that has happened for humanity
in recent years..
It has kept the internet out of the clutches of finance just long enough for
it to truly mature...
> Economics. Cost Benefits.
So you are saying that because I didn't buy bread this week I can aford two
bottles of milk?
Excellent stuff! :)
> Economics is not 90% crap, though the amount of guff talked about it by
> people who ought to know better is at least that.
>
> Don't try and dismiss inflation. At the very least, you'll alert one of
> Abelards yaks.....
It's true! Inflation is the basis of economics, and it is wholly dependant
on the direction of the wind...
<snip>
> Yeah, ban them because they put the factory workers out of a job.
Unlikely.
We have a society which is based on a financial meritocracy.
Money enables a person to acrew posessions and status.
This status and comfort attracts mates and pushes a person up the pecking
order..
This hasn't always been the case and even to this day, it is not the case
(largely) in some countries (China for instance)
Some countries and civilisations placed much more emphesis on character and
philosophy.
If the replicator were invented women would no longer need men to provide
shelter via financial wealth..
They would look for new qualities in their mates, strength, intelligence,
humility, honour, valour.....
Those that now form the elite would fall (since they posses little of these
qualities except perhaps intelligence).
It would be those people that the politicians would act to protect..
themselves.
> > Some of our greatest achievements arise from folly... The Pyramids..
>
> I understand that the current thinking is that most if not all of the
> "slaves" were in fact paid contractors (though presumably they didn't go
> through the teeth sucking stage "Bigger than Giza, <ssssssssct>, phoawww,
> that's not going to be a cheap job"). Could be wrong.
:)
I think that the supervisors and architechts were hired hands...
As for the labour.......
<snip>
> I think you are confusing me with another poster.
I think your're right, but without Deja I can't remember who..
> > Of course all of this fails to recognise that the folly of the wright
> > brothers is what allows you to push your pencil around...
>
> Pardon?
Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER economically right
for R&D..
<snip>
> > Should I set up a super state based on the advancement of science, and
> > defend it like a god sent sentinal against the advances of
> > globalist capitalism, how long do you think it would take before it bore
> > fruit?
>
> How will you balance the conflicting demands of your citizenship?
Society.. Those that wish to leave... may freely do so. Those that are left
are familly.
Society strengthens, the bonds tighten and the sails bellow out...
Nazism provides part of the model, except that the best known example went
one stage two far, and tried to pre-empt those who might
wish to leave.....
> How will you allocate the limited resources between your science research
teams and
> your engineers?
They will do it themselves...
> If you have a million tonnes of titanium, does that get
> used in hypersonic aircraft, Mag-Lev trains or lightweight cars or even
> racing bikes for the scientists to play with on their days off? If you can
> produce a certain quantity of helium per year, how much should be allowed
> to be used to fill party balloons?
It would go where it would serve the country best..
> I think your science super state would fail long before any "Five Year
> Plan" came to fruition.
Only because the rest of the world would declare war on it on day one...
> > While you sit and think about what is economically viable, we will waste
our
> > money on folly.......
>
> Yes, you could, like a certain country did in the past, allocate resources
> into fabulous research into space flight. This produced the first
> artificial satellite, the first man in space. Aerospace and Engineering
> research produced fabulously fast interceptors. Of course, the population
> had to queue for hours to get a loaf of bread or buy some razor blades.
Now then, the History of the USSR is a fascinating one.. But this is not the
time...
<snip>
> I don't see how this follows. In a market economy, you are encouraged by
> the lure of higher wages to be honest about your capabilities and
> incentivised to improve yourself.
This isn't true.
Engineers are paid less than managers despite being far more qualified..
Market Economics gives money to those who best market themselves..
It does not encourage improvement in any real sense at all..
In fact that is my most fundamental gripe with Thatcherism.
<snip>
> You asked if you are free if you are denied healthcare. I suspect you
> don't mean that somewhere there is a law that prevents you from being
> treated. So what do you mean?
No, I mean that if I can't afford good healthcare, I am denied it.
Am I free if I have Rickets like people did the last time healthcare was
private.
The freedom of Capitalism is the freedom to profit from the loss of
others...
> > I agree entirely... Tax and spend is not the best system..
> > It does indeed leave itself open to abuse and mismanagement....
> > But is this a reason to abandon it as a system?
>
> I agree that you have to guard against throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater, and you can argue how much, if any, of the current system we
> should keep.
And I do...
The basic truth is this:
In order for humanity to progress it's basic needs must be met..
Society should offer shelter/food and healthcare to protect the bodies of
it's citizens, to a standard which the country feels reflects it's status.
Then we must level the playing field... Do the rich need an advantage in
order to do better than the poor? Surely not! :)
Lets have an education system unparalleled and free at the point of use,
lets see if there is any value in the idea that the poor are only so because
they have no worth....
Lets remove VAT on all essential items.. This being essentially Fuel,
Clothing, Food and Transport..
Lets pay for it by raising the VAT on luxury items and Income Tax between a
certain income bracket (I'm for capping the upper limit too).
Now what is to stop the unempolyed from staying in bed? Civil duty and Civil
Works.. A society united in labour for a common cause.. I built that
football stadium son!
Is any of this sounding familiar?
Lets acknowledge that the status quo of the west is maintained by ignorance
and propoganda..
Lets Brutally sell off the BBC and actively encourage vicious competition in
the media.
Lets's put so much mud in the media water that it will take decades to
clear!
Lets have laws governing Journalism that are so tough that hacks wet their
pants when they think about the consequences
of poetic license.. But let's encourage real journalism with every effort.
Lets have monopoly laws to ensure that no one organisation or group of
people gain control of any one media..
Lets have national debate on the merit of religion, and thereby decouple
religion from politics.
Lets expose intellecual fraud wherever we see it..
Let's devolve power to the regions.. Arm our citizens, reach out a friendly
hand to our European neighbours...
Lets encourage the notion abroad that we WILL defend ourselves with nuclear
weapons if necessary, but that we WILL NOT expand.
Let us trade where it benefits us, and not trade where it does not, and let
nobody tell us where we should or should not trade!
Let's invest heavilly in R&D in all fields, and share openly our
achievements with the world fostering new relationships with nations.. and
pushing forward humanity unilaterally...
I'm sure you know that there is much more where this came from :)
> > The system can be successful.. .Sweden, Israel....
>
> That would be the Sweden that spends 12% more than it earns every year?
Yup.. that will be the country with the worlds best standard of living...
> Israel I don't know much about, beyond the fact that it seems to get
> Marshall Plan size wedges of cash every year from the US.
Don't remind me!!
They also have one of the worlds most aggressive tax systems and are doing
nicely from it...
> Step? I'll glide past them in my chauffer driven Mercedes S600, lighting
> my fat cigars with 50 pound notes pulled from the band around my top hat,
> the windows tinted so they do not offend my view, on the way to the dark
> mills to exploit the populace.....or so you'd like to think.
I know you don't want that... But that's what you're going to get..
<snip>
anton
Paris wrote in message
<988047960.11986.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Anton <popi...@btNOSPAMconnect.com> wrote in message
>news:Z_yE6.21734$vk1.30394@NewsReader...
>
>> I take it you're not an engineer, and have never worked with one, then.
>> Engineers have to work with the materials, processes, money, time,
>> and people available, and all engineering is practical- there is no point
>> designing a bridge that falls down, or can't be made. Do you really
think
>> that the pyramid engineer didn't *know* what it cost to clad them in
>> limestone?
>
>I have an upper second (0.5% off a first) honours degree in Control Systems
>Engineering.
Well done.
>The Engineers job it to produce that which is best for purpous under >the
circumstances...
Right. The best, of course, varies according to the target.
>Sure Engineers will work around financial constraints if they have to, >but
that doesn't change my point that engineers produce their best >work when
there are no constraints..
If you've had lot of big-company nonsense with inappropriate
financial constraints, then I'm sure it can seem like your wings
are permanently clipped, but seriously- if there are no
constraints, there is nothing to engineer. How do you even
define what is "the best" work unless you have target against
which to evaluate it?
--
Anton
David J Rainey
odes...@my-deja.com says...
> Economics is an attempt to predict the actions of individuals (ultimately)
> using tools which are designed for approximation.
David Friedman says:
"Economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the
assumption that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way
to achieve them."
So, some agreement.
Approximation? Sure, most of the accuracy comes at the aggregate level.
Is it the approximation that you have a problem with?
> It does not factor in war and other major social change,
You haven't read much economics then. It does explore all of these things
over many periods. There are a dozen-plus economic explorations of armed
conflict and the social impact of such.
> the possible technological redundancy of money,
nor do they factor in the death of the sun and it's expansion to engulf
the earth. Which, IMO, is about as likely as Star Trek replicators
appearing within the next 200 years.
Or is that not what you meant?
> the individual behaviour of groups determined to undermine approximate
> models and so on..
You really don't read enough economics. There are loads of analysis on
free-riders etc.
> It is open-loop and should be treated as nothing more than an attempt at a
> guess.
In what sense is it open loop?
> We know how a nation becomes rich: They steal from others at the point of a
> gun, or they work hard and defend from others at the point of a gun.
Or they foster property rights and rule of law.
> This is the economics of Plato,
I confess I don't know much about Plato, so instead of referring to it,
explain what YOU think.
> this is how it is still done today.. There IS NO other way.
Property rights, rule of law, freedom to innovate, etc etc. Britain grew
rich through the Industrial Revolution and through trade. The Empire was a
net drain on her resources, so much for "stealing" being a way to get
rich.
> It adds clarity to nothing.. I have told you how to become rich. What you
> are talking about it mud in the water.
No, it is clarity. It tells you what innovations are worthwhile and what
aren't.
> Yes. So what... Babbages machine is acknowledged as the worlds first
> computer.. You would have us wait until it became economically viable?
> When would that be exactly? :)
It would be economically viable when it delivered more value than it cost
to make. If it could only do the work of a dozen clerks, and a dozen
clerks would be much cheaper, then it is destroying value, and making
society poorer.
> You'd still be flint napping.
Except that Bronze was a clearly economically superior to Flint.
> Have you ever read 'the hitchikers guide to
> the galaxy'? Economists were famously featured on the 'B Ark'...
Douglas Adams is quite a funny chap, but that's about it.
> > Which doesn't explain why it was dirt poor, even by the standards of the
> > time, before the West starting messing about.
> We'll ignore Egypt and Sheba for the moment then...
Cultures rise and fall. When "deepest" africa was being explored by the
likes of Livingston, they found poverty.
> We'll forget about the tide of Islam which swept away everything from
> Byzantium to the Pilars of Hercules.
> (yes ok mulsim onlookers.. it gave us algebra.. yada yada yada)
And china was advanced way ahead of the west in 200AD, but 1500 years
later it was very different. Why?
> and stare at the stars.. They might have invented deep sea ships and set
> forth accross the oceans to settle and conqueror....
Well, ignoring the fact that they had to invent ocean going craft just to
get to New Zealand........
[Japan]
> > Partly culture and Society. They were very obedient, and followed
> > instructions precisely. Managers were open to suggestions from the floor,
> > and they had an inclusive, if heirachical, system.
> > Partly History. They had just suffered a humiliating defeat and times were
> > very hard. Domestic goods were in very short supply and the fear of
> > complete poverty in those times of uncertainty made those who had jobs
> > save heavily, which provided additional investment capital.
> > Is none of this Economics?
> No, none of it...
Do you stick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalala" when people say
things you don't want to hear?
What is Economics? Attempting to understand behaviour to meet goals. Is
this relevant to understanding what happened in Japan after the war. YES!
> You're right, economics is bound up in Politics....That's the problem.
> And it is a field of study like Theology.
Except you can test economic theorys.
> We all know that the truth is that there is no God.
Well, as an athiest, I may agree, but the bulk of the rest of the world
disagrees.
> But that doesn't stop Billions of pounds a year sloshing around in his
> name...
Your point?
> We all know tha the key to national success is military force, with which
> one ceases assets and protects those assets that one has against others.
How do explain rich countries with a weak military, and poor countries
with a strong military?
> This doesn't stop millions of pounds sloshing around in the name of
> economics...
Try replacing economics with the definition of it above to see how dumb
this sounds.
>
> > > Are you saying that Japan's use of market protectionism contributed to
> > > it's success?
> > No, it was a hinderance. As with their rice-import bans, it penalises
> > Japanese consumers at the expense of domestic growers and their society is
> > poorer as a result.
> Yes, they look much worse off for their agricultural policy.
They are. The Japanese are prevented from buying cheap foreign rice, and
pay 3-4 times the world market price. The domestic growers get some of
this benefits, but there is substantial deadweight loss.
> Do you really believe all the American propoganda about the Japanese
> economy?
So salaryman suicide rate aren't though the roof, the country is not in
stagnation/recession?
> They are a country of similar proportions to America
Only if 50% is similar in your dictionary.
> their culture is invading the west year upon year...
Yep, Pokomon are a big hit. And Postman Pat dolls were almost biggest
selling toy in Japan a few years ago (specifically the black and white
cat). Wow, globalisation in action.
> They're doing just fine...
Really? Did you see Peter Snow's documentary on Japan?
> > We got billions too, twice as much as Germany and France. But we spent it
> > wastefully on consumption rather than investing it in production.
> But Germany and France still adopt the rediculous policies which you claim
> ruined us!!!!!
What policy do I claim ruined us?
> > > > What do you mean? "Economics is utterly false" doesn't make sense.
> > > > What's to disagree with?
> > > It's very existance.
> > > It is simply a sophism.
> > I think that is the weakest non-answer I've seen in 12 years of
> > Fidonet/Usenet.
> It is not.. It is the truth..
> Economics is a nothing study. It is irrelevant.
Oh well can't argue with that. "Economics is useless because it is".
You smell becasue you do!
> > The whole field of economics is a sophism? Why?
> See above.
Answer the frickin question instead of stamping your feet.
"Economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the
assumption that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way
to achieve them."
In what way is this a sophism?
> I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
Gnomes of Zurich, eh?
> As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that it
> wanted to invade Denmark?
They'd have a job from that far away.
> Ok, lets do that. Lets look at the greatest civilisations on earth and try
> and factor out their economic strengths? Lets start with the Greeks.
> Move on to the Romans, The Vikings, Europe, The British, And finally America.
> What is the underlying theme there do you think?
> Is it economics? Or is it the Aegis?
Economics is a large part of it. Absolutely. How on earth can you say
otherwise. For all of the "civilisations" above (America?) each expansion
was profitable. It delivered more benefits than incurred costs.
A Viking raiding party that lost a dozen ships crossing the North Sea,
smacking my ancestors in the chops and then returning to Norway with
nothing more than half a dozen pigs and a rusty sword would quickly get
out of the raiding party game.
Of course, in the longer term, the costs grew faster than the benefits,
and they collapsed.
> The future of the human race lies in unity or oblivion.
> In order to unite we need to remove any reason why any individual may justly
> think themselves different from any other individual..
Eh?
> This means the death of religion and all other anti-social sophisms.
And how is this to be achieved? Not, I suspect, by any liberal methods.
> Such a sophism is that there is an alternative to force and social unity,
> unilateral/national if necessary.
I'm also beginning to think we are working to different definitions of
what a sophism is. What are you talking about?
> > Oh, very simple. Ask a dozen people about what mankinds priorities should
> > be and you get, at least, a dozen different answers.
> I doubt it. That is another sophism.
> All humans want the same things because they all have a hypathalamus.
> We all want Shelter/Food and the opportunity to procreate.
If you don't have water, you only have one problem. How to get water. If
you have water, but no food, you only have one problem. How to get food.
If you have food and water, you have loads of problems. How each is
prioritised will vary from individual to individual. Unity of purpose
exists only at the very basic level.
Christ, my g/f and I can barely agree on what movie to go and see, or what
to have for dinner.
> Resources are limited you're right... That's why we have cruise missiles and
> apache gunships. That's why we fly over Q8 every day...
Do you imagine that this is some sort of refutation? Does this somehow
prove that resources are infinite?
> > > Where has an economic theory been misapplied?
> > Depends on your point of view.
> That's the whole point... It's hardly and exact science is it?
No, and many opinions exist. Engineers don't always agree either.
> > Is it common sense? A technology exists that would allow trains to run
> > very quietly and twice the speed they do now, and doesn't wear out with
> > friction. How can this not be a good idea?
> Because it doesn't really work that well, and it isn't genuinely failsafe..
So what?
> PLUS it is very expensive.
As you said. Money schmoney. What has expensive got to do with a non
economic analysis or common sense.
Hoist by your own petard, methinks.
> > It's not common sense at all, it only appears so when market costs are
> > considered. Money, shmoney, eh?
> The financial aspect is common sense.
Finance? What has that got to do with anything. Surely Engineers produce
their finest work when working without contraints?
Where are you on this. You agree that Mag-Lev doesn't make sense. Not for
economic reasons, but for financial reasons.
Reminds me of a(n alleged) Quayle-ism "It's not pollution that is damaging
the enviroment, it's the impurities in the air that does that"
> If a scientist has to rely on statistics to form the basis of a theory, they
> hang their heads in shame...
And so you damn the whole field of material science, specifically those
work on ceramics.
> F=MA That is a universal law... and I can use it to get to the moon and
> back..
> What has economics volunteered to humanity?
It lets us know when technology is good (Watt's Steam Engine) and when it
is bad (Babbage's Calculator).
> > You know, you really REALLY should have a look at Henry Hazlitt's
> > "Economics in One Lesson".
> Probably, and you might read some ancient history...
I do, but it's mainly Scottish history. Lot's of economics in there too.
[Mag-Lev]
> There's just no point, there's nothing wrong with rail!
Mag Lev is, on paper at least, overwhelmingly superior to rail.
Earlier you were teasing me about the Babbage Calculator and said that if
it were up to me, we'd still be using Flint tools. And now you are saying
that Mag-Lev is not a good idea at this time for financial reasons because
rail is good enough.
The examples are identical, but you fall on different sides for each one.
Why?
> Only when something is significantly better, or the only available option
> does anything really change..
It is significantly better, but it is economically unviable because the
costs outweigh the benefits. The Babbage Calculator was a massive step
forward in technology, but exactly as with Mag-Lev, it did not deliver
sufficient benefits to justify its costs.
> > Media companies did very well out of the dot.com advertising spending
> It has kept the internet out of the clutches of finance just long enough for
> it to truly mature...
Huh? Finance Houses have had their beady eye on the Internet ever since
Netscape went stellar. Yes, they are more cautious since the pop, but they
are still all over it, and obviously so.
> So you are saying that because I didn't buy bread this week I can aford two
> bottles of milk? Excellent stuff! :)
If a price of a loaf is the same or greater than the price of a bottle of
milk, you can. If having an extra bottle is more valuable to you than
keeping the money, you would be better off buying it.
> It's true! Inflation is the basis of economics,
No it's not. Not by any definition of Economics, not even your own.
> and it is wholly dependant on the direction of the wind...
and the money supply, levels of consumption, investment.......
> Money enables a person to acrew posessions and status.
> This status and comfort attracts mates and pushes a person up the pecking
> order..
> This hasn't always been the case and even to this day, it is not the case
> (largely) in some countries (China for instance)
In china, your status depends on your connections. Hardly more rational.
[Concorde]
> > I think you are confusing me with another poster.
> I think your're right, but without Deja I can't remember who..
What was your point with him?
> Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER economically right
> for R&D..
This would appear to be self evidently wrong, since R&D attracts billions
of pounds every year.
> > How will you balance the conflicting demands of your citizenship?
> Society.. Those that wish to leave... may freely do so. Those that are left
> are familly.
> Society strengthens, the bonds tighten and the sails bellow out...
That wasn't what I meant. How will resources be allocated?
> > How will you allocate the limited resources between your science research
> > teams and your engineers?
> They will do it themselves...
Just like that?
> > If you have a million tonnes of titanium, does that get
> > used in hypersonic aircraft, Mag-Lev trains or lightweight cars or even
> > racing bikes for the scientists to play with on their days off?
> It would go where it would serve the country best..
By which yard stick will you measure best?
*Who* will decide if the titanium should be allocated to cool looking
watches, or to supersonic aircraft? Will you have a planning arm such as
GOSPLAN?
> Now then, the History of the USSR is a fascinating one.. But this is not the
> time...
Yes, we don't want to bring the USSR into any discussion about a society
running with central planning organisations allocating resources.
> > I don't see how this follows. In a market economy, you are encouraged by
> > the lure of higher wages to be honest about your capabilities and
> > incentivised to improve yourself.
> This isn't true.
> Engineers are paid less than managers despite being far more qualified..
They do different jobs.
I earn less than my boss, but he has a different job to me. I wouldn't
want his job, as he has to hit a target he can only control indirectly, I
control my own revenues.
In many hi-tech companies, Engineers are just about the best paid
employees in the organisation.
> Market Economics gives money to those who best market themselves..
aka "perception is reality", which is partly true. The perception is
rarely entirely fantasy.
> It does not encourage improvement in any real sense at all..
That must be why self employed contractors invest in their own training to
maintain the value of their skills, and why I am leaving my firm in two
months time to go back to university to improve myself and to get a better
salary when I return to the workforce.
> > You asked if you are free if you are denied healthcare. I suspect you
> > don't mean that somewhere there is a law that prevents you from being
> > treated. So what do you mean?
> No, I mean that if I can't afford good healthcare, I am denied it.
If I can't afford food, I am denied it. I am still free.
> Am I free if I have Rickets like people did the last time healthcare was
> private.
Was rickets wiped out by the NHS?
> The freedom of Capitalism is the freedom to profit from the loss of
> others...
and also to profit from mutually rewarding trades. So what.
> Lets have an education system unparalleled and free at the point of use,
Who decides which children go to which school?
> lets see if there is any value in the idea that the poor are only so because
> they have no worth....
Not an idea anybody I know shares.
> Lets remove VAT on all essential items.
I agree with all of this apart from "essential".
> Lets pay for it by raising the VAT on luxury items and Income Tax between a
> certain income bracket (I'm for capping the upper limit too).
Capping the upper limit of Income Tax, a maximum pounds sterling amount?
> Is any of this sounding familiar?
At which point do you seize the businesses of the untermensch?
> Lets acknowledge that the status quo of the west is maintained by ignorance
> and propoganda..
Except it isn't.
> Lets Brutally sell off the BBC and actively encourage vicious competition in
> the media.
<Gasp> Yes.
> Lets's put so much mud in the media water that it will take decades to
> clear!
What does this mean?
> Lets have laws governing Journalism that are so tough that hacks wet their
> pants when they think about the consequences
So that politicians and crooked businessmen can do as they please?
> But let's encourage real journalism with every effort.
How are you going to balance the two?
> Lets have monopoly laws to ensure that no one organisation or group of
> people gain control of any one media..
Define control.
> Lets have national debate on the merit of religion, and thereby decouple
> religion from politics.
Let's not, but let's dis-establish the church of England (and Scotland, if
Applicable)
> Let's devolve power to the regions.. Arm our citizens,
OK.
> reach out a friendly
> hand to our European neighbours...
Meaning?
> Lets encourage the notion abroad that we WILL defend ourselves with nuclear
> weapons if necessary, but that we WILL NOT expand.
OK.
> Let us trade where it benefits us, and not trade where it does not, and let
> nobody tell us where we should or should not trade!
OK.
> Let's invest heavilly in R&D in all fields,
Who will decide?
> and share openly our
> achievements with the world fostering new relationships with nations.. and
> pushing forward humanity unilaterally...
Hmm.
> > > The system can be successful.. .Sweden, Israel....
> > That would be the Sweden that spends 12% more than it earns every year?
> Yup.. that will be the country with the worlds best standard of living...
No, that would be Luxembourg
If I spent 12% more than I earned every year, I could have my dream car an
live in a much nicer house, but you wouldn't advocate
Sweden is living on borrowed money. Chickens. Roost. Come Home. Soon.
> > Israel I don't know much about, beyond the fact that it seems to get
> > Marshall Plan size wedges of cash every year from the US.
> They also have one of the worlds most aggressive tax systems and are doing
> nicely from it...
...despite it.
regards
David
David J Rainey
> using tools which are designed for approximation.
David Friedman says:
"Economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the
assumption that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way
to achieve them."
So, some agreement.
Approximation? Sure, most of the accuracy comes at the aggregate level.
Is it the approximation that you have a problem with?
> It does not factor in war and other major social change,
It does explore all of these things over many periods. There are a dozen-
plus economic explorations of armed conflict and the social impact of
such.
> the possible technological redundancy of money,
nor do they factor in the death of the sun and it's expansion to engulf
the earth. It will happen, but current Economics need not deal with it.
Star Trek style replicators are unlikely to exist within 200 years if
ever, though this does not preclude a Trekkie Economist trying to
investigate how this would impact society.
Or is that not what you meant?
> the individual behaviour of groups determined to undermine approximate
> models and so on..
You really don't read enough economics. There are loads of analysis on
free-riders etc.
> It is open-loop and should be treated as nothing more than an attempt at a
> guess.
In what sense is it open loop?
> We know how a nation becomes rich: They steal from others at the point of a
> gun, or they work hard and defend from others at the point of a gun.
Or they foster property rights and rule of law.
> This is the economics of Plato,
I confess I don't know much about Plato, so instead of referring to it,
explain what YOU think.
> this is how it is still done today.. There IS NO other way.
Property rights, rule of law, freedom to innovate, etc etc. Britain grew
rich through the Industrial Revolution and through trade. The Empire was a
net drain on her resources, so much for "stealing" being a way to get
rich.
> It adds clarity to nothing.. I have told you how to become rich. What you
> are talking about it mud in the water.
No, it is clarity. It tells you which innovations are worthwhile and which
aren't.
> Yes. So what... Babbages machine is acknowledged as the worlds first
> computer.. You would have us wait until it became economically viable?
> When would that be exactly? :)
It would be economically viable when it delivered more value than it cost
to make. If it could only do the work of a dozen clerks, and a dozen
clerks would be much cheaper, then it is destroying value, and making
society poorer.
> You'd still be flint napping.
Except that Bronze was a clearly economically superior to Flint.
> Have you ever read 'the hitchikers guide to
> the galaxy'? Economists were famously featured on the 'B Ark'...
Douglas Adams is quite a funny chap, but that's about it.
> > Which doesn't explain why it was dirt poor, even by the standards of the
> > time, before the West starting messing about.
> We'll ignore Egypt and Sheba for the moment then...
Cultures rise and fall. When "deepest" africa was being explored by the
likes of Livingston, they found poverty.
> We'll forget about the tide of Islam which swept away everything from
> Byzantium to the Pilars of Hercules.
> (yes ok mulsim onlookers.. it gave us algebra.. yada yada yada)
And china was advanced way ahead of the west in 200AD, but 1500 years
later it was very different. Why?
> and stare at the stars.. They might have invented deep sea ships and set
> forth accross the oceans to settle and conqueror....
Well, ignoring the fact that they had to invent ocean going craft just to
get to New Zealand........
[Japan]
> > Partly culture and Society. They were very obedient, and followed
> > instructions precisely. Managers were open to suggestions from the floor,
> > and they had an inclusive, if heirachical, system.
> > Partly History. They had just suffered a humiliating defeat and times were
> > very hard. Domestic goods were in very short supply and the fear of
> > complete poverty in those times of uncertainty made those who had jobs
> > save heavily, which provided additional investment capital.
> > Is none of this Economics?
> No, none of it...
Do you stick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalala" when people say
things you don't want to hear?
What is Economics? Attempting to understand behaviour to meet goals. Is
this relevant to understanding what happened in Japan after the war. YES!
> You're right, economics is bound up in Politics....That's the problem.
> And it is a field of study like Theology.
Except you can test economic theories.
> We all know that the truth is that there is no God.
Well, as an athiest, I may agree, but the bulk of the rest of the world
disagrees.
> But that doesn't stop Billions of pounds a year sloshing around in his
> name...
Your point?
> We all know tha the key to national success is military force, with which
> one ceases assets and protects those assets that one has against others.
How do explain rich countries with a weak military, and poor countries
with a strong military?
> This doesn't stop millions of pounds sloshing around in the name of
> economics...
Try replacing economics with the definition of it above to see how dumb
this sounds.
>
> > > Are you saying that Japan's use of market protectionism contributed to
> > > it's success?
> > No, it was a hinderance. As with their rice-import bans, it penalises
> > Japanese consumers at the expense of domestic growers and their society is
> > poorer as a result.
> Yes, they look much worse off for their agricultural policy.
They are. The Japanese are prevented from buying cheap foreign rice, and
pay 3-4 times the world market price. The domestic growers get some of
this benefits, but there is substantial deadweight loss.
> Do you really believe all the American propoganda about the Japanese
> economy?
So salaryman suicide rates aren't though the roof, the country is not in
stagnation/recession?
> They are a country of similar proportions to America
Only if 50% is similar in your dictionary.
> their culture is invading the west year upon year...
Yep, Pokomon are a big hit. And Postman Pat dolls were almost biggest
selling toy in Japan a few years ago (specifically the black and white
cat). Wow, globalisation in action.
> They're doing just fine...
Really? Did you see Peter Snow's documentary on Japan? That took you
beyond the dreadful numbers and attempted to show what it was actually
like.
> > We got billions too, twice as much as Germany and France. But we spent it
> > wastefully on consumption rather than investing it in production.
> But Germany and France still adopt the rediculous policies which you claim
> ruined us!!!!!
What policy do I claim ruined us?
> > > > What do you mean? "Economics is utterly false" doesn't make sense.
> > > > What's to disagree with?
> > > It's very existance.
> > > It is simply a sophism.
> > I think that is the weakest non-answer I've seen in 12 years of
> > Fidonet/Usenet.
> It is not.. It is the truth..
> Economics is a nothing study. It is irrelevant.
Oh well can't argue with that. "Economics is useless because it is".
You smell becasue you do!
> > The whole field of economics is a sophism? Why?
> See above.
Answer the frickin question instead of stamping your feet.
"Economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the
assumption that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way
to achieve them."
In what way is this a sophism?
> I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
Gnomes of Zurich, eh?
> As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that it
> wanted to invade Denmark?
They'd have a job from that far away.
> Ok, lets do that. Lets look at the greatest civilisations on earth and try
> and factor out their economic strengths? Lets start with the Greeks.
> Move on to the Romans, The Vikings, Europe, The British, And finally America.
> What is the underlying theme there do you think?
> Is it economics? Or is it the Aegis?
Economics is a large part of it. Absolutely. How on earth can you say
otherwise. For all of the "civilisations" above (America?) each expansion
was profitable. It delivered more benefits than incurred costs.
A Viking raiding party that lost a dozen ships crossing the North Sea,
smacking my ancestors in the chops and then returning to Norway with
nothing more than half a dozen pigs and a rusty sword would quickly get
out of the raiding party game.
Of course, in the longer term, the costs grew faster than the benefits,
and they collapsed.
> The future of the human race lies in unity or oblivion.
> In order to unite we need to remove any reason why any individual may justly
> think themselves different from any other individual..
Eh?
> This means the death of religion and all other anti-social sophisms.
And how is this to be achieved? Not, I suspect, by any liberal methods.
> Such a sophism is that there is an alternative to force and social unity,
> unilateral/national if necessary.
I'm also beginning to think we are working to different definitions of
what a sophism is. What are you talking about?
> > Oh, very simple. Ask a dozen people about what mankinds priorities should
> > be and you get, at least, a dozen different answers.
> I doubt it. That is another sophism.
> All humans want the same things because they all have a hypathalamus.
> We all want Shelter/Food and the opportunity to procreate.
If you don't have water, you only have one problem. How to get water. If
you have water, but no food, you only have one problem. How to get food.
If you have food and water, you have loads of problems. How each is
prioritised will vary from individual to individual. Unity of purpose
exists only at the very basic level.
Christ, my g/f and I can barely agree on what movie to go and see, or what
to have for dinner.
> Resources are limited you're right... That's why we have cruise missiles and
> apache gunships. That's why we fly over Q8 every day...
Do you imagine that this is some sort of refutation? Does this somehow
prove that resources are infinite?
> > > Where has an economic theory been misapplied?
> > Depends on your point of view.
> That's the whole point... It's hardly and exact science is it?
No, and many opinions exist. Engineers don't always agree either.
> > Is it common sense? A technology exists that would allow trains to run
> > very quietly and twice the speed they do now, and doesn't wear out with
> > friction. How can this not be a good idea?
> Because it doesn't really work that well, and it isn't genuinely failsafe..
So what?
> PLUS it is very expensive.
As you said. Money schmoney. What has expensive got to do with a non
economic analysis or common sense.
Hoist by your own petard, methinks.
> > It's not common sense at all, it only appears so when market costs are
> > considered. Money, shmoney, eh?
> The financial aspect is common sense.
Finance? What has that got to do with anything. Surely Engineers produce
their finest work when working without contraints?
Where are you on this. You agree that Mag-Lev doesn't make sense. Not for
economic reasons, but for financial reasons.
Reminds me of a(n alleged) Quayle-ism "It's not pollution that is damaging
the enviroment, it's the impurities in the air that does that"
> If a scientist has to rely on statistics to form the basis of a theory, they
> hang their heads in shame...
And so you damn the whole field of material science, specifically those
who work on ceramics.
> F=MA That is a universal law... and I can use it to get to the moon and
> back..
> What has economics volunteered to humanity?
It lets us know when technology is good (Watt's Steam Engine) and when it
is bad (Babbage's Calculator) - in terms of value added to the world.
> > You know, you really REALLY should have a look at Henry Hazlitt's
> > "Economics in One Lesson".
> Probably, and you might read some ancient history...
I do, but it's mainly Scottish history. Lots of economics in there too.
[Mag-Lev]
> There's just no point, there's nothing wrong with rail!
Mag Lev is, on paper at least, overwhelmingly superior to rail.
Earlier you were teasing me about the Babbage Calculator and said that if
it were up to me, we'd still be using Flint tools. And now you are saying
that Mag-Lev is not a good idea at this time for financial reasons because
rail is good enough.
The examples are identical, but you fall on different sides for each one.
Why?
> Only when something is significantly better, or the only available option
> does anything really change..
It is significantly better, but it is economically unviable because the
costs outweigh the benefits. The Babbage Calculator was a massive step
forward in technology, but exactly as with Mag-Lev, it did not deliver
sufficient benefits to justify its costs.
> > Media companies did very well out of the dot.com advertising spending
> It has kept the internet out of the clutches of finance just long enough for
> it to truly mature...
Huh? Finance Houses have had their beady eye on the Internet ever since
Netscape went stellar. Yes, they are more cautious since the pop, but they
are still all over it, and obviously so.
> So you are saying that because I didn't buy bread this week I can aford two
> bottles of milk? Excellent stuff! :)
If a price of a loaf is the same or greater than the price of a bottle of
milk, you can. If having an extra bottle is more valuable to you than
keeping the money, you would be better off buying it.
> It's true! Inflation is the basis of economics,
No it's not. Not by any definition of Economics, not even your own.
> and it is wholly dependant on the direction of the wind...
and the money supply, levels of consumption, investment.......
> Money enables a person to acrew posessions and status.
> This status and comfort attracts mates and pushes a person up the pecking
> order..
> This hasn't always been the case and even to this day, it is not the case
> (largely) in some countries (China for instance)
In china, your status depends on your connections. Hardly more rational.
[Concorde]
> > I think you are confusing me with another poster.
> I think your're right, but without Deja I can't remember who..
What was your point with him?
> Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER economically right
> for R&D..
This would appear to be self evidently wrong, since R&D attracts billions
of pounds every year.
> > How will you balance the conflicting demands of your citizenship?
> Society.. Those that wish to leave... may freely do so. Those that are left
> are familly.
> Society strengthens, the bonds tighten and the sails bellow out...
That wasn't what I meant. How will resources be allocated?
> > How will you allocate the limited resources between your science research
> > teams and your engineers?
> They will do it themselves...
Just like that?
> > If you have a million tonnes of titanium, does that get
> > used in hypersonic aircraft, Mag-Lev trains or lightweight cars or even
> > racing bikes for the scientists to play with on their days off?
> It would go where it would serve the country best..
By which yard stick will you measure best?
*Who* will decide if the titanium should be allocated to cool looking
watches, or to supersonic aircraft? Will you have a planning arm such as
GOSPLAN?
> Now then, the History of the USSR is a fascinating one.. But this is not the
> time...
Yes, we don't want to bring the USSR into any discussion about a society
running with central planning organisations allocating resources.
> > I don't see how this follows. In a market economy, you are encouraged by
> > the lure of higher wages to be honest about your capabilities and
> > incentivised to improve yourself.
> This isn't true.
> Engineers are paid less than managers despite being far more qualified..
They do different jobs.
I earn less than my boss, but he has a different job to me. I wouldn't
want his job, as he has to hit a target he can only control indirectly, I
control my own revenues.
In many hi-tech companies, Engineers are just about the best paid
employees in the organisation.
> Market Economics gives money to those who best market themselves..
aka "perception is reality", which is partly true. The perception is
rarely entirely fantasy.
> It does not encourage improvement in any real sense at all..
That must be why self employed contractors invest in their own training to
maintain the value of their skills, and why I am leaving my firm in two
months time to go back to university to improve myself and to get a better
salary when I return to the workforce.
> > You asked if you are free if you are denied healthcare. I suspect you
> > don't mean that somewhere there is a law that prevents you from being
> > treated. So what do you mean?
> No, I mean that if I can't afford good healthcare, I am denied it.
If I can't afford food, I am denied it. I am still free.
> Am I free if I have Rickets like people did the last time healthcare was
> private.
Was rickets wiped out by the NHS?
> The freedom of Capitalism is the freedom to profit from the loss of
> others...
and also to profit from mutually rewarding trades. So what.
> Lets have an education system unparalleled and free at the point of use,
Who decides which children go to which school?
> lets see if there is any value in the idea that the poor are only so because
> they have no worth....
Not an idea anybody I know shares.
> Lets remove VAT on all essential items.
I agree with all of this apart from "essential".
> Lets pay for it by raising the VAT on luxury items and Income Tax between a
> certain income bracket (I'm for capping the upper limit too).
Capping the upper limit of Income Tax, a maximum pounds sterling amount?
> Is any of this sounding familiar?
At which point do you seize the businesses of the untermensch?
> Lets acknowledge that the status quo of the west is maintained by ignorance
> and propoganda..
Except it isn't.
> Lets Brutally sell off the BBC and actively encourage vicious competition in
> the media.
<Gasp> Yes.
> Lets's put so much mud in the media water that it will take decades to
> clear!
What does this mean?
> Lets have laws governing Journalism that are so tough that hacks wet their
> pants when they think about the consequences
So that politicians and crooked businessmen can do as they please?
> But let's encourage real journalism with every effort.
How are you going to balance the two?
> Lets have monopoly laws to ensure that no one organisation or group of
> people gain control of any one media..
Define control.
> Lets have national debate on the merit of religion, and thereby decouple
> religion from politics.
Let's not, but let's dis-establish the church of England (and Scotland, if
Applicable)
> Let's devolve power to the regions.. Arm our citizens,
OK.
> reach out a friendly
> hand to our European neighbours...
Meaning?
> Lets encourage the notion abroad that we WILL defend ourselves with nuclear
> weapons if necessary, but that we WILL NOT expand.
OK.
> Let us trade where it benefits us, and not trade where it does not, and let
> nobody tell us where we should or should not trade!
OK.
> Let's invest heavilly in R&D in all fields,
Who will decide?
> and share openly our
> achievements with the world fostering new relationships with nations.. and
> pushing forward humanity unilaterally...
Hmm.
> > > The system can be successful.. .Sweden, Israel....
> > That would be the Sweden that spends 12% more than it earns every year?
> Yup.. that will be the country with the worlds best standard of living...
No, that would be Luxembourg
If I spent 12% more than I earned every year, I could have my dream car an
live in a much nicer house, but you wouldn't advocate
Sweden is living on borrowed money. Chickens. Roost. Come Home. Soon.
> > Israel I don't know much about, beyond the fact that it seems to get
> > Marshall Plan size wedges of cash every year from the US.
> They also have one of the worlds most aggressive tax systems and are doing
> nicely from it...
...despite it.
regards
David
Paris
> David Friedman says:
>
> "Economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the
> assumption that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way
> to achieve them."
>
> So, some agreement.
>
> Approximation? Sure, most of the accuracy comes at the aggregate level.
>
> Is it the approximation that you have a problem with?
No, it is the fact that economics is a black art masquerading as a science.
It is all theory, and I hesitate to use that word.
We 'start with assumptions' and use Statistics to draw conclusions!
....Really... it must stop.
> > It does not factor in war and other major social change,
>
> It does explore all of these things over many periods. There are a dozen-
> plus economic explorations of armed conflict and the social impact of
> such.
Then how has it not arrived at the conclusion that lots of men with guns
will do it everytime?
> > the possible technological redundancy of money,
>
> nor do they factor in the death of the sun and it's expansion to engulf
> the earth. It will happen, but current Economics need not deal with it.
I think you laugh, because you have no anwer..
I repeat: on the universal scale of things economics is a nonsense.
And therefore it is a blind alley which humanity should avoid at all costs!
> Star Trek style replicators are unlikely to exist within 200 years if
> ever, though this does not preclude a Trekkie Economist trying to
> investigate how this would impact society.
I think you might be wrong, have you heard of stereo-lithography?...
But what will be here in 200 years even under current circumstances:
Full Machine Intelligence
3D Printing Machines (Napster is just the beginning, imagine being able to
download car part)
Fusion
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
The Full-Body Genetic alteration of living adults using virus vectors
And this is just a start...
Economics is no match for technology in terms of advancing the human race..
To continue to push it forward as a viable alternative is to divide our
efforts..
What could we have if we all adopted the notion that Technology *will* free
us?
Politicians and econometricians are increasingly unimportant because in the
back of their minds the public
already know which hand actually feeds them.
> > the individual behaviour of groups determined to undermine approximate
> > models and so on..
>
> You really don't read enough economics. There are loads of analysis on
> free-riders etc.
I didn't mean free-riders, I meant Zionists et al.
> > It is open-loop and should be treated as nothing more than an attempt at
a
> > guess.
>
> In what sense is it open loop?
It is all unfounded theory. There is no way of linking results to
application of theory because there are so many
extraneous factors. An economist can consider themselves accurate if they
are 100% either side of reality.
I think that's a quote from a famous economist?
> > We know how a nation becomes rich: They steal from others at the point
of a
> > gun, or they work hard and defend from others at the point of a gun.
>
> Or they foster property rights and rule of law.
It has to do this in order to raise an army, that's all!
The rule of law is no more than the application of force by those with a
vested interest in the the status quo
Property rights are thievery which can only take place under the rule of
law. Without law the land belongs to those
who can occupy it and protect it from others, only so long as they can do
that..
How can a person justly own land? All humans are born naked citizens of the
world.
I can understand anyone wanting to defend their home, but to claim they own
the land on which it is built
is nonsense, land belongs to humanity.
If people can own land then why should I fight for my country in times of
war?
Am I not just protecting the land of other people from the invaders? Let
those with the most land fight
proportionally for it! :)
When the invaders come, will they not just take the land, and change the law
to suit themselves?
Again, might is right.
> > This is the economics of Plato,
>
> I confess I don't know much about Plato, so instead of referring to it,
> explain what YOU think.
You know what I think... Economics is a nonsense which has not only ruined
my country, but is helping to ruin the chance
that humanity might unite in common sense!
> > this is how it is still done today.. There IS NO other way.
>
> Property rights, rule of law, freedom to innovate, etc etc. Britain grew
> rich through the Industrial Revolution and through trade. The Empire was a
> net drain on her resources, so much for "stealing" being a way to get
> rich.
Wow... you people really do live in a world of your own...
Only an economist could utter this paragraph.
You dismiss the Empire because it was a net drain on resources!
It was not the empire which ruined us.. It was the war against Germany, and
our sell out to America in order
to win it...
> > It adds clarity to nothing.. I have told you how to become rich. What
you
> > are talking about it mud in the water.
>
> No, it is clarity. It tells you which innovations are worthwhile and which
> aren't.
No it doesn't.
An economist can tell me nothing except how much money is available right
now..
It cannot possibly know about semi-conductor technology and it's long term
pay off etc...
It cannot possibly know about new discoveries which make old work which
seemed economic suicide a thriving industry... It is anal, conservative bean
counting...
It stifles growth an innovation and should be unmasked for what it is...
> > Yes. So what... Babbages machine is acknowledged as the worlds first
> > computer.. You would have us wait until it became economically viable?
> > When would that be exactly? :)
>
> It would be economically viable when it delivered more value than it cost
> to make. If it could only do the work of a dozen clerks, and a dozen
> clerks would be much cheaper, then it is destroying value, and making
> society poorer.
Then you know nothing about technology.
People don't just suddenly wake up with the design for a cray super
computer...
Each step is built on the non-productive work of others... It is a pyramid
of
human achievement going back to the days of Aristotle..
> > You'd still be flint napping.
>
> Except that Bronze was a clearly economically superior to Flint.
:)
And I suppose that the work to find bronze was economically viable, and that
any economist would have known that and allowed the essential R&D to go
ahead!
> Cultures rise and fall. When "deepest" africa was being explored by the
> likes of Livingston, they found poverty.
You're right, cultures do rise and fall, they rise when they are powerful
militarilly, and fall when they are superceded... It has squat to do with
economics.
<snip>
> Do you stick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalala" when people say
> things you don't want to hear?
I aren't, you are.
We'll see how Japan is doing in 50 years time... Of course, by then you'll
be saying that you predicted it all along!
Nostradamus was probably an econometrician.
<snip>
> Except you can test economic theories.
No you can't.
> > We all know that the truth is that there is no God.
>
> Well, as an athiest, I may agree, but the bulk of the rest of the world
> disagrees.
>
> > But that doesn't stop Billions of pounds a year sloshing around in his
> > name...
>
> Your point?
Humans have always been given a sophism with which to split their efforts.
Religion divides humans into waring clans and focuses attention away from
real advancement.
Now in the secular age it is economics and politics which substitutes for
Religion....
We are divided on the best way to achieve advance for humanity when it is
obvious which way to go to any objective onlooker.....
We must focus all our efforts on technology, de-frock religion and all other
straw men, promote society and humanism and especially
the notion that greed is anti-social... and all the other things I have
discussed...
> > We all know tha the key to national success is military force, with
which
> > one ceases assets and protects those assets that one has against others.
>
> How do explain rich countries with a weak military, and poor countries
> with a strong military?
There are no such countries...
Some countries appear at first glance to have a weak military, but have
strong or numerous allies, or are strategically important for other more
powerful nations.
Some countries appear at first to be strong, but have no worthwhile allies,
or are strategically weak.
List the names of the countries who's wealth is not proportional to it's
military strength..
<snip>
> > Yes, they look much worse off for their agricultural policy.
>
> They are. The Japanese are prevented from buying cheap foreign rice, and
> pay 3-4 times the world market price. The domestic growers get some of
> this benefits, but there is substantial deadweight loss.
If you are trying to tell me that Japan is on the verge of bankrupcy (which
it isn't anyway) because of it's agricultural policy
then I'm afraid I'm going to have to laugh..
We'll see how Japan does as the rest of the east rises and the west
declines...
> > Do you really believe all the American propoganda about the Japanese
> > economy?
>
> So salaryman suicide rates aren't though the roof, the country is not in
> stagnation/recession?
No, it is an indication of the damaging nature of the shite that you are
peddling...
The Brits would have all commited suicide long ago, but there'd be nobody to
clean up the decaying corpses...
> > They are a country of similar proportions to America
>
> Only if 50% is similar in your dictionary.
Right order... more accurate than any economist I know...
> > their culture is invading the west year upon year...
>
> Yep, Pokomon are a big hit. And Postman Pat dolls were almost biggest
> selling toy in Japan a few years ago (specifically the black and white
> cat). Wow, globalisation in action.
Exactly!
> > They're doing just fine...
>
> Really? Did you see Peter Snow's documentary on Japan? That took you
> beyond the dreadful numbers and attempted to show what it was actually
> like.
Check deja for my views on that program... It was a spoof wasn't it? Surely?
> > > We got billions too, twice as much as Germany and France. But we spent
it
> > > wastefully on consumption rather than investing it in production.
> > But Germany and France still adopt the rediculous policies which you
claim
> > ruined us!!!!!
>
> What policy do I claim ruined us?
Unilateral Free Market Economics.
> > > I think that is the weakest non-answer I've seen in 12 years of
> > > Fidonet/Usenet.
> > It is not.. It is the truth..
> > Economics is a nothing study. It is irrelevant.
>
> Oh well can't argue with that. "Economics is useless because it is".
> You smell becasue you do!
I've given you my reasons, you have yet to deal with them....
Name me a country who's overall Wealth is not proportional to it's military
power.
> > > The whole field of economics is a sophism? Why?
> > See above.
>
> Answer the frickin question instead of stamping your feet.
>
> "Economics is that way of understanding behavior that starts from the
> assumption that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way
> to achieve them."
>
> In what way is this a sophism?
I'm bored now...
I've told you.. There is no point debating the obvious.. To do so is just
muddying the water..
> > I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
>
> Gnomes of Zurich, eh?
Because all the rich people who are in power keep their money there... So
the whole world protects it.
And because the people who do all this money keeping are themselves the
people who are running the western world..
> > As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that
it
> > wanted to invade Denmark?
>
> They'd have a job from that far away.
Answer the question or admit that I'm right.?
> > Ok, lets do that. Lets look at the greatest civilisations on earth and
try
> > and factor out their economic strengths? Lets start with the Greeks.
> > Move on to the Romans, The Vikings, Europe, The British, And finally
America.
> > What is the underlying theme there do you think?
> > Is it economics? Or is it the Aegis?
>
> Economics is a large part of it. Absolutely. How on earth can you say
> otherwise. For all of the "civilisations" above (America?) each expansion
> was profitable. It delivered more benefits than incurred costs.
Of course it did! Because it had a great big army... I have put it on the
end of your nose and you are still sniffing it!
> A Viking raiding party that lost a dozen ships crossing the North Sea,
> smacking my ancestors in the chops and then returning to Norway with
> nothing more than half a dozen pigs and a rusty sword would quickly get
> out of the raiding party game.
But they form the basis for the whole of western society.
They conquerored almost all of europe and displaced the previous celtic
peoples into tiny pockets...
By the time the Vikings had finished, they were in charge of the largest
empire since the Romans...
All because they had the notion that might was right...
> Of course, in the longer term, the costs grew faster than the benefits,
> and they collapsed.
No, they started squabbling about whether or not they were actually all part
of the same group...
The Normans fought the Danes and so on... It was entirely political. again
it had squat to do with bean counting..
> > The future of the human race lies in unity or oblivion.
> > In order to unite we need to remove any reason why any individual may
justly
> > think themselves different from any other individual..
>
> Eh?
What's not to understand?
> > This means the death of religion and all other anti-social sophisms.
>
> And how is this to be achieved? Not, I suspect, by any liberal methods.
Yes, by entirely liberal methods..
We'll simply begin a program of public debate and education.... We'll
examine the cost/benefit structure of religion etc.
We'll have it so that people will openly laugh when they hear the word
God...
People will treat religion with the same contempt that they treat UFO
wierdos.
We'll give our kids the alternative... actual knowledge...
<snip>
> > > Oh, very simple. Ask a dozen people about what mankinds priorities
should
> > > be and you get, at least, a dozen different answers.
> > I doubt it. That is another sophism.
> > All humans want the same things because they all have a hypathalamus.
> > We all want Shelter/Food and the opportunity to procreate.
>
> If you don't have water, you only have one problem. How to get water. If
> you have water, but no food, you only have one problem. How to get food.
> If you have food and water, you have loads of problems. How each is
> prioritised will vary from individual to individual. Unity of purpose
> exists only at the very basic level.
That's right.. But at teh moment that basic level is still not universally
met... Ask anyone what their priorities would be, food or a playstation and
you'll
get your answer...
> Christ, my g/f and I can barely agree on what movie to go and see, or what
> to have for dinner.
>
> > Resources are limited you're right... That's why we have cruise missiles
and
> > apache gunships. That's why we fly over Q8 every day...
>
> Do you imagine that this is some sort of refutation? Does this somehow
> prove that resources are infinite?
No, it shows what a sham your argument is... OF COURSE resources are
limited... And therefore only force can keep those resources in your
hands... everyone else
must suffer as a result..
It has NOTHING to do with economics.. This is true on a national as well as
international level...
Resources are held by those with physical power, even if it is by black and
blue proxy...
There is no need to try and work out where resources go.. they go to those
who weild the Aegis...
Now that you know that, what are you going to do?
<snip>
> And so you damn the whole field of material science, specifically those
> who work on ceramics.
He can put his stuff in the crucible and see if it cracks.. You can't.
> > F=MA That is a universal law... and I can use it to get to the moon and
> > back..
> > What has economics volunteered to humanity?
>
> It lets us know when technology is good (Watt's Steam Engine) and when it
> is bad (Babbage's Calculator) - in terms of value added to the world.
You'd never get there, we have already discussed this.. Economists are not
the right people to decide what
is viable and what is not... They have no qualifications in the field.. they
are therefore incompetents and should be treated as such...
> I do, but it's mainly Scottish history. Lots of economics in there too.
Give it up, it's bad for you... (not the Scottish stuff :) )
> [Mag-Lev]
> > There's just no point, there's nothing wrong with rail!
>
> Mag Lev is, on paper at least, overwhelmingly superior to rail.
> Earlier you were teasing me about the Babbage Calculator and said that if
> it were up to me, we'd still be using Flint tools. And now you are saying
> that Mag-Lev is not a good idea at this time for financial reasons because
> rail is good enough.
That's right.....
Every now and again technologists can flog a dead white elephant... But if
you plotted a graph of mistakes against successes and
turned it upside down.... that would be the successes that would be enjoyed
if economists were genuinely running the show...
<snip>
[inflation]
> and the money supply, levels of consumption, investment.......
No... Just the perception of the people..
We have actually been 'enjoying' negative inflation recently... Prices on
most things from houses to milk have been actually falling...
> > Money enables a person to acrew posessions and status.
> > This status and comfort attracts mates and pushes a person up the
pecking
> > order..
> > This hasn't always been the case and even to this day, it is not the
case
> > (largely) in some countries (China for instance)
>
> In china, your status depends on your connections. Hardly more rational.
Irrelevant.. they do not have a money based meritocracy..
<snip>
> > > I think you are confusing me with another poster.
> > I think your're right, but without Deja I can't remember who..
>
> What was your point with him?
Same old same old...
> > Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER economically
right
> > for R&D..
>
> This would appear to be self evidently wrong, since R&D attracts billions
> of pounds every year.
But it's just babbage? How can this be?
<getting too long.. big snip>
> > Lets have an education system unparalleled and free at the point of use,
>
> Who decides which children go to which school?
On average it doesn't matter..
The idea that it does matter is just a sophism put there by people with no
morals who don't want to pay for it..
<snip>
> > Lets remove VAT on all essential items.
>
> I agree with all of this apart from "essential".
What do you consider essential?
> > Lets pay for it by raising the VAT on luxury items and Income Tax
between a
> > certain income bracket (I'm for capping the upper limit too).
>
> Capping the upper limit of Income Tax, a maximum pounds sterling amount?
Yes... The actual cap value to be assesed every year by an independant body,
openly.
> > Is any of this sounding familiar?
> At which point do you seize the businesses of the untermensch?
At no point... But there would be compulsory profit sharing in large
companies.
> > Lets acknowledge that the status quo of the west is maintained by
ignorance
> > and propoganda..
>
> Except it isn't.
I maintain that propoganda controls the west using every tool from
outright lies to soap opera.
What say you to that?
> > Lets Brutally sell off the BBC and actively encourage vicious
competition in
> > the media.
>
> <Gasp> Yes.
>
> > Lets's put so much mud in the media water that it will take decades to
> > clear!
>
> What does this mean?
One must divide to conquer.
The media would be kept in a constant competitive flux using every means
possible whilst simultaneosly monitoring
it for monopoly transgressions which might unify it.
> > Lets have laws governing Journalism that are so tough that hacks wet
their
> > pants when they think about the consequences
>
> So that politicians and crooked businessmen can do as they please?
No.. all accounts of public servants would be published on the Internet..
Public officials would be open
to the highest possible levels of scrutiny...
Busninessmen would now be declaring their actual earnings in order to beat
the tax cap....
> > But let's encourage real journalism with every effort.
>
> How are you going to balance the two?
It would balance itself.. Good journalism would be rewarded, bad journalism
would be pilloried.
This would create a culture, and the competition would ensure that the hacks
would be watching each other..
> > Lets have monopoly laws to ensure that no one organisation or group of
> > people gain control of any one media..
>
> Define control.
One person (or more importantly, group of people) owning too much of the
media and harmonising
the sections to provide common output..
> > Lets have national debate on the merit of religion, and thereby decouple
> > religion from politics.
>
> Let's not,
Why not?
> but let's dis-establish the church of England (and Scotland, if
> Applicable)
Agreed
> > Let's devolve power to the regions.. Arm our citizens,
>
> OK.
>
> > reach out a friendly
> > hand to our European neighbours...
>
> Meaning?
Form a strong alliance (military, and financial) with France and Germany.
> > Lets encourage the notion abroad that we WILL defend ourselves with
nuclear
> > weapons if necessary, but that we WILL NOT expand.
>
> OK.
>
> > Let us trade where it benefits us, and not trade where it does not, and
let
> > nobody tell us where we should or should not trade!
>
> OK.
Thought you'd be coughing at this point!
> > Let's invest heavilly in R&D in all fields,
>
> Who will decide?
Technologists.. They have done ok so far..
> > and share openly our
> > achievements with the world fostering new relationships with nations..
and
> > pushing forward humanity unilaterally...
>
> Hmm.
There's no point trying to hide our achievements...
They would stand as a beacon..
> > > > The system can be successful.. .Sweden, Israel....
> > > That would be the Sweden that spends 12% more than it earns every
year?
> > Yup.. that will be the country with the worlds best standard of
living...
>
> No, that would be Luxembourg
No, that's the country with the highest per capita drug abuse problem in the
world...
> If I spent 12% more than I earned every year, I could have my dream car an
> live in a much nicer house, but you wouldn't advocate
>
> Sweden is living on borrowed money. Chickens. Roost. Come Home. Soon.
I don't think so...
Of course we're still waiting for the 80's French and German industrial
subsidy to bite into their economies are't we..
Smell the coffee.
David J Rainey
odes...@my-deja.com says...
> > Is it the approximation that you have a problem with?
> No, it is the fact that economics is a black art masquerading as a science.
> It is all theory, and I hesitate to use that word.
They have hypothesis and test those hypothesis with experiments. And
because it's hard to isolate particular factors, Economists argue over the
relative validity of hypothesis and the experimental methods. For example,
look at the more reasoned arguments for and against the Lott Gun Study.
Economists come up with theories to help understand all human behaviour,
using the assumption quoted by Friedman before. You might disagree with
some of those theories, but you will also agree with other Economists who
believe what you believe, but perhaps they won't count as Economists.
> Then how has it not arrived at the conclusion that lots of men with guns
> will do it everytime?
Because it doesn't. The USSR collapsed without a shot being fired.
> I think you laugh, because you have no anwer..
I laugh because you are talking nonsense. Do you say that there are no
economic studies of money free systems and societies?
> I repeat: on the universal scale of things economics is a nonsense.
That's because you demonstrate with every message that you do not
understand what Economics is.
> I think you might be wrong, have you heard of stereo-lithography?...
Yes I have, I've seen a number of such devices used in the automotive
engineering world for rapid prototyping.
I think they are a niche product, and that for the foreseeable future due
to material science. You may be able to build up plastic replica steering
assemblies in such a device, but not a real ceramic gas turbine blade.
> Fusion
> Hydrogen Fuel Cells
I agree that these, especially the latter, are coming to maturity.
> Economics is no match for technology in terms of advancing the human race..
No, it isn't a match and that is not my position. I do say, however, that
Economic factors will and must be taken into account if we are to create
genuine wealth.
> It is all unfounded theory. There is no way of linking results to
> application of theory because there are so many
> extraneous factors.
This is indeed a problem, but not an insurmountable one, because they
analyses the result at an aggregate level, not a micro level, many other
factors can be averaged out.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
You might want to read some articles by Norman Macrae, an economist who
wrote widely on how technology would transform our lives. The Next Ages of
Man is probably one of my favourites.
> > Property rights, rule of law, freedom to innovate, etc etc. Britain grew
> > rich through the Industrial Revolution and through trade. The Empire was a
> > net drain on her resources, so much for "stealing" being a way to get
> > rich.
> Wow... you people really do live in a world of your own...
> Only an economist could utter this paragraph.
Really? I'm not an Economist. I'm an Engineer by training. The history I
read cover more recent times, and most of it seems to suggest that Empires
in general and the British Empire specifically do not greatly benefit the
home country over the long term.
> You dismiss the Empire because it was a net drain on resources!
Dismiss? I think we should have had other priorities.
> It was not the empire which ruined us.
Read my message again. I didn't say it did.
> It was the war against Germany
Agreed. The Empire was still a net drain though.
> > No, it is clarity. It tells you which innovations are worthwhile and which
> > aren't.
> No it doesn't.
> An economist can tell me nothing except how much money is available right
> now..
> It cannot possibly know about semi-conductor technology and it's long term
> pay off etc...
That's funny, because I was at a lunch just before Christmas with some
friends of friends who were Technology Analysts at a couple of Investment
Banks. They were qualified Engineers who had taken post-graduate Economics
degrees and knew in breathtaking detail about the major advances in the
field in which they specialise. I was talking to one of the Telecoms
experts who knew far more about the new dense wave fibre optic
technologies than anybody else I've ever met. They had been to see the
Labs, the manufacturers, the potential clients, etc and had written a
number of very detailed reports on the impact of this technology and the
estimated value.
They know an awful lot.
> It stifles growth an innovation and should be unmasked for what it is...
Except these guys were indirectly responsible for billions of pounds being
diverted into research companies working on "cool new technology" based on
their evaluations.
> > It would be economically viable when it delivered more value than it cost
> > to make.
> Then you know nothing about technology.
> People don't just suddenly wake up with the design for a cray super
> computer.
I didn't say it did, but each new step has to make sense. People used an
Abacus as a counting aid, that was a step up from fingers. It was
economically viable as it made counting faster and it was relatively cheap
to make and buy.
The Babbage machine was a clever device, no quibbles about that. However,
Charles Babbage did not wish to take a loss on each machine sold (though,
in fact, he never completed a single one) and the customers of the Swedes
who eventually did make and sell it found that it delivered no benefits
over the previous solution and did not wish to waste their money.
> Each step is built on the non-productive work of others.
Non productive? The vast majority of the previous iterations were
economically viable steps.
Have you never read "The Innovators Dilemma?", heard about disruptive
technologies? Disruptive technologies are profitable in their original
niche, but as they develop in small evolutionary steps, they grow into the
territory of the incumbent technology. All steps are profitable.
If you have a new technology that cannot compete with the existing
solution face on, you have to take a view. Can your technology exist in a
niche and then improve sufficiently to grow a reasonable market share? Or,
are you willing to sell your technology at a loss, and make your money
back from increased margins in the future when your technology wipes out
the incumbent.
> > > You'd still be flint napping.
> > Except that Bronze was a clearly economically superior to Flint.
> :)
> And I suppose that the work to find bronze was economically viable,
People don't need to be Economists to make economic decisions.
I was sitting at home the other day and I needed to buy a bottle of milk
and a jar of coffee. My choice is going to Asda, which will be cheaper and
have the brand of coffee I want, or the corner shop, which will be more
expensive and only have Nescafe.
The store I ended up going to was an economic decision that weighed up the
value of my time in going further to the supermarket, my brand preference
for Coffee, and the price difference involved. This is why corner shops
are usually economically viable, but no-one needs to plan that for them.
> We'll see how Japan is doing in 50 years time... Of course, by then you'll
> be saying that you predicted it all along!
I haven't predicted anything for Japan, so I can't claim anything.
> > How do explain rich countries with a weak military, and poor countries
> > with a strong military?
>
> There are no such countries...
> Some countries appear at first glance to have a weak military, but have
> strong or numerous allies, or are strategically important for other more
> powerful nations.
> Some countries appear at first to be strong, but have no worthwhile allies,
> or are strategically weak.
> List the names of the countries who's wealth is not proportional to it's
> military strength..
Rich Countries, tiny military : Hong Kong [1], Singapore, New Zealand,
Australia.
Huge Military, poor : Russia, Iraq,
[1] - pre 97, if you want to be pedantic.
> If you are trying to tell me that Japan is on the verge of bankrupcy (which
> it isn't anyway) because of it's agricultural policy
> then I'm afraid I'm going to have to laugh..
Agriculture is only 2% of Japanese GDP, so it isn't likely to have a major
impact in isolation. You asked if protectionism benefited them, I said
that it didn't. On the contrary, it has made them poorer than open rice
markets would have done.
> We'll see how Japan does as the rest of the east rises and the west
> declines...
The east should start rising again, and the west will rise too. We're all
getting richer.
> > So salaryman suicide rates aren't though the roof, the country is not in
> > stagnation/recession?
> No, it is an indication of the damaging nature of the shite that you are
> peddling...
Never make a point when you can make an insult, eh?
> The Brits would have all commited suicide long ago, but there'd be nobody to
> clean up the decaying corpses...
IFAIK, suicide has always been much higher in Japan. Cultural reasons, the
importance of pride and face, and of course, no Christian stigma about
going to hell if you top yourself.
> > > They are a country of similar proportions to America
> > Only if 50% is similar in your dictionary.
> Right order... more accurate than any economist I know...
You only seem to know leftist economists.......
> > > their culture is invading the west year upon year...
> > Yep, Pokomon are a big hit. And Postman Pat dolls were almost biggest
> > selling toy in Japan a few years ago (specifically the black and white
> > cat). Wow, globalisation in action.
> Exactly!
And this is evidence of Japanese superiority how? We trade with them, they
trade with us. We buy Playstations and Toyotas, they buy Whisky and Jess
the Cat.
> > Really? Did you see Peter Snow's documentary on Japan? That took you
> > beyond the dreadful numbers and attempted to show what it was actually
> > like.
> Check deja for my views on that program... It was a spoof wasn't it? Surely?
Can't see anything. Why do you think it was a spoof?
> > What policy do I claim ruined us?
> Unilateral Free Market Economics.
Huh? You're confused about who you are debating with again. I'm unlikely
to claim that, unless you are trying to stretch a point somewhere.
> > Oh well can't argue with that. "Economics is useless because it is".
> > You smell becasue you do!
> I've given you my reasons, you have yet to deal with them....
What reasons? You've said it is a nothing study that will never compete
with technology and that it is useless because it cannot isolate factors.
Begged Questions ahoy!
> Name me a country who's overall Wealth is not proportional to it's military
> power.
Germany and Japan. Military minnows, and the second and third biggest
economies in the world.
> I'm bored now...
Trans: I've been rumbled.
> > > I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
> > Gnomes of Zurich, eh?
> Because all the rich people who are in power keep their money there... So
> the whole world protects it.
Codswallop.
> > > As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that
> > > it wanted to invade Denmark?
> > They'd have a job from that far away.
> Answer the question or admit that I'm right.?
Denmark is in NATO, and could call on assistance from the other members.
Even if it didn't, it still spends more on defense than Chile and would
have home advantage. Chile would get a bloody nose, I think.
You have two, woolly theories.
1) Get Rich by having a big military and then stealing other nations
wealth.
For this to be true, the military would need to rise in strength before
the rise in wealth. Is this what the facts bear out? Do you have any
examples?
2) Get rich by working hard and then having a big military to protect it.
There's less to disagree with here, but then it's not exactly earth
shattering stuff.
In rich countries, military spending is small beer. in the US it is less
than 4% of GDP.
> > Economics is a large part of it. Absolutely. How on earth can you say
> > otherwise. For all of the "civilisations" above (America?) each expansion
> > was profitable. It delivered more benefits than incurred costs.
> Of course it did! Because it had a great big army.
And this is economics. It is more efficient to massively overwhelm your
enemy, and suffer minimal losses than to be somewhat superior but to lose
half your forces in defeating them.
Economics is not just about stocks and interest rates you know. That just
happens to be one of the most common applications.
> No, they started squabbling about whether or not they were actually all part
> of the same group...
> The Normans fought the Danes and so on... It was entirely political. again
> it had squat to do with bean counting..
I was talking in general terms. The unity of purpose fell apart when they
got a bit richer, did it? Hmm.
> > And how is this to be achieved? Not, I suspect, by any liberal methods.
> Yes, by entirely liberal methods..
> We'll simply begin a program of public debate and education.
How?
> We'll examine the cost/benefit structure of religion etc.
<cough> but you'd have abolished economic though, no?
> We'll have it so that people will openly laugh when they hear the word
> God...
That's what I though when I was ten. I thought nobody could still believe
in it. I was wrong.
> People will treat religion with the same contempt that they treat UFO
> wierdos.
Nightly specials on Channel 4 and Sky 1 then?
> That's right.. But at teh moment that basic level is still not universally
> met... Ask anyone what their priorities would be, food or a playstation and
> you'll get your answer...
Virtually anybody who knows what a playstation is has access to enough
food.
> No, it shows what a sham your argument is... OF COURSE resources are
> limited... And therefore only force can keep those resources in your
> hands... everyone else must suffer as a result..
> It has NOTHING to do with economics
But it does. Assuming I agree with your thesis, which if I understand you,
I don't, there is an economic decision to be made. How much are you
willing to spend to protect a billion dollar oil field?
> Resources are held by those with physical power, even if it is by black and
> blue proxy...
And physical resources are becoming less and less relevant in global
wealth. Rockefeller controlled oil, Gates controls bits.
> There is no need to try and work out where resources go.. they go to those
> who weild the Aegis...
but not at the micro level, which is where central planning always goes
tits up.
> > And so you damn the whole field of material science, specifically those
> > who work on ceramics.
> He can put his stuff in the crucible and see if it cracks.
Sample one cracks in the stress tester. Sample two doesn't. Sample Three
doesn't. Sample four does. And so on until they have a statistical
analysis of the probability of crack propagation.
> > It lets us know when technology is good (Watt's Steam Engine) and when it
> > is bad (Babbage's Calculator) - in terms of value added to the world.
> You'd never get there, we have already discussed this.. Economists are not
> the right people to decide what is viable and what is not
Economists are not the only ones (or even the main ones) who make economic
decisions. Everybody in an economy makes economic decisions.
The first steam engine was the Newcomen. This was superceded by the Watt
Engine, which despite being far more expensive, initially found a niche in
remote areas where the fuel was much more expensive. As the Watt engine
benefited from economies of scale (economics!) it became progressively
cheaper until it wiped out the Newcomen engine.
The decision of what engine to deploy was taken by mine owners. But it was
an economic decision. They had all the facts they needed. If a newcomen
engine costs two hundred pounds less but will consume three hundred pounds
more fuel over the operating period, the mine owner would buy a Watt
Engine. If the mine was near a coal supplier and he could get cheap coal,
for say one hundred pounds, he would buy the Newcomen Engine.
> > Mag Lev is, on paper at least, overwhelmingly superior to rail.
> > Earlier you were teasing me about the Babbage Calculator and said that if
> > it were up to me, we'd still be using Flint tools. And now you are saying
> > that Mag-Lev is not a good idea at this time for financial reasons because
> > rail is good enough.
> That's right.....
> Every now and again technologists can flog a dead white elephant.
How much information do you need to decide if a new technology is a
breakthrough or a white elephant? What external factors need to be
considered, and how sure of these do you need to be to proceed.
> But if you plotted a graph of mistakes against successes and
> turned it upside down.... that would be the successes that would be enjoyed
> if economists were genuinely running the show...
Economists rarely run the show. People who make rational economic
decisions do. Rational can be subjective, and hence open to debate.
Do you think Airbus and Boeing called in Economic advisors to work with
the engineers and marketing people to decide whether their company should
move up the SIZE or SPEED roads?
> We have actually been 'enjoying' negative inflation recently... Prices on
> most things from houses to milk have been actually falling...
And fuel has been going up. There are about 600 goods in the inflation
price basket. It is not negative, though it is, IMO, overstated because of
the improved quality of goods (ie a GBP500 processor today is much faster
than a GBP500 CPU of last year)
> > In china, your status depends on your connections. Hardly more rational.
> Irrelevant.. they do not have a money based meritocracy..
I'll be able to comment on that shortly. My future University has eight
students from China in my class, it will be interesting to hear their
views on such matters.
> > This would appear to be self evidently wrong, since R&D attracts billions
> > of pounds every year.
> But it's just babbage? How can this be?
Do you mean it's just a repetition of Babbage?
I don't know if Babbage knew his machine wouldn't be cost effective, I
don't think he was much of a businessman, more of a technologist and
lobbyist.
Obviously, in some cases, you don't know if what you are examining will be
useful until you have spent large sum of money. Some R&D is wasted, some
produces phenomenal returns. Large companies spread the risk. Small
focussed start-ups get money from venture capitalists who also spread the
risks for their investors.
Businesses know that they need to innovate to prosper, but they are wary
of spending money on the wrong things, and things with no clear benefit.
> > Who decides which children go to which school?
> On average it doesn't matter..
I think almost all parents would disagree. Mine would, I'm sure, but I'm
no parent myself.
> The idea that it does matter is just a sophism put there by people with no
> morals who don't want to pay for it..
I don't see how this follows. My uncle thought it mattered very much and
after four years of state school failure sent my cousin to a private
school in Scotland where he got four highers he never would have got
before. He paid twice.
> > > Lets remove VAT on all essential items.
> > I agree with all of this apart from "essential".
> What do you consider essential?
I mean remove VAT on all items.
> > Capping the upper limit of Income Tax, a maximum pounds sterling amount?
> Yes... The actual cap value to be assesed every year by an independant body,
> openly.
The cap would need to be set further in advance so that taxpayers could
have confidence in it. I've read a number of pamphlets on the net about
this sort of scheme. Brian Micklethwaite (?) described a similar idea.
However, he proposed more privatisation, and I suspect your cap would be
pretty high with highish marginal rates, or do you have some figures to
band around?
> At no point... But there would be compulsory profit sharing in large
> companies.
There already is, a third of corporate profits go straight to the
government, so that they can be distributed i the best way possible
{cough}. The bulk of the rest goes to Pension and Insurance schemes,
profit sharing at it's finest.
> > Except it isn't.
> I maintain that propoganda controls the west using every tool from
> outright lies to soap opera.
> What say you to that?
Cobblers? Rubarb?
If it ever were true, it's got no hope of being so on the internet.
> No.. all accounts of public servants would be published on the Internet..
and yet secret accounts will be ever easier to administer over the net.
> Busninessmen would now be declaring their actual earnings in order to beat
> the tax cap....
Well, they'd stop spending money on accountants to keep the money moving
and in less productive, but more lightly taxed, assets.
> > > Lets have national debate on the merit of religion, and thereby decouple
> > > religion from politics.
> > Let's not,
> Why not?
Because it's no business of athiests such as you or I what these people
believe. It's up to them.
> Form a strong alliance (military, and financial) with France and Germany.
Military? Hmm. Don't know. financial? What's needed beyond open borders?
> > > Let us trade where it benefits us, and not trade where it does not, and
> > > let nobody tell us where we should or should not trade!
> > OK.
> Thought you'd be coughing at this point!
This does not gel with your earlier POV, IMO, but I agree with it.
> > > Let's invest heavilly in R&D in all fields,
> > Who will decide?
> Technologists.. They have done ok so far..
Ten technologists, five labs. Who gets the space?
> > > Yup.. that will be the country with the worlds best standard of
> > > living...
> > No, that would be Luxembourg
> No, that's the country with the highest per capita drug abuse problem in the
> world...
Really? cite?
> > If I spent 12% more than I earned every year, I could have my dream car an
> > live in a much nicer house, but you wouldn't advocate
> > Sweden is living on borrowed money. Chickens. Roost. Come Home. Soon.
> I don't think so...
It's a financial certainty. Unless they stop spending more than the earn,
it's going to end in tears.
> Of course we're still waiting for the 80's French and German industrial
> subsidy to bite into their economies are't we.
They've not done that well, nothing to write home about. Figures from the
Economist Britain in Numbers.
GDP UK US J G Fr It Can
1981 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1982 101.8 97.9 103.1 99.1 102.5 100.5 97.1
1983 105.7 102.1 105.5 100.9 103.5 101.7 99.8
1984 108.3 109.6 109.6 103.7 105.2 104.6 105.5
1985 112.4 113.7 114.4 105.8 106.9 107.7 111.2
1986 117.1 117.6 117.7 108.2 109.3 110.4 114.1
1987 122.3 121.6 122.7 109.8 112.1 113.7 118.8
1988 128.7 126.7 130.3 113.9 116.8 118.1 124.6
1989 131.4 131.1 136.5 118.0 121.8 121.6 127.7
1990 132.3 133.5 143.5 124.7 124.8 124.0 128.1
1991 130.3 132.8 148.9 131.0 126.2 125.7 125.7
1992 130.4 136.9 150.4 133.8 127.8 126.7 126.8
1993 133.4 140.6 150.9 132.4 126.7 125.6 129.7
1994 139.3 146.3 151.8 135.4 129.0 128.3 135.8
1995 143.2 150.2 154.1 137.7 131.4 132.1 139.6
regards
David
Cliff Morrison
<david....@nospamthankyouverymuch.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Economists come up with theories to help understand all human behaviour,
> using the assumption quoted by Friedman before.
But has their prime emphasis nowadays shifted from "help to understand" to
"help to manipulate", which isn't necessarily the same thing?
David J Rainey
cli...@post.almac.co.uk says...
> > Economists come up with theories to help understand all human behaviour,
> > using the assumption quoted by Friedman before.
> But has their prime emphasis nowadays shifted from "help to understand" to
> "help to manipulate", which isn't necessarily the same thing?
Blimey, there's someone else reading this stuff?! :-)
That's a valid point, and not necessarily in a bad way. Think of the many
government schemes that are riddled with "perverse incentives", ie that
encourage participants to do exactly the wrong thing. I'm thinking of
means tested benefits that discourage people from saving in the good times
- because in the bad times it simply means you'll get less cash.
It would not be a bad idea for economists to cast their eye over new
schemes and to report what the incentives are. Of course, you'll only need
two of them to produce three different reports.....
regards
David
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>It came about because science is not only a system for divining truth... it
>is a way of living.
ROTFL. Ever since Popper we've understood that isn't correct. Science
is a system at best for rejecting falsity.
>Part of such thinking is modern economics... It has less to do with reason
>than it does the infection of it's adherents minds
>with a kind of circular logic... it is a form of mysticism.
Tell me how economics differs from population biology
>> Without economics, how do explain how the same technology is used more
>> effectively under some conditions than others?
>
>You look at the reasons objectively...
>The reason that technology hasn't permiated darkest africa has nothing to do
>with calculus equations.. it has to
>do with the history of Africa, it's divided society and the actively
>aggressive foreign policies of the west...
And how does this manifest itself? Poor economic policy in some cases.
Over-regulated economies, poor rule of law, poor property law. All of
these are economic issues as well as political.It's arbitrary to
separate them
>Science and its philosophy, coupled with secular humanism is the only way to
>instigate this change...
>Economics and other such sophisms such as neo-liberalist global capitalism
>and multi-culturalism are rocks in the river of
>human evolution as we reach towards our possible futures and away from
>caves, bones and rival clans..
Ah, right. So understading how resources are allocated, and the most
efficient way to do so, is such a 'rock'. So tell me, how can a
politiican decide where to allocate resources in your fantasy state?
>The formula is simple : Respect for all human life.. Unity in the quest for
>human achievement... Technology, Magnanimity, Society, Humanity
Right. So I use those principles to decide whether or not to raise or
lower interest rates? Or invest in one large plant over two smaller
ones?
>> Because applying the right economic theory allows you to benefit from
>> technology. We have invented Mag-Lev technology but at present it does not
>> make sense to use it to replace existing rail systems.
>
>I see what you are saying... but that is not so much an economic decision as
>one of common sense...
ROTFL. Economics is common sense. Paris, you're learning!
>> Without (IMO) a rational economic analysis of the costs and benefits, we
>> could spend a lot of money which may only deliver marginal benefits.
>
>Money Shmoney..
Ah. Wold you rather get rid of it> Barter perhaps?
>Should I set up a super state based on the advancement of science, and
>defend it like a god sent sentinal against the advances of
>globalist capitalism, how long do you think it would take before it bore
>fruit?
About five minutes
>While you sit and think about what is economically viable, we will waste our
>money on folly.......
Good. I'll buy you later on then. After all your smart people have
come over to this side. Kind of private equity for countries...
>> In fact, it reminds me of a favourite saying of one of my Engineering
>> lecturers at Glasgow. "An engineer is someone who make for a penny what
>> any fool can make for a pound". Compare and contrast the TU-144 and
>> Concorde.
>
>My definition would be 'those who take theory from science, and give product
>to the populace'.
>If your friend is thinking hard about money... he should swap jobs...
>The Germans prove that quality of design eventually bears fruit over cost of
>production...
Which is a statement that also makes sense when expressed in economic
terms. It's hardly new to economists
>Creativity like art itself produces it's best when it is unfettered.
So does waste
>You own a small company of gifted individuals... Your brightest star comes
>to you on a friday afternoon and says..
>'I'm really good... I think I need a payrise'...
>Do you give him the money, or smile sweetly and tell him that you think that
>he is free to leave whever he wants and that when
>he leaves he'll take your gratitude and good will?
Depends on how good he is, what a replacement costs, and whether he
can do better elsewhere...
>The brain drain is a fallacy.. In a society we deliver what we are good at
>delivering and should be praised for doing so..
>If the good doctor feels that he would be happier delivering in belise or
>LA, then let him go.
Good idea!
>> > Will my children be free?
>>
>> Yes, but the running costs mount up.....
>
>Of course it does... But we are buying quality...
>Let those who don't want to be part of the purchase go elsewhere....
What happens if they're the paying part of the puchase?
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> >So now we'll have product placement in our classrooms? Kids told to
>> >use certain companies' products at school from a young age?
>>
>> Doesn't follow, though some companies have gone down this route, and
>> not been punished by parents or education purchasers
>
>What choices did those parents and purchasers have?
Don't know in any particular example. But, like any other market, you
need to have multiple providers
>> >And large multinational companies can move from country to country to
>> >get the best deal from a country's government.
>>
>> Not so easily.
>
>What's to stop them?
Once you've invested, you're largely committed. And the size (not
volume) of the trradeable economy has not risen particularly since
'globalisation'
>> >Indeed, influence which the companies will often buy.
>>
>> Depends on how accountable the electorate holds the govt.
>
>Which in turn depends on how well the electorate are informed about
>the government's dealings with the companies, information which
>neither the comapnies nor the government will be partiucularly keen to
>advertise.
OK. But now you talk to a more important point, the potential for
govt/corporate collusion. This is independent of 'free trade' and is a
function of govt and business. The only 'solution' is transparency
>> >A large multinational business can do so and thus play one government
>> >off against another.
>>
>> Good. Tell me why this is a bad thing.
>
>They can do so over the wishes of the voters and they can do so to rig
>the rules in their favour.
Voters wishes play no part in corporate decision making.
>> Do you believe in 'harmful tax
>> competition'?
>
>Who said this would be restricted to how much tax people pay?
It's just an example. The point being that having govts under pressure
to keep a conducive business environment is useful, within limits. As
the size of the tradable ecoonomy is small, these limits are quite
slack. The main reason for being 'pro-business' is to help the local,
not the traded economy
>> Can do. Depends on the honesty of the government
>
>Which in turn depends on how effective the mechanisms for holding both
>the government and the corporation are.
Indeed. Bid fan of increasing transparency fo both
>> A govt can ignore the blackmailer, if its economic policy is broadly
>> sound
>
>What if the blackmailers are the largest employers in the country?
Never the case that a single employer is that significant, except
possibly in tiny countries.
>> >The question is whether it does the company any good. It can stay and
>> >make money via persuading the government to enact policies that reduce
>> >competition.
>>
>> Sure. Depends on how honest the govt is
>
>How honest are most governments?
Not much. But that's hardly an argument against free trade...
>> >That depends on how many shareholders are in the counrty being
>> >withdrawn from.
>>
>> No it doesn't. Not withdrawing (which is the same decision, different
>> outcome) affects all shareholders.
>
>Indeed, but if most shareholders are not in the country concerned and all
>they care about are their dividends then they won't give a stuff about
>the people in the country being withdrawn from who will lose their jobs.
Nor should they.
>> >Not necessarily -- and even if so if they get a deal that enables them
>> >to dominate the markets of one country/area that may make up for it in
>> >increased profits due to the ability to charge higher prices.
>>
>> Sure. So we're all in favour of a vigourous competition policy
>
>Maybe, but how does one ensure such a policy will get adopted and
>pursued?
That's up to you and me... We vote, we campaign. Just right now, the
major issue is not economic liberty, but social and civil...
>> >And something it is in the interests of both governments and companies
>> >to do.
>>
>> Not in the govts interests, though individuals may choose to pursue
>> this
>
>But it is in the governments interests to avoid the bad publicity and
>adverse economic consequences associated with lots of jobs being lost
>due to the company (or companies) pulling out.
Not really. Nobody really cares if overall unemployment is low...
>> >My point being that collusion between the state (or even the
>> >anarcho-capitalist law enforcement agencies) and big business is an
>> >ever present threat to the "free" market.
>>
>> Sure
>
>So therefore some means of preventing this needs to be found or we end
>up with a corporate state.
Indeed. FoI, extended to corporates in some areas...
> >> >ISTM there are only 2 ways big business gets held to account --
>> >>
>> >> Accountable to whom?
>> >
>> >The people who suffer the consequences of its decisions.
>>
>> Let's get specific...
>
>Those who lose their jobs,
What level of accountability do you want? French companies are 'more
accountable', but france has higher unemployment
>those who suffer the economic impact of the
>decisions and the shareholders (who are the only ones to have both a
>direct stake and a direct vote on the decisions). The latter are the
>ones the company will pay most attention to.
Sure. They're the *owners*. If you buy a new car every three years,
and you only buy british, you can also affect unemployment. It's your
money though, and you buy whatever you want. You *own* the money. What
if Rover workers could vote on how you spent your money?
>> >> Bananas, Pat Robertson, the French, hormone beef, environmental
>> >> laws, Seattle, french farmers, CAP, large corporates with weak
>> >> governments, the rise of 'free trade areas' etc
>> >
>> >I fail to see how any of these are points of fragility, i.e. things
>> >that could bring the system tumbling down.
>>
>> Watch and see
>
>What exactly are you planning then? :-)
Oh, plenty...
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> > Science rejects mysticism and anything which cannot be backed by some
>>>form> of positively reproducable reason.
>>
>> Agreed, but I'm puzzled as to the relevance.
>
>Economics is an attempt to predict the actions of individuals (ultimately)
>using tools which are designed for approximation.
Almost never. Economics almost always refers to the actions of classes
or groups of individuals
>It does not factor in war and other major social change, the possible
>technological redundancy of money,
>the individual behaviour of groups determined to undermine approximate
>models and so on..
>It is open-loop and should be treated as nothing more than an attempt at a
>guess.
Sure. It's falsifiable...
>We know how a nation becomes rich: They steal from others at the point of a
>gun, or they work hard and
>defend from others at the point of a gun. This is the economics of Plato,
>this is how it is still done today.. There IS NO other way.
Not quite. But let's run with that. Take the second option. What does
it mean to work ahrd? Does working smart count? Is a hard worker who
digs holes on Monday and fills them Tuesday making progress? Or does
working smarter count too? If you work smarter, what tools do you use
for allocating resourcing between different options?
>> Partly History. They had just suffered a humiliating defeat and times were
>> very hard. Domestic goods were in very short supply and the fear of
>> complete poverty in those times of uncertainty made those who had jobs
>> save heavily, which provided additional investment capital.
>>
>> Is none of this Economics?
>
>No, none of it...
Then WTF do you think economics is?
>You're right, economics is bound up in Politics....That's the problem.
>And it is a field of study like Theology.
>We all know that the truth is that there is no God.
>But that doesn't stop Billions of pounds a year sloshing around in his
>name...
>We all know tha the key to national success is military force, with which
>one ceases assets and protects those assets that one has against others.
I take it you mean 'seizes' assets? Not much good is it - I mean
Hitler tried this one and it's got some long term failure issues
>> No, it was a hinderance. As with their rice-import bans, it penalises
>> Japanese consumers at the expense of domestic growers and their society is
>> poorer as a result.
>
>Yes, they look much worse off for their agricultural policy...
They are... Unless you can show differently...
>Do you really believe all the American propoganda about the Japanese
>economy?
Might believe the suicide rate of Japanese. That's a data point from
the ground...
>They are a country of similar proportions to America, their culture is
>invading the west year upon year...
>They're doing just fine...
Pity they don't think so, hence the recent developments in the LDP
>> I think that is the weakest non-answer I've seen in 12 years of
>> Fidonet/Usenet.
>
>It is not.. It is the truth..
>Economics is a nothing study. It is irrelevant. Might is right... That is
>the only economy.
Really. So Singapore is rich because?
>I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
>As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that it
>wanted to invade Denmark?
Nothing. Their fleet wold be sunk before it reached Scotland. lt's in
all our interests to prevent gains by force. Unless you'd prefer we'd
not fought against Hitler...
Oh, of course, you do...
>> I'm coming to think that you don't know what Economics is. You could
>> produce an economic analysis of the returns of "might" and explore if that
>> was the reason for wealth.
>
>Ok, lets do that...
>Lets look at the greatest civilisations on earth and try and factor out
>their economic strengths?
>Lets start with the Greeks. Move on to the Romans, The Vikings, Europe, The
>British, And finally.... America.
>What is the underlying theme there do you think?
>Is it economics? Or is it the Aegis?
And the two are separable how? Perhaps you should read more. I could
recommend Landes (Wealth and poverty of nations) and Paul Kennedy (the
rise and fall of the great powers). I don't imagine you'll bother, but
you can't say that nobody's trying to educate you...
>> Very flowery. try communicating instead, it's far more effective.
>
>The future of the human race lies in unity or oblivion.
Sorry, is this the unity of 'seizing assets'?
>In order to unite we need to remove any reason why any individual may justly
>think themselves different from any other individual..
Ah. Let's all be called 'Bob' then.
>> Oh, very simple. Ask a dozen people about what mankinds priorities should
>> be and you get, at least, a dozen different answers.
>
>I doubt it. That is another sophism.
>All humans want the same things because they all have a hypathalamus.
>We all want Shelter/Food and the opportunity to procreate.
>That is darwins big two. Then there is the last one. Protection of the
>species.
Ever heard of Mazlow's (spelling?) pyramid? What happens when you've
got food and shelter?
>> Is it common sense? A technology exists that would allow trains to run
>> very quietly and twice the speed they do now, and doesn't wear out with
>> friction. How can this not be a good idea?
>
>Because it doesn't really work that well, and it isn't genuinely failsafe..
>PLUS it is very expensive.
>It's not really a replacement for cold steel rails.
That is an economic decision. That's what economists study. That's why
the subject exists
>> Which is a bit like saying the study of geology is a waste of time because
>> you can tell the difference between a lump of quartz and a tub of butter.
>> What about gold and Iron Pyrites? Between rocks that are of varying
>> probability of being from rich oilfields?
>
>If a scientist has to rely on statistics to form the basis of a theory, they
>hang their heads in shame...
ROTFL. You really are an idiot. What is the probability of an
earthquake happening? Or of a disease spreading? Or of an electron
being in a certain place, or having an given energy? How likely is it
that this bridge will fall under normal use? Or that a crash will kill
a car's occupants?
>F=MA That is a universal law... and I can use it to get to the moon and
>back..
>What has economics volunteered to humanity?
Ways of thinking about resource allocation.
>> Except, for our 50 billion we would get an improved transport network, but
>> not one that was 50 billion better. Let's say that the time saved by the
>> faster journeys and the enviromental improvements that happen as a result
>> of the quieter trains amount to 5 billion. That means that 45 billion is
>> gone. 45 billion worth fewer cars, pizzas, TVs, shoes, you name it. They
>> Taxpayer or the investor has bought a crisp fiver with a fifty pound note.
>
>There's just no point, there's nothing wrong with rail!
>Only when something is significantly better, or the only available option
>does anything really
>change..
Good. Economics helps you work out then something is 'better' - i.e.
more cost effective
>Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER economically right
>for R&D..
Rubbish
>> How will you balance the conflicting demands of your citizenship?
>
>Society.. Those that wish to leave... may freely do so. Those that are left
>are familly.
>Society strengthens, the bonds tighten and the sails bellow out...
>Nazism provides part of the model, except that the best known example went
>one stage two far, and tried to pre-empt those who might
>wish to leave.....
Only one stage too far?
>> How will you allocate the limited resources between your science research
>teams and
>> your engineers?
>
>They will do it themselves...
And how will they decide?
>> If you have a million tonnes of titanium, does that get
>> used in hypersonic aircraft, Mag-Lev trains or lightweight cars or even
>> racing bikes for the scientists to play with on their days off? If you can
>> produce a certain quantity of helium per year, how much should be allowed
>> to be used to fill party balloons?
>
>It would go where it would serve the country best..
How would you decide?
>> I don't see how this follows. In a market economy, you are encouraged by
>> the lure of higher wages to be honest about your capabilities and
>> incentivised to improve yourself.
>
>This isn't true.
>Engineers are paid less than managers despite being far more qualified..
So? Qualifications do not equal value
>Market Economics gives money to those who best market themselves..
>It does not encourage improvement in any real sense at all..
>In fact that is my most fundamental gripe with Thatcherism.
Then you can get that huge chip off your shoulder and stand tall.
Because you're wrong. Free market economics gives money to those best
for the job in most cases. Sure, if you can market yourself better,
you may be able to fool a few.
But (to borrow a phrase), not everyone can fool everyone else all of
the time.
>> You asked if you are free if you are denied healthcare. I suspect you
>> don't mean that somewhere there is a law that prevents you from being
>> treated. So what do you mean?
>
>No, I mean that if I can't afford good healthcare, I am denied it.
>Am I free if I have Rickets like people did the last time healthcare was
>private.
So economics does make a difference then? After all, to manage
something privately or publicly is an economic decision
>The freedom of Capitalism is the freedom to profit from the loss of
>others...
And to profit from the gain of others...
>Now what is to stop the unempolyed from staying in bed? Civil duty and Civil
>Works.. A society united in labour for a common cause.. I built that
>football stadium son!
Right. So loads of unemployed people are queing up now to built the
new Wembley for fun? I don't see them...
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>Economics is no match for technology in terms of advancing the human race..
>To continue to push it forward as a viable alternative is to divide our
>efforts..
To consider economics and technology as in opposition is bizarre
>What could we have if we all adopted the notion that Technology *will* free
>us?
We'd all be wasting money left right and centre
>> > It adds clarity to nothing.. I have told you how to become rich. What
>you
>> > are talking about it mud in the water.
>>
>> No, it is clarity. It tells you which innovations are worthwhile and which
>> aren't.
>
>No it doesn't.
>An economist can tell me nothing except how much money is available right
>now..
Wrong. Just plain wrong. Why not learn something about economics
before bleating about it?
>> Cultures rise and fall. When "deepest" africa was being explored by the
>> likes of Livingston, they found poverty.
>
>You're right, cultures do rise and fall, they rise when they are powerful
>militarilly, and fall when they are superceded... It has squat to do with
>economics.
Not so. It's truer to say that they rise when economically powerful
and fall when military spending eats into more productive uses. Even
thati a huge simplificatoin, but you can get the gory detail in Paul
Kennedy's book' the rise and fall of the great powers'
>> Except you can test economic theories.
>
>No you can't.
ROTFL. If in doubt, make it up. Read some economics. There are tested
experiments going on all the time
>> They are. The Japanese are prevented from buying cheap foreign rice, and
>> pay 3-4 times the world market price. The domestic growers get some of
>> this benefits, but there is substantial deadweight loss.
>
>If you are trying to tell me that Japan is on the verge of bankrupcy (which
>it isn't anyway) because of it's agricultural policy
>then I'm afraid I'm going to have to laugh..
No. He said that the agricultural policy of the Japanese is reducing
their wealth.
>We'll see how Japan does as the rest of the east rises and the west
>declines...
That they will be in the middle of a growing region doesn't affect tge
decision on rice policy
>> So salaryman suicide rates aren't though the roof, the country is not in
>> stagnation/recession?
>
>No, it is an indication of the damaging nature of the shite that you are
>peddling...
Go on. I want to hear this....
>> > They are a country of similar proportions to America
>>
>> Only if 50% is similar in your dictionary.
>
>Right order... more accurate than any economist I know...
Which reads "oh yes, I am wrong. I will cover this with an attack on
something else"
>I've given you my reasons, you have yet to deal with them....
>Name me a country who's overall Wealth is not proportional to it's military
>power.
Germany, the UK.
>No, it shows what a sham your argument is... OF COURSE resources are
>limited... And therefore only force can keep those resources in your
>hands... everyone else
>must suffer as a result..
Ever heard of a non-zero sum game? Perhaps you should read some game
theory...
>There is no need to try and work out where resources go.. they go to those
>who weild the Aegis...
So if someone wants to build a bridge, and another wants to lay a new
road, we should just let them fight it out?
>> It lets us know when technology is good (Watt's Steam Engine) and when it
>> is bad (Babbage's Calculator) - in terms of value added to the world.
>
>You'd never get there, we have already discussed this.. Economists are not
>the right people to decide what
>is viable and what is not... They have no qualifications in the field.. they
>are therefore incompetents and should be treated as such...
ROTFL!
>> Mag Lev is, on paper at least, overwhelmingly superior to rail.
>> Earlier you were teasing me about the Babbage Calculator and said that if
>> it were up to me, we'd still be using Flint tools. And now you are saying
>> that Mag-Lev is not a good idea at this time for financial reasons because
>> rail is good enough.
>
>That's right.....
>Every now and again technologists can flog a dead white elephant... But if
>you plotted a graph of mistakes against successes and
>turned it upside down.... that would be the successes that would be enjoyed
>if economists were genuinely running the show...
Good argument - not. All you've got is assertions and other
generalities. You don't even know what economics is - or at least
ther's no evidence of it in your posts
>> and the money supply, levels of consumption, investment.......
>
>No... Just the perception of the people..
>We have actually been 'enjoying' negative inflation recently... Prices on
>most things from houses to milk have been actually falling...
But not on services...
>> In china, your status depends on your connections. Hardly more rational.
>
>Irrelevant.. they do not have a money based meritocracy..
It's not irrelevant. It shows that teh example of non-money based
meritocracy that you mention is a total failure, and most Chinese
don't want that system.
>> > Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER economically
>>right for R&D..
>>
>> This would appear to be self evidently wrong, since R&D attracts billions
>> of pounds every year.
>
>But it's just babbage? How can this be?
Go an learn some economics. I have seen plenty of economic
justifications of research. Economists often advocate R&D. They often
*do* it
>> > But let's encourage real journalism with every effort.
>>
>> How are you going to balance the two?
>
>It would balance itself.. Good journalism would be rewarded, bad journalism
>would be pilloried.
>This would create a culture, and the competition would ensure that the hacks
>would be watching each other..
Of course. Everyone will act in the interests of everyone else. Just
like the Nazis...
>> > Let's invest heavilly in R&D in all fields,
>>
>> Who will decide?
>
>Technologists.. They have done ok so far..
Indeed.
"Bob, do you want to spend this money".
"No Bob, I'd rather you spent it"
"Why thanks Bob, that's very charitable of you"
"Don't mention it Bob"
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
<david....@nospamthankyouverymuch.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I think you laugh, because you have no anwer..
>
>I laugh because you are talking nonsense. Do you say that there are no
>economic studies of money free systems and societies?
>
>> I repeat: on the universal scale of things economics is a nonsense.
>
>That's because you demonstrate with every message that you do not
>understand what Economics is.
Indeed.
>> > So salaryman suicide rates aren't though the roof, the country is not in
>> > stagnation/recession?
>> No, it is an indication of the damaging nature of the shite that you are
>> peddling...
>
>Never make a point when you can make an insult, eh?
Been here before too...
>> Of course we're still waiting for the 80's French and German industrial
>> subsidy to bite into their economies are't we.
>
>They've not done that well, nothing to write home about. Figures from the
>Economist Britain in Numbers.
>
>GDP UK US J G Fr It Can
>1981 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
>1982 101.8 97.9 103.1 99.1 102.5 100.5 97.1
>1983 105.7 102.1 105.5 100.9 103.5 101.7 99.8
>1984 108.3 109.6 109.6 103.7 105.2 104.6 105.5
>1985 112.4 113.7 114.4 105.8 106.9 107.7 111.2
>1986 117.1 117.6 117.7 108.2 109.3 110.4 114.1
>1987 122.3 121.6 122.7 109.8 112.1 113.7 118.8
>1988 128.7 126.7 130.3 113.9 116.8 118.1 124.6
>1989 131.4 131.1 136.5 118.0 121.8 121.6 127.7
>1990 132.3 133.5 143.5 124.7 124.8 124.0 128.1
>1991 130.3 132.8 148.9 131.0 126.2 125.7 125.7
>1992 130.4 136.9 150.4 133.8 127.8 126.7 126.8
>1993 133.4 140.6 150.9 132.4 126.7 125.6 129.7
>1994 139.3 146.3 151.8 135.4 129.0 128.3 135.8
>1995 143.2 150.2 154.1 137.7 131.4 132.1 139.6
Ah, but it's all just economics...
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
No real disagreement with any of this.... Esp. higher tax free
allowance...
cheers
matt
James Hammerton
Well I guess what I'm trying to drive at here is that the potential
for government/corporate collusion is an inherent feature of
capitalism that can at best be kept within certain bounds. The
governments and corporations have mutual interests in such collusion
to rig the market.
> >> >A large multinational business can do so and thus play one government
> >> >off against another.
> >>
> >> Good. Tell me why this is a bad thing.
> >
> >They can do so over the wishes of the voters and they can do so to rig
> >the rules in their favour.
>
> Voters wishes play no part in corporate decision making.
Indeed. A company or set of companies can pull out of country or
merely scale down its operations resulting in redundancies and
cause considerable hardship for those people.
> >> Do you believe in 'harmful tax
> >> competition'?
> >
> >Who said this would be restricted to how much tax people pay?
>
> It's just an example. The point being that having govts under pressure
> to keep a conducive business environment is useful, within limits.
They key point here being the "within limits" part. Its one thing for
there to be pressure for taxes to be kept low, quite another if the
government rigs the market so that the big players can easily keep
competition out.
> As
> the size of the tradable ecoonomy is small, these limits are quite
> slack. The main reason for being 'pro-business' is to help the local,
> not the traded economy
>
> >> Can do. Depends on the honesty of the government
> >
> >Which in turn depends on how effective the mechanisms for holding both
> >the government and the corporation are.
>
> Indeed. Bid fan of increasing transparency fo both
Fair enough. But I think there will always be this tension in
capitalism between letting markets rule and the potential for
government/business collusion that is anti-free market. ISTM an
inherent feature.
> >> A govt can ignore the blackmailer, if its economic policy is broadly
> >> sound
> >
> >What if the blackmailers are the largest employers in the country?
>
> Never the case that a single employer is that significant, except
> possibly in tiny countries.
Who said it had to be a single employer? If the top 10 largest
employers sacked half their workforces the government would come in
for serious bad publicity.
> >> >The question is whether it does the company any good. It can stay and
> >> >make money via persuading the government to enact policies that reduce
> >> >competition.
> >>
> >> Sure. Depends on how honest the govt is
> >
> >How honest are most governments?
>
> Not much. But that's hardly an argument against free trade...
>
> >> >That depends on how many shareholders are in the counrty being
> >> >withdrawn from.
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. Not withdrawing (which is the same decision, different
> >> outcome) affects all shareholders.
> >
> >Indeed, but if most shareholders are not in the country concerned and all
> >they care about are their dividends then they won't give a stuff about
> >the people in the country being withdrawn from who will lose their jobs.
>
> Nor should they.
Why not?
> >> >Not necessarily -- and even if so if they get a deal that enables them
> >> >to dominate the markets of one country/area that may make up for it in
> >> >increased profits due to the ability to charge higher prices.
> >>
> >> Sure. So we're all in favour of a vigourous competition policy
> >
> >Maybe, but how does one ensure such a policy will get adopted and
> >pursued?
>
> That's up to you and me... We vote, we campaign. Just right now, the
> major issue is not economic liberty, but social and civil...
I suspect that it is a never ending battle...
> >> >And something it is in the interests of both governments and companies
> >> >to do.
> >>
> >> Not in the govts interests, though individuals may choose to pursue
> >> this
> >
> >But it is in the governments interests to avoid the bad publicity and
> >adverse economic consequences associated with lots of jobs being lost
> >due to the company (or companies) pulling out.
>
> Not really. Nobody really cares if overall unemployment is low...
But the adverse impact on the economy may be to tip it into recession,
and/or to start unemployment on an upward curve.
> >> >My point being that collusion between the state (or even the
> >> >anarcho-capitalist law enforcement agencies) and big business is an
> >> >ever present threat to the "free" market.
> >>
> >> Sure
> >
> >So therefore some means of preventing this needs to be found or we end
> >up with a corporate state.
>
> Indeed. FoI, extended to corporates in some areas...
>
> > >> >ISTM there are only 2 ways big business gets held to account --
> >> >>
> >> >> Accountable to whom?
> >> >
> >> >The people who suffer the consequences of its decisions.
> >>
> >> Let's get specific...
> >
> >Those who lose their jobs,
>
> What level of accountability do you want? French companies are 'more
> accountable', but france has higher unemployment
Correlation does not entail causation. Most like numerous
factors contribute France's current levels of unemployment. Anyway
exactly how are French companies made more accountable?
> >those who suffer the economic impact of the
> >decisions and the shareholders (who are the only ones to have both a
> >direct stake and a direct vote on the decisions). The latter are the
> >ones the company will pay most attention to.
>
> Sure. They're the *owners*. If you buy a new car every three years,
> and you only buy british, you can also affect unemployment. It's your
> money though, and you buy whatever you want. You *own* the money. What
> if Rover workers could vote on how you spent your money?
This is fine assuming a relatively even distribution of capital. But
if wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people and
companies, it effectively enables them to dictate terms to everyone
else...
Paris
news:40soeto9h14pto67t...@4ax.com...
> >Economics is no match for technology in terms of advancing the human
race..
> >To continue to push it forward as a viable alternative is to divide our
> >efforts..
>
> To consider economics and technology as in opposition is bizarre
Absolutely not...
Technology and it's persuit is the only way to advance humanity in real,
measurble terms.
Are we 'all middle class now' because we pronounce our a's the same way? Or
because most of us now have central heating?
Technological knowledge is without class, race, or national boundry.
To continue using economics and politics instead of moving towards a
utilitarian, technology based society is
to condemn the human race to statism, oppression and slavery forever..
Not what you want as far as I can recal?
> >What could we have if we all adopted the notion that Technology *will*
free
> >us?
>
> We'd all be wasting money left right and centre
Why do you say this?
Do you suppose that I am advocating that we just drop everything and pick up
a soldering iron?
Or are you just nay saying? Again.
> >> > It adds clarity to nothing.. I have told you how to become rich. What
> >you
> >> > are talking about it mud in the water.
> >>
> >> No, it is clarity. It tells you which innovations are worthwhile and
which
> >> aren't.
> >
> >No it doesn't.
> >An economist can tell me nothing except how much money is available right
> >now..
>
> Wrong. Just plain wrong. Why not learn something about economics
> before bleating about it?
Which part of 'Economists have not got a chrystal ball, and are not best
placed to make deciscions on the future of humanity'
do you disagree with?
Perhaps you think that the twitchiness of the stock market wrt tech stocks
indicates caution? No, it indicates ignorance. They don't know
what to invest in an have already been fleeced by those who do! Economists
are idiots.
Somehow they have managed to convince the market (REEEEaaaality to quote the
famous yank who's name I can't remember) that
they are valuable.
This is the problem with market economics, it does not push forward actual
progress, it just credicts those who best market themselves... Like.....
economists..
> >> Cultures rise and fall. When "deepest" africa was being explored by the
> >> likes of Livingston, they found poverty.
> >
> >You're right, cultures do rise and fall, they rise when they are powerful
> >militarilly, and fall when they are superceded... It has squat to do with
> >economics.
>
> Not so. It's truer to say that they rise when economically powerful
> and fall when military spending eats into more productive uses. Even
> thati a huge simplificatoin, but you can get the gory detail in Paul
> Kennedy's book' the rise and fall of the great powers'
No, this is absolute twaddle.
I could physically knock you down and take your money, because I waited
until you put down your stick.
If I developed a warrior caste, and had the public spend their day in
military training, produced the finest warriors the
world had seen and defeated my neighbour.. would it have been because I was
wealthier (sparta)?
If my people had the ethic that dying in battle against superior numbers is
the best possible death, and because of it I
gained control of northern europe (vikings) would I need to study cash flow?
If I invented superior technology and methods and used it to defeat a
million gold drenched maharajahs, would I need more money (Britain).
If I unified my people out of sheer desparation and set them to work freeing
themselves through war and labour, changing then entire
power balence of the world (Nazi Germany), would it require superior
financial skill?
No economics is just utter tosh and history shows it clearly.
> >> Except you can test economic theories.
> >
> >No you can't.
>
> ROTFL. If in doubt, make it up. Read some economics. There are tested
> experiments going on all the time
I know that, but there are too many variables for results to have any
practical meaning..
> >> They are. The Japanese are prevented from buying cheap foreign rice,
and
> >> pay 3-4 times the world market price. The domestic growers get some of
> >> this benefits, but there is substantial deadweight loss.
> >
> >If you are trying to tell me that Japan is on the verge of bankrupcy
(which
> >it isn't anyway) because of it's agricultural policy
> >then I'm afraid I'm going to have to laugh..
>
> No. He said that the agricultural policy of the Japanese is reducing
> their wealth.
But you cannot count that which it is giving back to japanese society.
You see, the problem with bean counting is that you miss the peas.
Money is only one way in which you can measure the success of a person or
people...
There are MANY other ways... Sure you can count money, so it makes it easy
for people who are hard
of thinking....... But when it comes to those things which you cannot count,
you need to use something
more powerful than guesswork...
> >We'll see how Japan does as the rest of the east rises and the west
> >declines...
>
> That they will be in the middle of a growing region doesn't affect tge
> decision on rice policy
>
> >> So salaryman suicide rates aren't though the roof, the country is not
in
> >> stagnation/recession?
> >
> >No, it is an indication of the damaging nature of the shite that you are
> >peddling...
>
> Go on. I want to hear this....
The Bushido code Salarymen and the general failure of the old Japanese
industrial structure has been brought about
through Japanese adherence to the imported American lessons on market
economics...
There wasn't really any need for such wholesale and viscious change of
Japanese society and culture...
They are only now beginning to realise this...
The Japanese are strong because they are unified and actually have a
society. This is the lesson of the 80's and 90's.
Japan will move forward because it does preserve it's society even when it
might seem to be economically silly.
> >> > They are a country of similar proportions to America
> >>
> >> Only if 50% is similar in your dictionary.
> >
> >Right order... more accurate than any economist I know...
>
> Which reads "oh yes, I am wrong. I will cover this with an attack on
> something else"
No, it's in the right order... Do you understand what that means?
> >I've given you my reasons, you have yet to deal with them....
> >Name me a country who's overall Wealth is not proportional to it's
military
> >power.
>
> Germany, the UK.
Nato Alliance, previous massive violence against others.
> >No, it shows what a sham your argument is... OF COURSE resources are
> >limited... And therefore only force can keep those resources in your
> >hands... everyone else
> >must suffer as a result..
>
> Ever heard of a non-zero sum game? Perhaps you should read some game
> theory...
It is a sophism similar to the 'you have a choice' sophism used in general
capitalist argument.
NO you don't have a choice. You can buy something different or abstain, but
you DO NOT have any other choice.
Similarly where there is a resource to loose, and two potential winners,
there MUST be a loser.
Sure you can sell him coke where he wanted water, but does he lose that
which he desired? Yes of course he does.
As for your other point... Everything you say convinces me that you haven't
read a single major political work in your life..
That's the problem with capitalists, they are so anti-intellectual.
If you had read anything at all, you would not be arguing the way you are.
You have the cart before the horse.
Resources follows the one with the biggest sword arm and it has ever been
so.
> >There is no need to try and work out where resources go.. they go to
those
> >who weild the Aegis...
>
> So if someone wants to build a bridge, and another wants to lay a new
> road, we should just let them fight it out?
No, I would wait until they built the bridge and then...... take it.
> >> It lets us know when technology is good (Watt's Steam Engine) and when
it
> >> is bad (Babbage's Calculator) - in terms of value added to the world.
> >
> >You'd never get there, we have already discussed this.. Economists are
not
> >the right people to decide what
> >is viable and what is not... They have no qualifications in the field..
they
> >are therefore incompetents and should be treated as such...
>
> ROTFL!
Does this constitute your argument?
> >> Mag Lev is, on paper at least, overwhelmingly superior to rail.
> >> Earlier you were teasing me about the Babbage Calculator and said that
if
> >> it were up to me, we'd still be using Flint tools. And now you are
saying
> >> that Mag-Lev is not a good idea at this time for financial reasons
because
> >> rail is good enough.
> >
> >That's right.....
> >Every now and again technologists can flog a dead white elephant... But
if
> >you plotted a graph of mistakes against successes and
> >turned it upside down.... that would be the successes that would be
enjoyed
> >if economists were genuinely running the show...
>
> Good argument - not. All you've got is assertions and other
> generalities. You don't even know what economics is - or at least
> ther's no evidence of it in your posts
I looked it up in the dictionary. I know 2, and I have been taught it.
My assertion is that, unless you string your coins together and use them as
chain mail, they are no defence against
superior military force. Now then, what is your actual argument?
> >> and the money supply, levels of consumption, investment.......
> >
> >No... Just the perception of the people..
> >We have actually been 'enjoying' negative inflation recently... Prices on
> >most things from houses to milk have been actually falling...
>
> But not on services...
You can cherry pick all you like.. We have been enjoying negative inflation
and we all know it.
What do you suppose that means?
> >> In china, your status depends on your connections. Hardly more
rational.
> >
> >Irrelevant.. they do not have a money based meritocracy..
>
> It's not irrelevant. It shows that teh example of non-money based
> meritocracy that you mention is a total failure, and most Chinese
> don't want that system.
Where on earth do you get such a rediculous statement from? CNN?
Have you asked them all?
tut tut.
> >> > Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER
economically
> >>right for R&D..
> >>
> >> This would appear to be self evidently wrong, since R&D attracts
billions
> >> of pounds every year.
> >
> >But it's just babbage? How can this be?
>
> Go an learn some economics. I have seen plenty of economic
> justifications of research. Economists often advocate R&D. They often
> *do* it
Hmm. I think I've seen enough...
Paris
news:jbqoetck4umuoknvi...@4ax.com...
> >Economics is an attempt to predict the actions of individuals
(ultimately)
> >using tools which are designed for approximation.
>
> Almost never. Economics almost always refers to the actions of classes
> or groups of individuals
Did you not notice my 'ultimately' caveat?
What is a *group of individuals*?
> >It does not factor in war and other major social change, the possible
> >technological redundancy of money,
> >the individual behaviour of groups determined to undermine approximate
> >models and so on..
> >It is open-loop and should be treated as nothing more than an attempt at
a
> >guess.
>
> Sure. It's falsifiable...
>
> >We know how a nation becomes rich: They steal from others at the point of
a
> >gun, or they work hard and
> >defend from others at the point of a gun. This is the economics of Plato,
> >this is how it is still done today.. There IS NO other way.
>
> Not quite. But let's run with that. Take the second option. What does
> it mean to work ahrd? Does working smart count? Is a hard worker who
> digs holes on Monday and fills them Tuesday making progress? Or does
> working smarter count too? If you work smarter, what tools do you use
> for allocating resourcing between different options?
Working smart is watching them did the hole and then, taking it off them
when they've done it.
Sure countries can do what they will to make themselves more efficient but
unless they are sufficiently
mighty, or well connected, it will be for naught.
> >> Partly History. They had just suffered a humiliating defeat and times
were
> >> very hard. Domestic goods were in very short supply and the fear of
> >> complete poverty in those times of uncertainty made those who had jobs
> >> save heavily, which provided additional investment capital.
> >>
> >> Is none of this Economics?
> >
> >No, none of it...
>
> Then WTF do you think economics is?
Logistics. Anal Bean Counting.
Useful when used as a tool, damaging when taken too seriously, which it has
been for the last
25 years.
> >You're right, economics is bound up in Politics....That's the problem.
> >And it is a field of study like Theology.
> >We all know that the truth is that there is no God.
> >But that doesn't stop Billions of pounds a year sloshing around in his
> >name...
> >We all know tha the key to national success is military force, with which
> >one ceases assets and protects those assets that one has against others.
>
> I take it you mean 'seizes' assets? Not much good is it - I mean
> Hitler tried this one and it's got some long term failure issues
And this constitues a rebutal of my main argument does it?
> >> No, it was a hinderance. As with their rice-import bans, it penalises
> >> Japanese consumers at the expense of domestic growers and their society
is
> >> poorer as a result.
> >
> >Yes, they look much worse off for their agricultural policy...
>
> They are... Unless you can show differently...
They are worse off because they have let their society be corroded from the
outside.. NOT because
they have subsidised their rice! You are looking at the wrong variables
again my son.
> >Do you really believe all the American propoganda about the Japanese
> >economy?
>
> Might believe the suicide rate of Japanese. That's a data point from
> the ground...
It amuses me that you genuinely believe that older Japanese people are
committing suicide because
Japan has been 'wayward' (Snow's word) and has not fully embraced the free
market economy.
You believe this because you have been succoured on the tit of idiots who
rose on the back of the market economy...
> Really. So Singapore is rich because?
Is it?
It is in no threat of being invaded.
> >I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
> >As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that it
> >wanted to invade Denmark?
>
> Nothing. Their fleet wold be sunk before it reached Scotland. lt's in
> all our interests to prevent gains by force. Unless you'd prefer we'd
> not fought against Hitler...
> Oh, of course, you do...
I do.
But you have once again avioded my question.
> >> I'm coming to think that you don't know what Economics is. You could
> >> produce an economic analysis of the returns of "might" and explore if
that
> >> was the reason for wealth.
> >
> >Ok, lets do that...
> >Lets look at the greatest civilisations on earth and try and factor out
> >their economic strengths?
> >Lets start with the Greeks. Move on to the Romans, The Vikings, Europe,
The
> >British, And finally.... America.
> >What is the underlying theme there do you think?
> >Is it economics? Or is it the Aegis?
>
> And the two are separable how?
You whack them first, then you go through their pockets.
When they try to whack you, you set your dog on them.
Then you go through their pockets.
> Perhaps you should read more.
> I could recommend Landes (Wealth and poverty of nations) and Paul Kennedy
(the
> rise and fall of the great powers). I don't imagine you'll bother, but
> you can't say that nobody's trying to educate you...
If I didn't hold you in contempt I'd say you were patronising.
Can you give me a one sentance summary of your counter argument to my 'might
is right' thesis that doesn't involve
references to someone elses work? Can you actually form an argument of your
own?
> >> Very flowery. try communicating instead, it's far more effective.
> >
> >The future of the human race lies in unity or oblivion.
>
> Sorry, is this the unity of 'seizing assets'?
Well done, advance of the arguement! This is something new...
The other type of growth through strength would produce unity ultimately.
If the strength is used to protect a nation while it rises, from those that
would assail it then it would have a domino effect on
other nations, which would join it upon seeing it's progress.
A truly unified society, focussed on technological progress and the actual
raising of the standard of living of it's citizens rather than the
rediculous straw man which is the trickle down economy.
Power gives you the freedom to trade where it benefits you, and the security
to change society without fear of invasion during the process.
But Power is always a unifying force, if it is weilded wisely.
> >In order to unite we need to remove any reason why any individual may
justly
> >think themselves different from any other individual..
>
> Ah. Let's all be called 'Bob' then.
No, lets admit that we're all human, and that Santa for adults doesn't
exist. Lets agree that
the Bible didn't give us Radio, The Koran didn't give us Concrete and that
the Torah didn't give us Nylon.
Lets point out people who use arguments like yours and ask what their
motives are? What have they to fear from
social unity? Are they scared that they'll loose their advantage in life?
Are they worried that they will have to work?
Is it simply the paranoia so typical of people who behave in an insular,
anti-social fashion?
Perhaps they just don't understand, their world view is too narrow to see
that it is always unified societies that triumph?
An individual ant can lift a leaf, and it can hoard lots of them, safe in
the knowledge that it was a better ant than all the others..
And it would fight for it's right to do so, believing that the other ants
are benefiting from it's efforts... But a whole collony can strip a tree in
a day! Perhaps these people just don't see it?
> >> Oh, very simple. Ask a dozen people about what mankinds priorities
should
> >> be and you get, at least, a dozen different answers.
> >
> >I doubt it. That is another sophism.
> >All humans want the same things because they all have a hypathalamus.
> >We all want Shelter/Food and the opportunity to procreate.
> >That is darwins big two. Then there is the last one. Protection of the
> >species.
>
> Ever heard of Mazlow's (spelling?) pyramid? What happens when you've
> got food and shelter?
Yes, and Herzberg too.
Have you read anything by Machiavalli?
> >> Is it common sense? A technology exists that would allow trains to run
> >> very quietly and twice the speed they do now, and doesn't wear out with
> >> friction. How can this not be a good idea?
> >
> >Because it doesn't really work that well, and it isn't genuinely
failsafe..
> >PLUS it is very expensive.
> >It's not really a replacement for cold steel rails.
>
> That is an economic decision. That's what economists study. That's why
> the subject exists
NO IT IS NOT! There is no need to study it!
The barrell loader was replaced by the musle loader because it killed more
people in battle.
It wasn't cheaper to make, and economists didn't go and tell Mr Springfield
to begin R&D immediately to be sure of prompt recompense!
Economics cannot predict that which will supercede anything else because it
is not capable of seeing into the
future, it can tell me how many beans I have now, and which is the safest
tree under which to bury them... It can't tell me about semi-conductors. It
should therefore be treated with the utmost caution, and it's limitations
should be clearly understood by all.
Again I refer you to the fiasco which is tech stock trading.
Thatcherism, being based solely on the unilateral Free Market Economic
opening of UK industry to world predation is responsible
for the death of our nation.... It will take YEARS to put it right again..
These people should be shot on sight for experimenting (if only I thought it
wasn't plain old asset stripping) on us.
> >> Which is a bit like saying the study of geology is a waste of time
because
> >> you can tell the difference between a lump of quartz and a tub of
butter.
> >> What about gold and Iron Pyrites? Between rocks that are of varying
> >> probability of being from rich oilfields?
> >
> >If a scientist has to rely on statistics to form the basis of a theory,
they
> >hang their heads in shame...
>
> ROTFL. You really are an idiot. What is the probability of an
> earthquake happening?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile I'm assured.
Have you ever heard of a seismometer?
> Or of a disease spreading?
Accepted, although we have no other method of dealing with this at the
moment see below.
> Or of an electron being in a certain place, or having an given energy?
Particle accelerators?
>How likely is it that this bridge will fall under normal use?
Laplace transromations, Simple Harmonic Motion and resonance, finite element
analysis?
Wind tunnels....
>Or that a crash will kill a car's occupants?
Crash test dummies.
Science seeks to rid itself of statistics at all costs. To rely on it solely
is to admit defeat.
A scientific theory holds if it is accurate in it's predictions to 5%.
An economist would wet his pants at such a figure.
> >F=MA That is a universal law... and I can use it to get to the moon and
> >back..
> >What has economics volunteered to humanity?
>
> Ways of thinking about resource allocation.
Yippee!
Now perhaps you might tell me where you see humanity allocating it's
resources over the next ten years for maximum
return?
> >> Except, for our 50 billion we would get an improved transport network,
but
> >> not one that was 50 billion better. Let's say that the time saved by
the
> >> faster journeys and the enviromental improvements that happen as a
result
> >> of the quieter trains amount to 5 billion. That means that 45 billion
is
> >> gone. 45 billion worth fewer cars, pizzas, TVs, shoes, you name it.
They
> >> Taxpayer or the investor has bought a crisp fiver with a fifty pound
note.
> >
> >There's just no point, there's nothing wrong with rail!
> >Only when something is significantly better, or the only available option
> >does anything really
> >change..
>
> Good. Economics helps you work out then something is 'better' - i.e.
> more cost effective
Fine. But is it going to hinder or help the advance of technology.
I refer broadband internet access for example.
> >Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER economically
right
> >for R&D..
>
> Rubbish
Only when Economists think that they will benefit in the relatively short
term is money invested heavilly in R&D, or when it is in
an area which is previously littered with success.
Tell me it aint so.
> >> How will you balance the conflicting demands of your citizenship?
> >
> >Society.. Those that wish to leave... may freely do so. Those that are
left
> >are familly.
> >Society strengthens, the bonds tighten and the sails bellow out...
> >Nazism provides part of the model, except that the best known example
went
> >one stage two far, and tried to pre-empt those who might
> >wish to leave.....
>
> Only one stage too far?
It got it wrong in two counts:
1) Too much emphesis on forced Expansionism (impatience)
2) The neglect and maltreatment of those it deamed anti-social in it's haste
to change society (again, impatience)
The Nazis knew only too well that one cannot achieve anything without force
when dealing with conservatism, but they underestimated the success of their
underlying policies, and the distress it was causing the immerging NWO.
If it were to happen again, it would be without the expansionist
realpolitik, and with much longer timescales safe in the knowledge that it
was really only the expansionism and lack of nuclear deterrant (affording
longer timescales without serious threat) which killed Nazism last time.
> >> How will you allocate the limited resources between your science
research
> >teams and
> >> your engineers?
> >
> >They will do it themselves...
>
> And how will they decide?
By agreeing with each other on the technological and humanitarian merits of
each project as scientists, rather than on the econmic merits
as bean counters.
> >> If you have a million tonnes of titanium, does that get
> >> used in hypersonic aircraft, Mag-Lev trains or lightweight cars or even
> >> racing bikes for the scientists to play with on their days off? If you
can
> >> produce a certain quantity of helium per year, how much should be
allowed
> >> to be used to fill party balloons?
> >
> >It would go where it would serve the country best..
>
> How would you decide?
Scientists are notoriously philanthropic and genuinely measured and
magnanimous in their decision making.
It has to do with the nature of their education. I trust them implicitely to
make the right choice over any other group
of professionals. I'm happy to have one or two economists in the think tank
if they aren't laughed out in the first 10 minutes.
> >> I don't see how this follows. In a market economy, you are encouraged
by
> >> the lure of higher wages to be honest about your capabilities and
> >> incentivised to improve yourself.
> >
> >This isn't true.
> >Engineers are paid less than managers despite being far more qualified..
>
> So? Qualifications do not equal value
Hmmm I see :)
What does equate to value in the market economy?
'It's a ladder Paris, you start at the bottom and.....' :)
> >Market Economics gives money to those who best market themselves..
> >It does not encourage improvement in any real sense at all..
> >In fact that is my most fundamental gripe with Thatcherism.
>
> Then you can get that huge chip off your shoulder and stand tall.
> Because you're wrong. Free market economics gives money to those best
> for the job in most cases.
Ah, the old 'socialists are chippy' thing...
The market place gives to those who exploit it best by power, allience,
cartel, advertising or style.
Not to those with the most benefit to humanity. Sure you say, the market
gives what the buyers want.
Except that it caters for the lowest common demoninator when it does cater
at all.
Now I'm sure you're chomping at the bit to give me a rational argument
against this which is not based
on a cherry picked list of some form or other?
> Sure, if you can market yourself better, you may be able to fool a few.
>
> But (to borrow a phrase), not everyone can fool everyone else all of
> the time.
It's a numbers game, as I'm sure you'll appreciate.
You don't have to fool them all, you only have to fool enough.
> >> You asked if you are free if you are denied healthcare. I suspect you
> >> don't mean that somewhere there is a law that prevents you from being
> >> treated. So what do you mean?
> >
> >No, I mean that if I can't afford good healthcare, I am denied it.
> >Am I free if I have Rickets like people did the last time healthcare was
> >private.
>
> So economics does make a difference then? After all, to manage
> something privately or publicly is an economic decision
No it is not it is a moral and an ethical one.
Do we provide free, quality healthcare for our citizens, or do we put the
NHS through the BT/Railtrack/Coal/Steel/Manufacturing meat
grinder and go back to the days of small people with bad teeth, skin
complaints and rickets?
> >The freedom of Capitalism is the freedom to profit from the loss of
> >others...
>
> And to profit from the gain of others...
Ahh, the trickle down chestnut.
Keynes 'the worst possible people will somehow benefit us all'..
Ants. Leaves. Trees.
> >Now what is to stop the unempolyed from staying in bed? Civil duty and
Civil
> >Works.. A society united in labour for a common cause.. I built that
> >football stadium son!
>
> Right. So loads of unemployed people are queing up now to built the
> new Wembley for fun? I don't see them...
That's because you still think that Nazism was a crackpot idea who's only
purpous was to eat babies and gas Jews.
That's because you don't read enough, and take that which you do read far to
seriously.
I suspect you also have CNN on 24 hours a day.
Paris
news:7jpoet0u413km1kmp...@4ax.com...
> ROTFL. Ever since Popper we've understood that isn't correct. Science
> is a system at best for rejecting falsity.
I aren't even going to debate this point with you, it's all been done
before..
> >Part of such thinking is modern economics... It has less to do with
reason
> >than it does the infection of it's adherents minds
> >with a kind of circular logic... it is a form of mysticism.
>
> Tell me how economics differs from population biology
It doesn't, much. Except that ecology etc. aims to actively keep
biodiversity, whereas your brand
of economics seems geared to letting those who can stomp out competition in
the market place succeed.
This is like saying that in order to cure our population problems we simply
need to let the biggest feed on the smallest.
Easy init!
> >> Without economics, how do explain how the same technology is used more
> >> effectively under some conditions than others?
> >
> >You look at the reasons objectively...
> >The reason that technology hasn't permiated darkest africa has nothing to
do
> >with calculus equations.. it has to
> >do with the history of Africa, it's divided society and the actively
> >aggressive foreign policies of the west...
>
> And how does this manifest itself? Poor economic policy in some cases.
> Over-regulated economies, poor rule of law, poor property law. All of
> these are economic issues as well as political.It's arbitrary to
> separate them
The people of Africa lack unity and therefore, they lack sufficient voice,
allies and military might.
> >Science and its philosophy, coupled with secular humanism is the only way
to
> >instigate this change...
> >Economics and other such sophisms such as neo-liberalist global
capitalism
> >and multi-culturalism are rocks in the river of
> >human evolution as we reach towards our possible futures and away from
> >caves, bones and rival clans..
>
> Ah, right. So understading how resources are allocated, and the most
> efficient way to do so, is such a 'rock'. So tell me, how can a
> politiican decide where to allocate resources in your fantasy state?
By consensus among those most qualified to distribute the resources.
General figures for allocation decided by government according to the
principals of the
state.. see below.
> >The formula is simple : Respect for all human life.. Unity in the quest
for
> >human achievement... Technology, Magnanimity, Society, Humanity
>
> Right. So I use those principles to decide whether or not to raise or
> lower interest rates?
These principals permiate thinking.. and help to guide all decisions.
They are the equivilent of words like Cost, Profit and Value. With an added
ethical dimension which
capitalism misses.
We aren't big fans of interest you know...
The economy such as it would be, would be controlled by other means at every
possible opportunity,
the aim being to reduce interest rates to the lowest possible levels.
Loss making (slight) state money lending services would also be set up to
this end, fostering competition
among private financial institutions...
> Or invest in one large plant over two smaller ones?
Not a matter for the state, but one for the people who want to invest in the
plant.
State does not own the means of production, it simply... controls it through
tax incentives or otherwise.
> >> Because applying the right economic theory allows you to benefit from
> >> technology. We have invented Mag-Lev technology but at present it does
not
> >> make sense to use it to replace existing rail systems.
> >
> >I see what you are saying... but that is not so much an economic decision
as
> >one of common sense...
>
> ROTFL. Economics is common sense. Paris, you're learning!
Why bother studying it then? Is it because people need to spend 3 years at
university getting laid?
> >> Without (IMO) a rational economic analysis of the costs and benefits,
we
> >> could spend a lot of money which may only deliver marginal benefits.
> >
> >Money Shmoney..
>
> Ah. Wold you rather get rid of it Barter perhaps?
I'd rather there was no need for it at all.. I'd rather people had all that
they needed in life, and felt
that their worth lay in some better persuit than the accumulation of
trinkets.
I'd rather that people who believe it is their God, worship it elsewhere and
stop
trying to convince others that their sad lifestyles are actually bringing
them happiness.
> >Should I set up a super state based on the advancement of science, and
> >defend it like a god sent sentinal against the advances of
> >globalist capitalism, how long do you think it would take before it bore
> >fruit?
>
> About five minutes
>
> >While you sit and think about what is economically viable, we will waste
our
> >money on folly.......
> Good. I'll buy you later on then. After all your smart people have
> come over to this side. Kind of private equity for countries...
Ah brain drain again.. a two trick horse!
I suppose it was all the smart Russians who moved to America and gave them
the Gas Chromatography method
of purifying Uranium, the first man in space, the first satallite, the first
space station.. and all the other things that soviet scientists
produced... And that is under soviet conditions, imagine it under conditions
in which they are honoured as the actual movers and shakers
of humanity and rewarded for success in as many ways as possible, including
tax breaks and so on..
> >> In fact, it reminds me of a favourite saying of one of my Engineering
> >> lecturers at Glasgow. "An engineer is someone who make for a penny what
> >> any fool can make for a pound". Compare and contrast the TU-144 and
> >> Concorde.
> >
> >My definition would be 'those who take theory from science, and give
product
> >to the populace'.
> >If your friend is thinking hard about money... he should swap jobs...
> >The Germans prove that quality of design eventually bears fruit over cost
of
> >production...
>
> Which is a statement that also makes sense when expressed in economic
> terms. It's hardly new to economists
It's Bauhaus. Not economics.
It is the form and function design ethic.
> >Creativity like art itself produces it's best when it is unfettered.
>
> So does waste
>
> >You own a small company of gifted individuals... Your brightest star
comes
> >to you on a friday afternoon and says..
> >'I'm really good... I think I need a payrise'...
> >Do you give him the money, or smile sweetly and tell him that you think
that
> >he is free to leave whever he wants and that when
> >he leaves he'll take your gratitude and good will?
>
> Depends on how good he is, what a replacement costs, and whether he
> can do better elsewhere...
Rest assured, he can.. Some fool will pay him!
Let them have him, he is a drain on my little society, he wears it down.
He's a rotten apple.
> >The brain drain is a fallacy.. In a society we deliver what we are good
at
> >delivering and should be praised for doing so..
> >If the good doctor feels that he would be happier delivering in belise or
> >LA, then let him go.
>
> Good idea!
Yup.. It is.
And when people say 'look people are leaving' say 'yes, it's working, all
the ticks are jumping off'.
> >> > Will my children be free?
> >>
> >> Yes, but the running costs mount up.....
> >
> >Of course it does... But we are buying quality...
> >Let those who don't want to be part of the purchase go elsewhere....
>
> What happens if they're the paying part of the puchase?
Rubbish, we all know that the tax burdon is borne by the lower middle
classes and those on PAYE.
Everyone else dodges their tax..
You're in or you're out.. Which is it? You're boarding pass is here, the
statue of liberty awaits you....
It's the American dream.... All you have to do is say...
La La La La La Merica.....
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> OK. But now you talk to a more important point, the potential for
>> govt/corporate collusion. This is independent of 'free trade' and is a
>> function of govt and business. The only 'solution' is transparency
>
>Well I guess what I'm trying to drive at here is that the potential
>for government/corporate collusion is an inherent feature of
>capitalism
And socialism, and every other system of government
>that can at best be kept within certain bounds. The
>governments and corporations have mutual interests in such collusion
>to rig the market.
Sure.
>> >They can do so over the wishes of the voters and they can do so to rig
>> >the rules in their favour.
>>
>> Voters wishes play no part in corporate decision making.
>
>Indeed. A company or set of companies can pull out of country or
>merely scale down its operations resulting in redundancies and
>cause considerable hardship for those people.
Fine. Welcome to the world. You make something nobody else wants. What
do you think is going to happen?
>> >Who said this would be restricted to how much tax people pay?
>>
>> It's just an example. The point being that having govts under pressure
>> to keep a conducive business environment is useful, within limits.
>
>They key point here being the "within limits" part. Its one thing for
>there to be pressure for taxes to be kept low, quite another if the
>government rigs the market so that the big players can easily keep
>competition out.
Sure, but then you're nack to collusion. That's nothing to do with
capitalism per se, its a function of corrupt govternmetns everywhere
>> Indeed. Bid fan of increasing transparency fo both
>
>Fair enough. But I think there will always be this tension in
>capitalism between letting markets rule and the potential for
>government/business collusion that is anti-free market. ISTM an
>inherent feature.
How does this differe from socialist 'corporatism', facism under
Hitler, or crony capitalism?
>> Never the case that a single employer is that significant, except
>> possibly in tiny countries.
>
>Who said it had to be a single employer? If the top 10 largest
>employers sacked half their workforces the government would come in
>for serious bad publicity.
That's not going to happen unles the govt is being mad. It's also the
opposite point from govt and business being in collusion
>> >Maybe, but how does one ensure such a policy will get adopted and
>> >pursued?
>>
>> That's up to you and me... We vote, we campaign. Just right now, the
>> major issue is not economic liberty, but social and civil...
>
>I suspect that it is a never ending battle...
Sure. "...liberty is eternal vigilance" etc
>> What level of accountability do you want? French companies are 'more
>> accountable', but france has higher unemployment
>
>Correlation does not entail causation. Most like numerous
>factors contribute France's current levels of unemployment. Anyway
>exactly how are French companies made more accountable?
Harder to sack workers, more consultation etc
>> Sure. They're the *owners*. If you buy a new car every three years,
>> and you only buy british, you can also affect unemployment. It's your
>> money though, and you buy whatever you want. You *own* the money. What
>> if Rover workers could vote on how you spent your money?
>
>This is fine assuming a relatively even distribution of capital. But
>if wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people and
>companies, it effectively enables them to dictate terms to everyone
>else...
Only the terms that apply to *their* money
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> >Economics is no match for technology in terms of advancing the human
>race..
>> >To continue to push it forward as a viable alternative is to divide our
>> >efforts..
>>
>> To consider economics and technology as in opposition is bizarre
>
>Absolutely not...
So the two are in opposition?
>Technology and it's persuit is the only way to advance humanity in real,
>measurble terms.
>Are we 'all middle class now' because we pronounce our a's the same way? Or
>because most of us now have central heating?
Depends on how you define middle class. But it's irrelevant to showing
that technology and economics are in opposition
>Technological knowledge is without class, race, or national boundry.
>To continue using economics and politics instead of moving towards a
>utilitarian, technology based society is
>to condemn the human race to statism, oppression and slavery forever..
>Not what you want as far as I can recal?
Nor it is even vaguely defensible as a notion
>> >No it doesn't.
>> >An economist can tell me nothing except how much money is available right
>> >now..
>>
>> Wrong. Just plain wrong. Why not learn something about economics
>> before bleating about it?
>
>Which part of 'Economists have not got a chrystal ball, and are not best
>placed to make deciscions on the future of humanity'
>do you disagree with?
None. Next question.
>Perhaps you think that the twitchiness of the stock market wrt tech stocks
>indicates caution? No, it indicates ignorance. They don't know
>what to invest in an have already been fleeced by those who do! Economists
>are idiots.
What makes you think 'economists' are investing in tech shares? Who
did know 'what to invest in'?
>This is the problem with market economics, it does not push forward actual
>progress, it just credicts those who best market themselves...
I know you believe this, but you are wrong. If you were right, then
there wouldn't be a correlation between cashflows and share prices
>> >You're right, cultures do rise and fall, they rise when they are powerful
>> >militarilly, and fall when they are superceded... It has squat to do with
>> >economics.
>>
>> Not so. It's truer to say that they rise when economically powerful
>> and fall when military spending eats into more productive uses. Even
>> thati a huge simplificatoin, but you can get the gory detail in Paul
>> Kennedy's book' the rise and fall of the great powers'
>
>No, this is absolute twaddle.
So you say, but you provide no evidence. Go and read Kennedy's book
>I could physically knock you down and take your money, because I waited
>until you put down your stick.
>If I developed a warrior caste, and had the public spend their day in
>military training, produced the finest warriors the
>world had seen and defeated my neighbour.. would it have been because I was
>wealthier (sparta)?
No. But we don't live in an age where spears win wars. Who wins, China
or the US? Which has more warriors? Which is richer? Same with the UK
in 1850 and India
>If my people had the ethic that dying in battle against superior numbers is
>the best possible death, and because of it I
>gained control of northern europe (vikings) would I need to study cash flow?
No. Cos' your fighting with cheap weapons. It's not like that now
>If I invented superior technology and methods and used it to defeat a
>million gold drenched maharajahs, would I need more money (Britain).
And you invent better technology by having better economics and
investing in R&D...
>If I unified my people out of sheer desparation and set them to work freeing
>themselves through war and labour, changing then entire
>power balence of the world (Nazi Germany), would it require superior
>financial skill?
What a fine model you suggest. I don't recall it working that well
though...
>No economics is just utter tosh and history shows it clearly.
Not really. All your examples show is that in primitive societies, if
you go to war lots, sometimes you win. Fabulous insight
>> >No you can't.
>>
>> ROTFL. If in doubt, make it up. Read some economics. There are tested
>> experiments going on all the time
>
>I know that, but there are too many variables for results to have any
>practical meaning..
Not so. Just as you can do experiements in sociology, biology, fluid
dynamics etc
>> No. He said that the agricultural policy of the Japanese is reducing
>> their wealth.
>
>But you cannot count that which it is giving back to japanese society.
Right. So the Japanese consumers want to be paying extra for their
rice because it gives them a burst of national pride. Why not test
that theory by giving them the choice and seeing what they choose?
>You see, the problem with bean counting is that you miss the peas.
>Money is only one way in which you can measure the success of a person or
>people...
>There are MANY other ways... Sure you can count money, so it makes it easy
>for people who are hard
>of thinking....... But when it comes to those things which you cannot count,
>you need to use something
>more powerful than guesswork...
So if money is so unimportant (and I'll happily agree it isn't that
big a deal), why do you want mine so much?
>> >No, it is an indication of the damaging nature of the shite that you are
>> >peddling...
>>
>> Go on. I want to hear this....
>
>The Bushido code Salarymen and the general failure of the old Japanese
>industrial structure has been brought about
>through Japanese adherence to the imported American lessons on market
>economics...
ROTFL! Of course. Until then, Japan was just fine. You really don't
stdy economics much do you? Tell me what the causes of the property
bubble were. And why the recession has lasted so long. I am dying to
know
>> >No, it shows what a sham your argument is... OF COURSE resources are
>> >limited... And therefore only force can keep those resources in your
>> >hands... everyone else
>> >must suffer as a result..
>>
>> Ever heard of a non-zero sum game? Perhaps you should read some game
>> theory...
>
>It is a sophism similar to the 'you have a choice' sophism used in general
>capitalist argument.
No it's not. Show how the two arguments are similar
>As for your other point... Everything you say convinces me that you haven't
>read a single major political work in your life..
Then you're easily convinced of rubbish. Within my eye sight form here
are >10 Chomsky books alone. Well over 250 books on politics
>That's the problem with capitalists, they are so anti-intellectual.
ROTFL! Excellent
>If you had read anything at all, you would not be arguing the way you are.
Right. So the >1,000 books on my shelves don't count because they have
led me to think different things from yourself
>> >There is no need to try and work out where resources go.. they go to
>>>those who weild the Aegis...
>>
>> So if someone wants to build a bridge, and another wants to lay a new
>> road, we should just let them fight it out?
>
>No, I would wait until they built the bridge and then...... take it.
Good idea. And the outcome is... the Balkans! What a fine vision you
have.
>> >You'd never get there, we have already discussed this.. Economists are
>>>not the right people to decide what
>> >is viable and what is not... They have no qualifications in the field..
>>>they are therefore incompetents and should be treated as such...
>>
>> ROTFL!
>
>Does this constitute your argument?
I don't see an argument here to respond to...
>> Good argument - not. All you've got is assertions and other
>> generalities. You don't even know what economics is - or at least
>> ther's no evidence of it in your posts
>
>I looked it up in the dictionary. I know 2, and I have been taught it.
>My assertion is that, unless you string your coins together and use them as
>chain mail, they are no defence against
>superior military force. Now then, what is your actual argument?
That you can't develpo superior military force, and keep you
population happy, and increase your developing research without having
superior economics. The USSR shows the point well.
>> >No... Just the perception of the people..
>> >We have actually been 'enjoying' negative inflation recently... Prices on
>> >most things from houses to milk have been actually falling...
>>
>> But not on services...
>
>You can cherry pick all you like.. We have been enjoying negative inflation
>and we all know it.
Not so. But you can make any claim you like...
Negative inflation implies that less and less money is xhasing more
and more goods and services. That ain't so, and you can check the
money supply figures if you like
>What do you suppose that means?
That you don't understand inflation either?
>> It's not irrelevant. It shows that teh example of non-money based
>> meritocracy that you mention is a total failure, and most Chinese
>> don't want that system.
>
>Where on earth do you get such a rediculous statement from? CNN?
>Have you asked them all?
>tut tut.
Don't need to. Not that long ago lots of them protested and then got
shot dead. Doesn't look like a popular system to me
>> Go an learn some economics. I have seen plenty of economic
>> justifications of research. Economists often advocate R&D. They often
>> *do* it
>
>Hmm. I think I've seen enough...
Just not learned anything as usual...
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> ROTFL. Ever since Popper we've understood that isn't correct. Science
>> is a system at best for rejecting falsity.
>
>I aren't even going to debate this point with you, it's all been done
>before..
So why do you keep getting it wrong?
>> >Part of such thinking is modern economics... It has less to do with
>reason
>> >than it does the infection of it's adherents minds
>> >with a kind of circular logic... it is a form of mysticism.
>>
>> Tell me how economics differs from population biology
>
>It doesn't, much. Except that ecology etc. aims to actively keep
>biodiversity, whereas your brand
>of economics seems geared to letting those who can stomp out competition in
>the market place succeed.
Excellent!
Neither biology nor economics have 'intents'. People do. Knowledge can
be used for any purpose.
>> And how does this manifest itself? Poor economic policy in some cases.
>> Over-regulated economies, poor rule of law, poor property law. All of
>> these are economic issues as well as political.It's arbitrary to
>> separate them
>
>The people of Africa lack unity and therefore, they lack sufficient voice,
>allies and military might.
Ah. So if they were just more united, they'd be fine. So I take it
that South africa, as united as any place ever has been behind the
ANC, is a crime-free paradise?
>> Ah, right. So understading how resources are allocated, and the most
>> efficient way to do so, is such a 'rock'. So tell me, how can a
>> politiican decide where to allocate resources in your fantasy state?
>
>By consensus among those most qualified to distribute the resources.
And who are the most qualified? What is a valid qualification?
>General figures for allocation decided by government according to the
>principals of the
>state.. see below.
They aren't terribly useful. How does 'magnanimity' help decide
between road calming and vaccination programmes?
>> >The formula is simple : Respect for all human life.. Unity in the quest
>for
>> >human achievement... Technology, Magnanimity, Society, Humanity
>>
>> Right. So I use those principles to decide whether or not to raise or
>> lower interest rates?
>
>These principals permiate thinking.. and help to guide all decisions.
Not very helpfully though. How do I use 'society' to help me decide
whether I want to have five schools of 600 or six of 500 in an area?
>We aren't big fans of interest you know...
>The economy such as it would be, would be controlled by other means at every
>possible opportunity, the aim being to reduce interest rates to the lowest possible levels.
Why not just ban usury?
>Loss making (slight) state money lending services would also be set up to
>this end, fostering competition among private financial institutions...
There wouldn't be 'slight' losses. There would be tremendous bleeding
of cash. Why would anyone lend without interest?
>> Or invest in one large plant over two smaller ones?
>
>Not a matter for the state, but one for the people who want to invest in the
>plant.
>State does not own the means of production, it simply... controls it through
>tax incentives or otherwise.
So is it trying to incentivise two plants or one?
>> >I see what you are saying... but that is not so much an economic decision
>>>as one of common sense...
>>
>> ROTFL. Economics is common sense. Paris, you're learning!
>
>Why bother studying it then? Is it because people need to spend 3 years at
>university getting laid?
I'll take that as you agreeing economics is common sense then?
>> >Money Shmoney..
>>
>> Ah. Wold you rather get rid of it Barter perhaps?
>
>I'd rather there was no need for it at all.. I'd rather people had all that
>they needed in life, and felt
>that their worth lay in some better persuit than the accumulation of
>trinkets.
So how come you want my tax so badly?
>> Good. I'll buy you later on then. After all your smart people have
>> come over to this side. Kind of private equity for countries...
>
>Ah brain drain again.. a two trick horse!
>I suppose it was all the smart Russians who moved to America and gave them
>the Gas Chromatography method
>of purifying Uranium, the first man in space, the first satallite, the first
>space station.. and all the other things that soviet scientists
>produced... And that is under soviet conditions, imagine it under conditions
>in which they are honoured as the actual movers and shakers
>of humanity and rewarded for success in as many ways as possible, including
>tax breaks and so on..
Of course. And the Soviet man in teh street had such a great life! I
can see why you keep choosing these great countries as your examples
>> >The Germans prove that quality of design eventually bears fruit over cost
>>>of production...
>>
>> Which is a statement that also makes sense when expressed in economic
>> terms. It's hardly new to economists
>
>It's Bauhaus. Not economics.
Economics can asl be used to say :"quality of design eventually bears
fruit over cost of production..."
>> >Of course it does... But we are buying quality...
>> >Let those who don't want to be part of the purchase go elsewhere....
>>
>> What happens if they're the paying part of the puchase?
>
>Rubbish, we all know that the tax burdon is borne by the lower middle
>classes and those on PAYE.
>Everyone else dodges their tax..
Right. So the (approx) forty grand that the tax man took from me last
year was mythical. Or am I in the lower middle classes?
cheers
matt
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> >Economics is an attempt to predict the actions of individuals
>(ultimately)
>> >using tools which are designed for approximation.
>>
>> Almost never. Economics almost always refers to the actions of classes
>> or groups of individuals
>
>Did you not notice my 'ultimately' caveat?
Ultimately we're all dead. Doesn't make it pointless to study life
>> Not quite. But let's run with that. Take the second option. What does
>> it mean to work ahrd? Does working smart count? Is a hard worker who
>> digs holes on Monday and fills them Tuesday making progress? Or does
>> working smarter count too? If you work smarter, what tools do you use
>> for allocating resourcing between different options?
>
>Working smart is watching them did the hole and then, taking it off them
>when they've done it.
Not really.
>Sure countries can do what they will to make themselves more efficient but
>unless they are sufficiently
>mighty, or well connected, it will be for naught.
You make it sounds like the two things are unconnected
>> >> Partly History. They had just suffered a humiliating defeat and times
>were
>> >> very hard. Domestic goods were in very short supply and the fear of
>> >> complete poverty in those times of uncertainty made those who had jobs
>> >> save heavily, which provided additional investment capital.
>> >>
>> >> Is none of this Economics?
>> >
>> >No, none of it...
>>
>> Then WTF do you think economics is?
>
>Logistics. Anal Bean Counting.
Then you really dont' know anything about economics. Go away and learn
some
>> >You're right, economics is bound up in Politics....That's the problem.
>> >And it is a field of study like Theology.
>> >We all know that the truth is that there is no God.
>> >But that doesn't stop Billions of pounds a year sloshing around in his
>> >name...
>> >We all know tha the key to national success is military force, with which
>> >one ceases assets and protects those assets that one has against others.
>>
>> I take it you mean 'seizes' assets? Not much good is it - I mean
>> Hitler tried this one and it's got some long term failure issues
>
>And this constitues a rebutal of my main argument does it?
God only knows what your main argument is
>> >Yes, they look much worse off for their agricultural policy...
>>
>> They are... Unless you can show differently...
>
>They are worse off because they have let their society be corroded from the
>outside.. NOT because they have subsidised their rice!
Evidence for this?
>> >I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
>> >As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that it
>> >wanted to invade Denmark?
>>
>> Nothing. Their fleet wold be sunk before it reached Scotland. lt's in
>> all our interests to prevent gains by force. Unless you'd prefer we'd
>> not fought against Hitler...
>> Oh, of course, you do...
>
>I do.
>But you have once again avioded my question.
The answer is there for all to see.
You asked: "What do you think would happen if Chile decided that it
wanted to invade Denmark?"
I replied: "Nothing. Their fleet would be sunk before it reached
Scotland."
>> Perhaps you should read more.
>> I could recommend Landes (Wealth and poverty of nations) and Paul Kennedy
>(the
>> rise and fall of the great powers). I don't imagine you'll bother, but
>> you can't say that nobody's trying to educate you...
>
>If I didn't hold you in contempt I'd say you were patronising.
>Can you give me a one sentance summary of your counter argument to my 'might
>is right' thesis that doesn't involve
>references to someone elses work? Can you actually form an argument of your
>own?
Easily. But you wouldn't learn anything. And so you might as well go
and see the whole argument. If you don't want to read the reference,
that's your choice
>> >The future of the human race lies in unity or oblivion.
>>
>> Sorry, is this the unity of 'seizing assets'?
>
>Well done, advance of the arguement! This is something new...
Not really
>The other type of growth through strength would produce unity ultimately.
>If the strength is used to protect a nation while it rises, from those that
>would assail it then it would have a domino effect on
>other nations, which would join it upon seeing it's progress.
>A truly unified society, focussed on technological progress and the actual
>raising of the standard of living of it's citizens rather than the
>rediculous straw man which is the trickle down economy.
>Power gives you the freedom to trade where it benefits you, and the security
>to change society without fear of invasion during the process.
>But Power is always a unifying force, if it is weilded wisely.
And if it is not?
>> >In order to unite we need to remove any reason why any individual may
>>>justly think themselves different from any other individual..
>>
>> Ah. Let's all be called 'Bob' then.
>
>No, lets admit that we're all human, and that Santa for adults doesn't
>exist. Lets agree that
>the Bible didn't give us Radio, The Koran didn't give us Concrete and that
>the Torah didn't give us Nylon.
Not controversial here
>Lets point out people who use arguments like yours and ask what their
>motives are?
Why not just ask them?
>What have they to fear from social unity?
Voluntary or enforced 'unity'?
>An individual ant can lift a leaf, and it can hoard lots of them, safe in
>the knowledge that it was a better ant than all the others..
>And it would fight for it's right to do so, believing that the other ants
>are benefiting from it's efforts... But a whole collony can strip a tree in
>a day! Perhaps these people just don't see it?
Not hard to see. But charming fables don't really help.
>> Ever heard of Mazlow's (spelling?) pyramid? What happens when you've
>> got food and shelter?
>
>Yes, and Herzberg too.
>Have you read anything by Machiavalli?
The Prince.
>> >Because it doesn't really work that well, and it isn't genuinely
>failsafe..
>> >PLUS it is very expensive.
>> >It's not really a replacement for cold steel rails.
>>
>> That is an economic decision. That's what economists study. That's why
>> the subject exists
>
>NO IT IS NOT!
So you say. But I work for a firm that is full of economists studying
exactly that set of decsions. That's what they do. They use economic
tools to make these decisions
>Again I refer you to the fiasco which is tech stock trading.
Go ahead... tell me what this tells you
>Thatcherism, being based solely on the unilateral Free Market Economic
>opening of UK industry to world predation is responsible
>for the death of our nation.... It will take YEARS to put it right again..
Oh right
>> >If a scientist has to rely on statistics to form the basis of a theory,
>they
>> >hang their heads in shame...
>>
>> ROTFL. You really are an idiot. What is the probability of an
>> earthquake happening?
>
>It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile I'm assured.
>Have you ever heard of a seismometer?
Yes. Jolly good it is too. But you need statisitcs to determine
whether early shocks will become something big. You need stats to show
that the chances of earhtquake in an area are high or low.
>> Or of a disease spreading?
>
>Accepted, although we have no other method of dealing with this at the
>moment see below.
Fine. So science uses stats
>> Or of an electron being in a certain place, or having an given energy?
>
>Particle accelerators?
Use statistical methods - Heisenberg's mechanics is statistical
>>How likely is it that this bridge will fall under normal use?
>
>Laplace transromations, Simple Harmonic Motion and resonance, finite element
>analysis?
>Wind tunnels....
Which are probabilistic.
>>Or that a crash will kill a car's occupants?
>
>Crash test dummies.
What's the probability that two cars carshing together at 20 miles per
hour will kill the occupants? Are what probability is it worth
introducing speed bumps?
>Science seeks to rid itself of statistics at all costs. To rely on it solely
>is to admit defeat.
>A scientific theory holds if it is accurate in it's predictions to 5%.
Not so. Plenty of theories have been dumped at 5% tolerance. Newton's
Laws for example
>An economist would wet his pants at such a figure.
So Physics is more precise than chemistry is more precise than biology
is more precise than economics. So what?
>> >F=MA That is a universal law... and I can use it to get to the moon and
>> >back..
>> >What has economics volunteered to humanity?
>>
>> Ways of thinking about resource allocation.
>
>Yippee!
>Now perhaps you might tell me where you see humanity allocating it's
>resources over the next ten years for maximum return?
Why would I be able to do this? I can probably tell you where a given
company should allocate its resources for maximum return. Thousands of
others diong the same gives the resource allocation of the nation
>> >There's just no point, there's nothing wrong with rail!
>> >Only when something is significantly better, or the only available option
>> >does anything really
>> >change..
>>
>> Good. Economics helps you work out then something is 'better' - i.e.
>> more cost effective
>
>Fine. But is it going to hinder or help the advance of technology.
To the extent that economics helps create wealth ans wealth can be
used to develop new technology, it helps
>> >Advancement is always made at a loss... The time is NEVER economically
>>>right for R&D..
>>
>> Rubbish
>
>Only when Economists think that they will benefit in the relatively short
>term is money invested heavilly in R&D, or when it is in
>an area which is previously littered with success.
Not so. Otherwise why would there be any loss-majking private sector
research initiatives?
>> >Society strengthens, the bonds tighten and the sails bellow out...
>> >Nazism provides part of the model, except that the best known example
>>>went
>> >one stage two far, and tried to pre-empt those who might
>> >wish to leave.....
>>
>> Only one stage too far?
>
>It got it wrong in two counts:
>1) Too much emphesis on forced Expansionism (impatience)
>2) The neglect and maltreatment of those it deamed anti-social in it's haste
>to change society (again, impatience)
Ah, so the worst crime Nazism committed was impatience...
>> And how will they decide?
>
>By agreeing with each other on the technological and humanitarian merits of
>each project as scientists, rather than on the econmic merits
>as bean counters.
And who will they evaluate the benefits to society?
>> >It would go where it would serve the country best..
>>
>> How would you decide?
>
>Scientists are notoriously philanthropic and genuinely measured and
>magnanimous in their decision making.
Excellent! No doubt Mengele is your star exhibit. (And yes, I was a
scientist)
>> >No, I mean that if I can't afford good healthcare, I am denied it.
>> >Am I free if I have Rickets like people did the last time healthcare was
>> >private.
>>
>> So economics does make a difference then? After all, to manage
>> something privately or publicly is an economic decision
>
>No it is not it is a moral and an ethical one.
Comedy. Whether the person that takes your rubbish out works for the
govt or a private company isn't a moral decison. It's just one of
efficiency.
>Do we provide free, quality healthcare for our citizens, or do we put the
>NHS through the BT/Railtrack/Coal/Steel/Manufacturing meat
>grinder and go back to the days of small people with bad teeth, skin
>complaints and rickets?
Those aren't the choices. Try again
>> >The freedom of Capitalism is the freedom to profit from the loss of
>> >others...
>>
>> And to profit from the gain of others...
>
>Ahh, the trickle down chestnut.
Nothing to do with trickle down. Do you know what trickle down is?
>> Right. So loads of unemployed people are queing up now to built the
>> new Wembley for fun? I don't see them...
>
>That's because you still think that Nazism was a crackpot idea who's only
>purpous was to eat babies and gas Jews.
>That's because you don't read enough, and take that which you do read far to
>seriously.
>I suspect you also have CNN on 24 hours a day.
Then yet again you are wrong in your speculations
cheers
matt
tiny
news:mb4uetkgti05pkc5t...@4ax.com...
> So the (approx) forty grand that the tax man took from me last
> year was mythical. Or am I in the lower middle classes?
Difficult one this!
Is it higher bracket, upper class, or lower class, much bragging.
Paris
news:rr2uet4u1e4740m28...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:42:15 +0100, "Paris" <odes...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Economics is an attempt to predict the actions of individuals
> >(ultimately)
> >> >using tools which are designed for approximation.
> >>
> >> Almost never. Economics almost always refers to the actions of classes
> >> or groups of individuals
> >
> >Did you not notice my 'ultimately' caveat?
>
> Ultimately we're all dead. Doesn't make it pointless to study life
Oooh alright I'll spell it out for you...
Individuals make up groups.. As long as they all behave in a likeminded
fashion that's great..
When they do not, then the group becomes individuals..
*Ultimately* then, economics is doomed.
> >> Not quite. But let's run with that. Take the second option. What does
> >> it mean to work ahrd? Does working smart count? Is a hard worker who
> >> digs holes on Monday and fills them Tuesday making progress? Or does
> >> working smarter count too? If you work smarter, what tools do you use
> >> for allocating resourcing between different options?
> >
> >Working smart is watching them did the hole and then, taking it off them
> >when they've done it.
>
> Not really.
Come on lets have an answer....
> >Sure countries can do what they will to make themselves more efficient
but
> >unless they are sufficiently
> >mighty, or well connected, it will be for naught.
>
> You make it sounds like the two things are unconnected
For gods sake man! Money follows strength.
To the victor, the spoils! Of course they are connected, just not in the way
that you suggest..
Have you never heard of a military coup?
Do you know anything about Cromwell?
> >> >> Partly History. They had just suffered a humiliating defeat and
times
> >were
> >> >> very hard. Domestic goods were in very short supply and the fear of
> >> >> complete poverty in those times of uncertainty made those who had
jobs
> >> >> save heavily, which provided additional investment capital.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is none of this Economics?
> >> >
> >> >No, none of it...
> >>
> >> Then WTF do you think economics is?
> >
> >Logistics. Anal Bean Counting.
>
> Then you really dont' know anything about economics. Go away and learn
> some
You'd like that wouldn't you...
> >> >You're right, economics is bound up in Politics....That's the problem.
> >> >And it is a field of study like Theology.
> >> >We all know that the truth is that there is no God.
> >> >But that doesn't stop Billions of pounds a year sloshing around in his
> >> >name...
> >> >We all know tha the key to national success is military force, with
which
> >> >one ceases assets and protects those assets that one has against
others.
> >>
> >> I take it you mean 'seizes' assets? Not much good is it - I mean
> >> Hitler tried this one and it's got some long term failure issues
> >
> >And this constitues a rebutal of my main argument does it?
>
> God only knows what your main argument is
I'll say it again, money follows military action, to attempt to run the
world on any other basis is dangerous fantasy..
> >> >Yes, they look much worse off for their agricultural policy...
> >>
> >> They are... Unless you can show differently...
> >
> >They are worse off because they have let their society be corroded from
the
> >outside.. NOT because they have subsidised their rice!
>
> Evidence for this?
>
> >> >I'll ignore Switzerland, We all know why they are doing well...
> >> >As for Denmark... What do you think would happen if Chile decided that
it
> >> >wanted to invade Denmark?
> >>
> >> Nothing. Their fleet wold be sunk before it reached Scotland. lt's in
> >> all our interests to prevent gains by force. Unless you'd prefer we'd
> >> not fought against Hitler...
> >> Oh, of course, you do...
> >
> >I do.
> >But you have once again avioded my question.
>
> The answer is there for all to see.
> You asked: "What do you think would happen if Chile decided that it
> wanted to invade Denmark?"
> I replied: "Nothing. Their fleet would be sunk before it reached
> Scotland."
So you agree with me that denmark is well protected then, and that your use
of it as an example against my argument was invalid?
> >> Perhaps you should read more.
> >> I could recommend Landes (Wealth and poverty of nations) and Paul
Kennedy
> >(the
> >> rise and fall of the great powers). I don't imagine you'll bother, but
> >> you can't say that nobody's trying to educate you...
> >
> >If I didn't hold you in contempt I'd say you were patronising.
> >Can you give me a one sentance summary of your counter argument to my
'might
> >is right' thesis that doesn't involve
> >references to someone elses work? Can you actually form an argument of
your
> >own?
>
> Easily. But you wouldn't learn anything. And so you might as well go
> and see the whole argument. If you don't want to read the reference,
> that's your choice
Surprisingly then... the answer to my question is.. No.
> >> >The future of the human race lies in unity or oblivion.
> >>
> >> Sorry, is this the unity of 'seizing assets'?
> >
> >Well done, advance of the arguement! This is something new...
>
> Not really
>
> >The other type of growth through strength would produce unity ultimately.
> >If the strength is used to protect a nation while it rises, from those
that
> >would assail it then it would have a domino effect on
> >other nations, which would join it upon seeing it's progress.
> >A truly unified society, focussed on technological progress and the
actual
> >raising of the standard of living of it's citizens rather than the
> >rediculous straw man which is the trickle down economy.
> >Power gives you the freedom to trade where it benefits you, and the
security
> >to change society without fear of invasion during the process.
> >But Power is always a unifying force, if it is weilded wisely.
>
> And if it is not?
It will still unify, but it won't last afterwards...
USSR. British Empire etc.
> >> >In order to unite we need to remove any reason why any individual may
> >>>justly think themselves different from any other individual..
> >>
> >> Ah. Let's all be called 'Bob' then.
> >
> >No, lets admit that we're all human, and that Santa for adults doesn't
> >exist. Lets agree that
> >the Bible didn't give us Radio, The Koran didn't give us Concrete and
that
> >the Torah didn't give us Nylon.
>
> Not controversial here
>
> >Lets point out people who use arguments like yours and ask what their
> >motives are?
>
> Why not just ask them?
>
> >What have they to fear from social unity?
>
> Voluntary or enforced 'unity'?
>
> >An individual ant can lift a leaf, and it can hoard lots of them, safe in
> >the knowledge that it was a better ant than all the others..
> >And it would fight for it's right to do so, believing that the other ants
> >are benefiting from it's efforts... But a whole collony can strip a tree
in
> >a day! Perhaps these people just don't see it?
>
> Not hard to see. But charming fables don't really help.
It's not a charming fable, it's a refutation of trickle down economics and
your proposed model that freedom to ride roughshod over society will
ACTUALLY aid it!
Many hands make light work. Unity around a cause brings strength to that
cause...
It's the monkeys and typewriters thing.. Of course, if you left it up to
randomly chosen individuals you would end up with othello...
But wouldn't it be better to teach each individual a word and get them to
follow gramatical systems?
It's a good job you're not in the army..
'Don't interfere man, let that big strong soldier have his way and he'll
bring benefit to the whole unit!"
:)
> >> Ever heard of Mazlow's (spelling?) pyramid? What happens when you've
> >> got food and shelter?
> >
> >Yes, and Herzberg too.
> >Have you read anything by Machiavalli?
>
> The Prince.
Then you'll know that you can get people to do whatever you want, regardless
of whether they have been fed or not.
> >> >Because it doesn't really work that well, and it isn't genuinely
> >failsafe..
> >> >PLUS it is very expensive.
> >> >It's not really a replacement for cold steel rails.
> >>
> >> That is an economic decision. That's what economists study. That's why
> >> the subject exists
> >
> >NO IT IS NOT!
>
> So you say. But I work for a firm that is full of economists studying
> exactly that set of decsions. That's what they do. They use economic
> tools to make these decisions
But they are not equipped! Are these economists experts in quantum mechanics
or hole digging?
Not on the whole no.. I conceded to Mr Rainey that there are some gifted and
multi-skilled economists...
But on the whole they get their head around someone elses model and try to
blindly apply it...
Not good really is it?
> >Again I refer you to the fiasco which is tech stock trading.
>
> Go ahead... tell me what this tells you
It tells me that money is blind. And that people who follow it are blind.
It tells me that Technologists have finally learned how to milk the cow...
And this was just the first step... For surely the future lies in
Technocracy.. And hopefully
a technocracy tinged with the secular humanitarian socialism.
> >Thatcherism, being based solely on the unilateral Free Market Economic
> >opening of UK industry to world predation is responsible
> >for the death of our nation.... It will take YEARS to put it right
again..
>
> Oh right
Right.
> >> >If a scientist has to rely on statistics to form the basis of a
theory,
> >they
> >> >hang their heads in shame...
> >>
> >> ROTFL. You really are an idiot. What is the probability of an
> >> earthquake happening?
> >
> >It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile I'm assured.
> >Have you ever heard of a seismometer?
>
> Yes. Jolly good it is too. But you need statisitcs to determine
> whether early shocks will become something big. You need stats to show
> that the chances of earhtquake in an area are high or low.
>
> >> Or of a disease spreading?
> >
> >Accepted, although we have no other method of dealing with this at the
> >moment see below.
>
> Fine. So science uses stats
I said that scientists would balk at the idea of relying on statistics, not
that they don't use them.
I also maintain that economists rely on very little else by way of actual
method.
<snip>
> >Science seeks to rid itself of statistics at all costs. To rely on it
solely
> >is to admit defeat.
> >A scientific theory holds if it is accurate in it's predictions to 5%.
>
> Not so. Plenty of theories have been dumped at 5% tolerance. Newton's
> Laws for example
>
> >An economist would wet his pants at such a figure.
>
> So Physics is more precise than chemistry is more precise than biology
> is more precise than economics. So what?
You using the word economics alongside scientific disciplines might please
the crowd, but it makes me giggle. It's like including 'actions of the baby
jesus' alongside
physics in a 'how best to understand the physical world' list.
> >> >F=MA That is a universal law... and I can use it to get to the moon
and
> >> >back..
> >> >What has economics volunteered to humanity?
> >>
> >> Ways of thinking about resource allocation.
> >
> >Yippee!
> >Now perhaps you might tell me where you see humanity allocating it's
> >resources over the next ten years for maximum return?
>
> Why would I be able to do this?
Because economists are best placed to tell me where funds should go
aparently.
<snip>
> >Only when Economists think that they will benefit in the relatively short
> >term is money invested heavilly in R&D, or when it is in
> >an area which is previously littered with success.
>
> Not so. Otherwise why would there be any loss-majking private sector
> research initiatives?
There aren't very many!
In fact we hear constantly about impatience of investors wrt high density
storage, AI, Fusion and all the other
things which make up the future of the human race...
People won't invest if it isn't going to pay off in their lifetimes AT THE
VERY LEAST! Come on now..
> >> >Society strengthens, the bonds tighten and the sails bellow out...
> >> >Nazism provides part of the model, except that the best known example
> >>>went
> >> >one stage two far, and tried to pre-empt those who might
> >> >wish to leave.....
> >>
> >> Only one stage too far?
> >
> >It got it wrong in two counts:
> >1) Too much emphesis on forced Expansionism (impatience)
> >2) The neglect and maltreatment of those it deamed anti-social in it's
haste
> >to change society (again, impatience)
>
> Ah, so the worst crime Nazism committed was impatience...
No, the worst crime it commited was the manslaughter of those it held in
contempt, and the arbitrary murder of people in general. It failed to honour
the code of the warrior.
It's other crime was naivite with respect to what would happend to it's
image should it loose the war.
(although many believe that the top nazis knew full well what would happen).
> >> And how will they decide?
> >
> >By agreeing with each other on the technological and humanitarian merits
of
> >each project as scientists, rather than on the econmic merits
> >as bean counters.
>
> And who will they evaluate the benefits to society?
There is no such thing as bad knowledge.
It's fairly obvious in most cases anyway.
> >> >It would go where it would serve the country best..
> >>
> >> How would you decide?
> >
> >Scientists are notoriously philanthropic and genuinely measured and
> >magnanimous in their decision making.
>
> Excellent! No doubt Mengele is your star exhibit. (And yes, I was a
> scientist)
Turn over, it's baseball on the other side!
> >> >No, I mean that if I can't afford good healthcare, I am denied it.
> >> >Am I free if I have Rickets like people did the last time healthcare
was
> >> >private.
> >>
> >> So economics does make a difference then? After all, to manage
> >> something privately or publicly is an economic decision
> >
> >No it is not it is a moral and an ethical one.
>
> Comedy. Whether the person that takes your rubbish out works for the
> govt or a private company isn't a moral decison. It's just one of
> efficiency.
Fine, if rubbish is not removed for a few months it will make no
difference...
If the health service shuts down for a few months...
It's one shirt fits all sizes with you lot isn't it!
> >Do we provide free, quality healthcare for our citizens, or do we put the
> >NHS through the BT/Railtrack/Coal/Steel/Manufacturing meat
> >grinder and go back to the days of small people with bad teeth, skin
> >complaints and rickets?
>
> Those aren't the choices. Try again
Fair enough, I exagerate, but when I compare our system to Americas'.. No
thank you...
And I have already said that I am open to debate on the NHS and many other
things...
I am not a commie, I don't go for state ownership of the means of
production, I go for state 'responsibility'.
This is the first thing that suffers with privatisation.. And without
responsibility there is no handle on the indust
> >> >The freedom of Capitalism is the freedom to profit from the loss of
> >> >others...
> >>
> >> And to profit from the gain of others...
> >
> >Ahh, the trickle down chestnut.
>
> Nothing to do with trickle down. Do you know what trickle down is?
>
> >> Right. So loads of unemployed people are queing up now to built the
> >> new Wembley for fun? I don't see them...
> >
> >That's because you still think that Nazism was a crackpot idea who's only
> >purpous was to eat babies and gas Jews.
> >That's because you don't read enough, and take that which you do read far
to
> >seriously.
> >I suspect you also have CNN on 24 hours a day.
>
> Then yet again you are wrong in your speculations
When?
And you hold such rediculous views:
History does not in fact show that money follows power (because you read it
in a book somewhere)!
Productive Individuals are better than a unified society (because I haven't
read enough economics)!
Unilateral opening of our markets will one day profit us (heaven only knows
why?)!
The Chinese are all unhappy (because CNN showed you some students in front
of a tank)!
When confronted with a point, you use populist argument, fall back on
statistics, argue from authority
question my credentials, selectively ignore my points.....
There is a word for a person who argues like this.. you won't be surprised
to know what it is...
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>> >> >Economics is an attempt to predict the actions of individuals
>> >(ultimately)
>> >> >using tools which are designed for approximation.
>> >>
>> >> Almost never. Economics almost always refers to the actions of classes
>> >> or groups of individuals
>> >
>> >Did you not notice my 'ultimately' caveat?
>>
>> Ultimately we're all dead. Doesn't make it pointless to study life
>
>Oooh alright I'll spell it out for you...
>Individuals make up groups.. As long as they all behave in a likeminded
>fashion that's great..
>When they do not, then the group becomes individuals..
>*Ultimately* then, economics is doomed.
Right. When you spell it out, it's easier to see what you're trying to
say. It's still complete crap, but at least I know what it is.
>> >> Not quite. But let's run with that. Take the second option. What does
>> >> it mean to work ahrd? Does working smart count? Is a hard worker who
>> >> digs holes on Monday and fills them Tuesday making progress? Or does
>> >> working smarter count too? If you work smarter, what tools do you use
>> >> for allocating resourcing between different options?
>> >
>> >Working smart is watching them did the hole and then, taking it off them
>> >when they've done it.
>>
>> Not really.
>
>Come on lets have an answer....
What's the question? There isn't one in the above...
>> >Sure countries can do what they will to make themselves more efficient
>>>but unless they are sufficiently
>> >mighty, or well connected, it will be for naught.
>>
>> You make it sounds like the two things are unconnected
>
>For gods sake man! Money follows strength.
The other way around, at least in modern times
>To the victor, the spoils! Of course they are connected, just not in the way
>that you suggest..
>Have you never heard of a military coup?
>Do you know anything about Cromwell?
Yes. Was there some lesson you wanted me to extract?
>> >> Then WTF do you think economics is?
>> >
>> >Logistics. Anal Bean Counting.
>>
>> Then you really dont' know anything about economics. Go away and learn
>> some
>
>You'd like that wouldn't you...
Yes. It would save me a lot of effort correcting the rubbish you post
on the subject.
>> >And this constitues a rebutal of my main argument does it?
>>
>> God only knows what your main argument is
>
>I'll say it again, money follows military action, to attempt to run the
>world on any other basis is dangerous fantasy..
Fine. I think you're wrong. There's a detailed argument running to
several hundred pages in "The rise and fall of the great powers",
which examines in detail this thesis. It shows convincingly to my mind
that the two are not in simple cause an effect, and that modern powers
have become great through the economy first. You can read the book if
you like
>> >An individual ant can lift a leaf, and it can hoard lots of them, safe in
>> >the knowledge that it was a better ant than all the others..
>> >And it would fight for it's right to do so, believing that the other ants
>> >are benefiting from it's efforts... But a whole collony can strip a tree
>>>in a day! Perhaps these people just don't see it?
>>
>> Not hard to see. But charming fables don't really help.
>
>It's not a charming fable, it's a refutation of trickle down economics and
>your proposed model that freedom to ride roughshod over society will
>ACTUALLY aid it!
No. It's a fable.
>Many hands make light work. Unity around a cause brings strength to that
>cause...
Sure. In some circumstances. Depends on the number of free riders, and
the alignment of incentives etc
>> So you say. But I work for a firm that is full of economists studying
>> exactly that set of decsions. That's what they do. They use economic
>> tools to make these decisions
>
>But they are not equipped! Are these economists experts in quantum mechanics
>or hole digging?
No. Why would they need to be?
>Not on the whole no.. I conceded to Mr Rainey that there are some gifted and
>multi-skilled economists...
>But on the whole they get their head around someone elses model and try to
>blindly apply it...
>Not good really is it?
Nor is it an accurate description of reality
>> >Again I refer you to the fiasco which is tech stock trading.
>>
>> Go ahead... tell me what this tells you
>
>It tells me that money is blind. And that people who follow it are blind.
Then you've learned tyoo much. Which is at least a new error
>It tells me that Technologists have finally learned how to milk the cow...
Right. So the dot com bubble was deliberately engineered by the
techies... Pity so many lost their shirts
>> >Now perhaps you might tell me where you see humanity allocating it's
>> >resources over the next ten years for maximum return?
>>
>> Why would I be able to do this?
>
>Because economists are best placed to tell me where funds should go
>aparently.
Even if that was an accurate reflection of my statements on the
subject, it still wouldn't be true that economists would have the gift
of foresight
>> >It got it wrong in two counts:
>> >1) Too much emphesis on forced Expansionism (impatience)
>> >2) The neglect and maltreatment of those it deamed anti-social in it's
>haste
>> >to change society (again, impatience)
>>
>> Ah, so the worst crime Nazism committed was impatience...
>
>No, the worst crime it commited was the manslaughter of those it held in
>contempt, and the arbitrary murder of people in general. It failed to honour
>the code of the warrior.
Well indeed. I guess killing six million people comes a close second?
Unleashing a war that killed 45 million by the end is a distant third?
>> >By agreeing with each other on the technological and humanitarian merits
>of
>> >each project as scientists, rather than on the econmic merits
>> >as bean counters.
>>
>> And who will they evaluate the benefits to society?
>
>There is no such thing as bad knowledge.
>It's fairly obvious in most cases anyway.
ROTFL! Of course. Just like the Channel Tunnel, for example. If you
don't understand, just ask. There's usually someone who can put you
straight...
>> >I suspect you also have CNN on 24 hours a day.
>>
>> Then yet again you are wrong in your speculations
>
>When?
No access to CNN in my house (except through the web)
>And you hold such rediculous views:
>History does not in fact show that money follows power (because you read it
>in a book somewhere)!
Money does not follow power. Indeed.
>Productive Individuals are better than a unified society (because I haven't
>read enough economics)!
>Unilateral opening of our markets will one day profit us (heaven only knows
>why?)!
>The Chinese are all unhappy (because CNN showed you some students in front
>of a tank)!
>
>When confronted with a point, you use populist argument,
Hardly. Take the reference I have posted here a number of times on the
Rise and fall of the great powers.
>fall back on statistics,
To which you have some bizzare aversion, despite statistical evidence
being important in nearly all sciences, and certainly all
policy-making
> argue from authority
In the sense that I refer you to those who have studied this stuff
longer than you
cheers
matt