what's wrong with eastern germans?
Johnny
compared to Western Germany) Why?
Johnny 5
news:2a56f6a3.04072...@posting.google.com:
> The wall fell eons ago, and their economy is still struggling (even
> compared to Western Germany) Why?
>
At the end of capitalism, everyone has all of thier wants and needs
satisfied right? There will be no more growing economy at that point.
Socialism will rule the day. The growth will be dead, and in theory
everyone will be happy. Why can't the east enders have those west end
girls?
--
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny wrote:
> The wall fell eons ago, and their economy is still struggling (even
> compared to Western Germany) Why?
The east germans were brought up during two (actually more) generations
of a command economy. First the Nazis then the Commies. It will require
a new generation to flourish under market conditions. The East Germans
were Hitler's children in a very real sense. They went from blue fascism
to red fascism without a glimpse or memory of freedom.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny 5 wrote:
> At the end of capitalism, everyone has all of thier wants and needs
> satisfied right?
No, that is not right. New things are being invented all the time, hence
NEW wants are created. Our wants will never be satisfied although our
basic needs may well be. Man does not live by bread along but when a new
kind of bread is baked he wants a loaf.
Bob Kolker
Johnny 5
$eM2.7837@attbi_s51:
You misquoted me Bob, I responded to that original quote - I don't recall
who wrote that one, I was asking why the east end boys couldn't have the
west end girls - an old Pet Shop Boys song.
Johnny 5
$eM2.5402@attbi_s51:
Ok so as far as the base level of maslows hierarchy, we will have reached
a socialist system, where no baby hungers for food and no childs youth
and fun is sacrificed. We aren't there yet, your nieghbor is starving to
death but you want to try the 4 new kinds of bread at subway - seems
silly doesn't it?
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny 5 wrote:
> and fun is sacrificed. We aren't there yet, your nieghbor is starving to
> death but you want to try the 4 new kinds of bread at subway - seems
> silly doesn't it?
Why is it silly? I can afford it and I am not starving. Since I did not
cause the starving people to starve in the first place, I am under no
obligation to do anything about it.
Bob Kolker
Johnny 5
Bill Gates and Bush can afford things too and they are not starving,
using your logic why do we tax them? Bill gates and Bush did not cause
you to be poor in the first place, why are they under any obligation to
do anything about it?
When you take all the cotton on the reservation to make all the blankets
- you have 5000 blankets and 3 other tonto's are freezing - yet you
didn't do anything to cause them to freeze - mother nature is the one
that brought in the cold front right?
Stephan Lahl
> The wall fell eons ago, and their economy is still struggling (even
> compared to Western Germany) Why?
Basic Truism No.1: To start a successful business you need your own money to
survive the first months or years. East germans didn't have any significant
money savings left after the monetary union. The exchange rate from "Mark
der DDR" to DM emptied their bank accounts and rendered all savings
worthless. Short time later most east germans were fired. No way to collect
new savings.
Therefore almost all businesses in the east are founded on regular business
loans falling due after 3-5 years or as Departments of west german
companies.
3-5 years is just not enough time in a struggling economy with high
unemployment rate resulting in hard pressure for small prices.
And up to now the west german companies worked hard to save jobs in west
germany and resisted to transfer them to east germany.
So you see a lot of small to medium size start-ups in east germany but most
of them go out of business when the banks want their money back.
Over the years that has become a vicious circle.
This naturally makes young high potentials in large numbers move to west
germany for a carrier damaging the eastern workforce and therefore making
the problem worse.
So far the politics concentrated their economic efforts in east germany to
infastructural stuff - building roads, bridges and so on.
That couldn't create neither enough jobs nor tax income because that money
went into west german businesses. Remember that literally all factories and
industries in east germany were smashed in the first years after reunion.
Then there's the problem that east german products are literally locked out
of the market shelves of west german companies. I'm an east german living
in Bavaria. I know a lot of products, I love, but I cannot buy them
anywhere.
To get them, I have to travel to Saxony and find a store owned by a local.
Mind you, it's gotta be controlled by a local. Even in east germany most
west german controlled companies don't offer east german products despite
existing and growing consumer demand. They don't want to hurt their
connections with the strong west german suppliers. Think of it as a
parallel to the competition between OS/2 and Windows - If you had OS/2 in
your shelves, Microsoft would stop delivering Windows to you. Same happens
here.
Tough business. ;)
You always need strong business connections to get shelf space. East german
newcomers haven't had such connections and where therefore easy targets for
their well established west german competitors.
Additionally many west german managers don't trade east german products just
out of anti east german bias. Whenever those products are camouflaged as
west german products - e.g. a traditional east german mustard receipt
marketed under the west german brand name Develey - those products hit the
stores all of a sudden and become success stories. Just don't tell anybody,
it's an east german mustard produced in east germany...
So we have weak consumer purchasing power, desastrous financial conditions
for start-ups, overwhelming west german competitors, a negatively biased
image which couldn't be worse, a work force drain leaving whole country
parts without young motivated people, but we east germany probably has the
best roads and bridges on this planet.
Now add the common german problems: Associated employer outlay (is this the
right expression?) up to 50% of the wages, high taxes on everything,
overwhelming bureaucracy, increasing illegal employment and growing
competition from the new EU members to mention just a few of them.
It's tough business in the wild east but hope dies last. ;)
HAND
Stephan
Stephan Lahl
Reality check: How comes those east germans without a glimpse or memory of
freedom overthrew the regime between 1989 and 1991 after a first
unsuccessful uprising in the 50ies?
Sorry, but your deficit of knowledge is only acompanied by strange bias.
It's the economy stupid - not pseudohistorical gobbledygook.
I invite you to come over to germany and start a business in east germany.
It could teach you quite a lesson.
BTW, there's always been capitalism in east germany. The communists failed
to stamp it out. They hindered and strangled it and enforced a don't ask
don't tell policy, but all over the republic, in every town and every
village we had small to medium size private businesses - not to mention the
prospering black market.
We grew up with capitalism and a strong desire for freedom.
HAND
Stephan
Arne Dirks
there! east ppl go west cause of more and better payed jobs, and the
empty, broken houses left in the east doesnt make the east look
better! much is rebuilding now, so hope the east ppl move back anytime
to bring back the capital power, only then the east got a chance.
spam_depo...@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote in message news:<2a56f6a3.04072...@posting.google.com>...
Johnny 5
> BTW, there's always been capitalism in east germany. The communists
> failed to stamp it out. They hindered and strangled it and enforced a
> don't ask don't tell policy, but all over the republic, in every town
> and every village we had small to medium size private businesses - not
> to mention the prospering black market.
>
> We grew up with capitalism and a strong desire for freedom.
What can you briefly tell me about the blackmarket and underground
economy there? Illegal drugs like exstacy, heroin, and crack rock along
with prostitution seems to be the big blackmarket money I am seeing on
the streets of tampa. Trade in stolen goods really seems to have tapered
off.
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny 5 wrote:
> Bill Gates and Bush can afford things too and they are not starving,
> using your logic why do we tax them? Bill gates and Bush did not cause
> you to be poor in the first place, why are they under any obligation to
> do anything about it?
All citizens are taxed to pay for police service and armed forces. If
you live here and enjoy the protection of the government, the government
obliges you to pay.
>
>
> When you take all the cotton on the reservation to make all the blankets
> - you have 5000 blankets and 3 other tonto's are freezing - yet you
> didn't do anything to cause them to freeze - mother nature is the one
> that brought in the cold front right?
Who is doing the "taking"?
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
Stephan Lahl wrote:
> Reality check: How comes those east germans without a glimpse or memory of
> freedom overthrew the regime between 1989 and 1991 after a first
> unsuccessful uprising in the 50ies?
So what. Have they got the market economy mindset? The people of France
overthew their King in 1789 and what did they produce? Napoleon, yet
another emporer. Life is mostly the little things, like day to day
habits. The East Germans generally do not have the entrepreneurial
mindset. They will develop it in time.
Bob Kolker
Johnny 5
> Johnny 5 wrote:
>> Bill Gates and Bush can afford things too and they are not starving,
>> using your logic why do we tax them? Bill gates and Bush did not
>> cause you to be poor in the first place, why are they under any
>> obligation to do anything about it?
>
> All citizens are taxed to pay for police service and armed forces. If
> you live here and enjoy the protection
BWAHAH! Like the cops that protected me from that crackhead last week
when he robbed me? Or the military that protected my friend who got
atomized in the world trade center - don't be dumb. I don't know what
protection you are enjoying, but I sure aint counting on the boys in blue
or the grunts to save my ass. Hell the cops are the ones that FUCKED me
in my old town, crooked paid off bastards - serpico was no where around.
And the air force guys are the ones that FUCKED me on a 200K contract
that cost me one of my businesses. Yah I ENJOY them allright. Ben
franklin used to say something about those who traded a little security
for freedom - rely on yourself, not on the gubbment - or you are already
a slave Bob.
of the government, the
> government obliges you to pay.
If you live on this planet, and enjoy towelhead not blowing you up - you
are gonna pay the taxes my friend, and that means you are gonna put down
the 4 loaves of bread at subway and help out the starving poor who don't
have bread somewhere else with that logic.
>> When you take all the cotton on the reservation to make all the
>> blankets - you have 5000 blankets and 3 other tonto's are freezing -
>> yet you didn't do anything to cause them to freeze - mother nature is
>> the one that brought in the cold front right?
>
> Who is doing the "taking"?
I keep posting these examples - you do READ all the posts on sci.econ
right? I have posted NUMEROUS times to ROY L - that TONTO down at my
local reservation - his real name is chief runningbird or some shit like
that - I call him TONTO for simplicity - he took all the cotton growing
on the reservation and made 5000 blankets. He is not making the three
other indians freeze, mother nature is doing that, just like you didn't
make those other people POOR, like bill gates didnt do it to you and
niether did BUSH, but if we all don't start SHARING and stop preaching
this SHIT that we get to keep more than what we need - global thermal
nuclear war is GAURANTEED. Towel head is gonna keep bombing you, and
Patton isn't gonna come out of the grave and take the bullet for you
citizen - HAHA!
Robert J. Kolker
Johnny 5 wrote:
> this SHIT that we get to keep more than what we need - global thermal
> nuclear war is GAURANTEED. Towel head is gonna keep bombing you, and
> Patton isn't gonna come out of the grave and take the bullet for you
> citizen - HAHA!
Its o.k.. As long as the towelheads die first and foremost. If war is
coming then let it come. Patton is dead, but somewhere in the country is
an intelligent butcher who can do a Patton-like job. I have great faith
in an unending supply of son's of bitches.
Bob Kolker
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>The wall fell eons ago, and their economy is still struggling (even
>compared to Western Germany) Why?
They had 55 years of authoritarian state control of their economy.
IMO they'll need at least half that long to recover from it.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>East germans didn't have any significant
>money savings left after the monetary union. The exchange rate from "Mark
>der DDR" to DM emptied their bank accounts and rendered all savings
>worthless.
?? IIRC, DDR marks were exchanged at par, an _extremely_ generous
rate.
>Short time later most east germans were fired.
?? Completely false.
>Remember that literally all factories and
>industries in east germany were smashed in the first years after reunion.
?? False and ridiculous.
-- Roy L
Johnny 5
$a24.118214@attbi_s03:
HAHA! our kids do see a lot of arnold and bruce willis blowing up shit on
the movie screen and blowing up shit on their game machines - we got a
lot of killers. How many american kids do you know ready to strap a bomb
on thier body and blow some shit up like the kids over there are doing??
John F. Opie
wrote:
>The wall fell eons ago, and their economy is still struggling (even
>compared to Western Germany) Why?
Because most of the money transferred to rebuild was instead spent on
consumer goods, and when people realized they could move and get a
better job, they did.
So what you have left in East Germany are, largely, those who didn't
want to move to get a better job (for whatever reason). The economy
left over from East Germany was basically worthless, and indeed if you
factor in the costs of cleaning the environment up, it had a negative
value.
john
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen things you newbies wouldn't believe. Attack-morons aflame off
the shoulder of rec.arts.sf.written. I watched Cancel posts glitter in the
ether near the waikato.ac.nz gateway. All those moments will be lost in
time - like beers in the rain. Time to unsubscribe...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernd Felsche
>spam_depo...@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote in message news:<2a56f6a3.04072...@posting.google.com>...
>> The wall fell eons ago, and their economy is still struggling (even
>> compared to Western Germany) Why?
>as long east germany call itself "middle germany", it cant work well
>there! east ppl go west cause of more and better payed jobs, and the
>empty, broken houses left in the east doesnt make the east look
>better! much is rebuilding now, so hope the east ppl move back anytime
>to bring back the capital power, only then the east got a chance.
I trust that you're doing more than just hoping that somebody else
will take care of it.
The benefits of the "West" wear out. Struggling to maintain an
income to sustain a higher "standard of living" can be a trap.
Some of that has been filtering over to the east; I hope you'll be
able to stop when you have enough.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!
Volker Hetzer
<ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:41015de9...@news.telus.net...
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:11:57 +0200, Stephan Lahl <s.l...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
> >East germans didn't have any significant
> >money savings left after the monetary union. The exchange rate from "Mark
> >der DDR" to DM emptied their bank accounts and rendered all savings
> >worthless.
>
> ?? IIRC, DDR marks were exchanged at par, an _extremely_ generous
> rate.
of thousands of deutschmark to help yourself along during retirement.
Or a house or so. As an east german you had a puny wage and a generous
pension. So, however gernerous a 1:2 rate is perceived by you, a
life's savings of US$ 3000 would be considered worthless in the larger
schema of things.
>
> >Short time later most east germans were fired.
>
> ?? Completely false.
Oh, right? I know of *NO ONE* apart from government clerks
and some teachers who wasn't unemployed at least once after
the unification.
Ok, they weren't fired. The productive (i.e. non services) industries
shut down.
>
> >Remember that literally all factories and
> >industries in east germany were smashed in the first years after reunion.
>
> ?? False and ridiculous.
Ok, it took three years. Other than that I've seen enough ruins.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Volker Hetzer
<ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:41015c46...@news.telus.net...
There's a bunch of people (some 7 or 8 million) who want to work.
The local economy can't support enough video rentals and
driving schools and other harmless and cheap stuff to make this area
stand on its own feet.
Now, if some young clever guy spend a lot of time and effort to
learn a proper profession he's surely clever enough to go into
a federal state with a lot of jobs and rich customers. Bavaria for
example. End of story.
On the other hand, if someone were patriotic enough to start
ones own company (big loan, no experience etc.), some western
or foreign company with a lot of resources would just outcompete
him. (I'm not accusing them of malice here, just of doing what's
sensible for the company.) As for *new* products, well, not on
that scale, right?
So, the east wants (understandable in my opinion) jobs or the
government has to pay social aid.
The west wants to give away neither jobs nor money (again,
understandable).
So far no one seems to have had the idea to pump loads of money
into education, creating a skilled workforce too attractive to ignore
any more.
Where there is a lot of education (Dresden, maybe Chemnitz)
the east isn't doing so bad.
The radical solution would be to split it off again, give it a separate
currency and let it float. Loads of new industry because of the low
wages.
However for the westerners it would look like a failure and for the
easterners like taken-in-sucked-dry-thrown-away.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Volker Hetzer
"John F. Opie" <jfo...@freenet.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bno2g0tmerhjnbib6...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jul 2004 19:52:52 -0700, spam_depo...@yahoo.com (Johnny)
> wrote:
>
> >The wall fell eons ago, and their economy is still struggling (even
> >compared to Western Germany) Why?
>
> Because most of the money transferred to rebuild was instead spent on
> consumer goods,
and government agencies. It wasn't actually handed out to people
on the street.
> and when people realized they could move and get a
> better job, they did.
Yes.
>
> So what you have left in East Germany are, largely, those who didn't
> want to move to get a better job (for whatever reason).
Everybody over 50 for instance.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Johnny 5
news:ce5r4i$90c$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com:
> The radical solution would be to split it off again, give it a
> separate currency and let it float. Loads of new industry because of
> the low wages.
> However for the westerners it would look like a failure and for the
> easterners like taken-in-sucked-dry-thrown-away.
Why is soft currency economics Radical? A floating currency could fix
thier problems no?
--
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look
respectable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith
ro...@telus.net
<volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:41015de9...@news.telus.net...
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:11:57 +0200, Stephan Lahl <s.l...@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >East germans didn't have any significant
>> >money savings left after the monetary union. The exchange rate from "Mark
>> >der DDR" to DM emptied their bank accounts and rendered all savings
>> >worthless.
>>
>> ?? IIRC, DDR marks were exchanged at par, an _extremely_ generous
>> rate.
>So what? As a western german guy you are expected to have a few tens
>of thousands of deutschmark to help yourself along during retirement.
>Or a house or so. As an east german you had a puny wage and a generous
>pension. So, however gernerous a 1:2 rate is perceived by you, a
>life's savings of US$ 3000 would be considered worthless in the larger
>schema of things.
Their savings were actually worth more in terms of the products they
could buy, though you are right in the sense that they were
impoverished by housing costs that rose dramatically as immense
quantities of publicly created land value were shoveled into the
pockets of private landowners for doing nothing.
>> >Short time later most east germans were fired.
>>
>> ?? Completely false.
>Oh, right? I know of *NO ONE* apart from government clerks
>and some teachers who wasn't unemployed at least once after
>the unification.
You just don't know enough people, then. The German government
arranged for many industrial concerns to be privatized with
undertakings by the new owners not to fire workers. While many East
Germans were fired or otherwise out of their jobs, most were not.
>> >Remember that literally all factories and
>> >industries in east germany were smashed in the first years after reunion.
>>
>> ?? False and ridiculous.
>Ok, it took three years. Other than that I've seen enough ruins.
That is just false. There are ruins, of course, but also many intact
and still operating industrial establishments that have been and are
gradually upgrading their capital equipment.
-- Roy L
thomsen
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in
> news:ce5r4i$90c$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com:
>
>
>>The radical solution would be to split it off again, give it a
>>separate currency and let it float. Loads of new industry because of
>>the low wages.
>>However for the westerners it would look like a failure and for the
>>easterners like taken-in-sucked-dry-thrown-away.
>
>
> Why is soft currency economics Radical? A floating currency could fix
> thier problems no?
>
Well, it is not about soft currency - IMHO that would be a good
idea for entire Germany right now. But the division of Germany started
by dividing the currency - which incidentally was the reason for the
blocade of Berlin in 1948, the Berlin air lift, and finally the
establishment of two states on German soil in 1949, cf.
<http://www.postage.dk/BERLINWEST/BW842x.html> and
<http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/staff%20rides%20site/sret%20pages/berlin_sr_2002/pages/bsrd3_p1.htm>
Not really a good idea to go back to that point in history, right?
regards,
A.
E.F.Schelby
>Johnny 5 wrote:
> > "Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in
> > news:ce5r4i$90c$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com:
> >
(snips)
>But the division of Germany started
>by dividing the currency - which incidentally was the reason for the
>blocade of Berlin in 1948, the Berlin air lift, and finally the
>establishment of two states on German soil in 1949, cf.
><http://www.postage.dk/BERLINWEST/BW842x.html> and
><http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/staff%20rides%20site/sret%20pages/berlin_sr_2002/pages/bsrd3_p1.htm>
>
>Not really a good idea to go back to that point in history, right?
No. And for those who care to dig a little deaper, there is this:
Carolyn Woods Eisenberg. _Drawing the Line: the American
Decision to Devide Germany, 1944-1949_. Cambridge University
Press, 1998. Here are some brief reviews:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521627176/wwwlink-software-21/202-8345277-6451030
Regards,
ES
thomsen
Hello E.S.,
I read the following on the Amazon page:
Excuse me for citing the whole review.
The central point seems to be the following:
"What Eisenberg's book suggests however, is that the partition of
Germany was not the result of Stalinist bullying, but American
preference for it over a neutral social democratic state."
You know that in Germany, during long years this was a subject of
hot discussions. The problem however is, whether any intentions
declared by Stalin as to a democratic and neutral Germany could
be taken seriously? The USSR was the most important war ally, but
otherwise had shown not only at home, but also abroad everywhere
in East and Central Europe, that besides being a totalitarian
dictatorship with everything that implied (except for racist mass
murder), that it could not be trusted. Poland experienced that
twice, in 1939 and in 1944/45, the Baltic countries as well,
and Tchechoslovakia experienced it shortly afterwards.
It is true that Finalnd (which however lost a large part of its
territory to the SU) and Austria were tolerated as neutral
neighbours - but it is rather doubtful that the SU would have
respected an independent Germany as neighbour of the communist
empire. Moreover, bad experiences with the easter occupant were
notorious after the war, and is quite doubtful whether the german
population would have preferred a situation where a united
Germany would be at the mercy of Stalin and his successors.
So ... if not many people really trusted Stalin, I suppose
that might be related to his record. Saddam Hussein or Milosevic
comparably are small fry.
And there is another point, that often is deliberately omitted.
After the war, Germany was divided in more than the 4 occupation
zones - there were the different territories that were handed over
to the USSR and Poland, there was also the Saarland under french
control. The handing over of the eastern territories and the
expulsion of the overwhelming majority of their population was
to a large extend inspired, or at least encouraged by Stalin.
That was not exactly an inviting perspective for putting a
future democratic Germany under Stalin's control.
There still may come up a lot of documents and some witness'
records about Stalin's well-meaning intentions and plans.
Howeverm, they will always be outweighted by Stalin's own record.
But one can continue dreaming, why not?
That doesn't preclude that the cold war generated a lot of
hatred and paranoia on both sides.
regards,
A.
//
Reviewer: pno...@hotmail.com from Edmonton
This is a book all Americans should read, but probably won't. Although
stylistically undistinguished, it tells a vitally important story about
the origins of the cold war. Few criticisms of the Soviet Union's
diplomacy are more damning than the way it imposed dictatorship in
Eastern Europe. What Eisenberg's book suggests however, is that the
partition of Germany was not the result of Stalinist bullying, but
American preference for it over a neutral social democratic state.
Relying on more than 70 sets of private papers and files, Eisenberg
shows how the United States subtly weakened denazification,
decarterlization and the American committment to ensure the war-ravaged
Soviet Union its share of German reparations. Gradually they decided
that economic recovery and political security required an American
allied Germany even if the Soviet quarter remained a Communist
dictatorship. As Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith bluntly put it "The
difficulty under which we labor is that in spite of our announced
position, we really do not want nor intend to accept German unification
in any terms that the Russians might agree to, even though they seemed
to meet most of our requirements." With Truman having only a vague idea
of the real issues, the United States ignored Soviet plans for
reunification, forced plans for currency reform, and refused
international proposals for mediation of the Berlin Blockade crisis. The
consequences of this decision were incalcuably tragic for Central Europe
and the world.
//
C.Brady
wrote:
Thanks E., another good recommendation of yours.
I will get the book and look forward to reading it.
C.
>
>Regards,
>ES
E.F.Schelby
>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:58:06 -0600, E.F.Schelby <sch...@swcp.com>
>wrote:
>>Carolyn Woods Eisenberg. _Drawing the Line: the American
>>Decision to Devide Germany, 1944-1949_. Cambridge University
>>Press, 1998. Here are some brief reviews:
>>
>>http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521627176/wwwlink-software-21/202-8345277-6451030
>
>
>Thanks E., another good recommendation of yours.
>I will get the book and look forward to reading it.
And while you are at it, how about this one :)? It's one of my
favorite books.
The Politics of War: The Story Which
Altered Forever The Political Life of
the American Republic (1890-1920)
It has long been out of print, but there is now a new edition
from Franklin Press/Harper's, 2003. A year ago Lewis Lapham, editor
and publisher of Harper's, connected Karp's work with our current
administration:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1839_307/ai_105853326
Viele Gruesse,
E.
Volker Hetzer
"Johnny 5" <joh...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Xns953374BE5403...@65.32.1.8...
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in
> news:ce5r4i$90c$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com:
>
> > The radical solution would be to split it off again, give it a
> > separate currency and let it float. Loads of new industry because of
> > the low wages.
> > However for the westerners it would look like a failure and for the
> > easterners like taken-in-sucked-dry-thrown-away.
>
> Why is soft currency economics Radical? A floating currency could fix
> thier problems no?
caring mother hen west-germany for living happily ever after.
But, I agree with you, it would fix the economic problems. However the first
person proposing that would be shot. So would the next dozen.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Volker Hetzer
"E.F.Schelby" <sch...@swcp.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:ilcdg0ti8qtdslgt3...@4ax.com...
> thomsen <a.th...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Carolyn Woods Eisenberg. _Drawing the Line: the American
> Decision to Devide Germany, 1944-1949_. Cambridge University
> Press, 1998. Here are some brief reviews:
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521627176/wwwlink-software-21/202-8345277-6451030
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Volker Hetzer
<ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:41068af7...@news.telus.net...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:53:41 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
> <volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >Short time later most east germans were fired.
> >>
> >> ?? Completely false.
> >Oh, right? I know of *NO ONE* apart from government clerks
> >and some teachers who wasn't unemployed at least once after
> >the unification.
>
> You just don't know enough people, then. The German government
> arranged for many industrial concerns to be privatized with
> undertakings by the new owners not to fire workers.
Also, you simply *can't* force an employer to keep employees.
Because you can't force him not to close the plant. At least not
for an infinite amount of time.
Synthesewerk Schwarzheide was one of the bigger examples.
Big promise not to fire people, shortly later the factory
was closed, unemployment rose from 10% to 80% in one go
in that area. (Upside, I seem to recall the factory was bought years later
by BASF and it turned out ok after all, except for the usual suicides,
broken up families and miscellaneous collateral damage.)
There were other things too going on, like in the company my
mother worked. New boss from west germany, big mouthed
like anything, disappeared with 5 million. Of course there was
a lawsuit but the money wasn't found, end of story for this
company.
Or the brewery of where I came from. Western guy got lots
of east-reconstruction-subsidies, first thing he did was strip
the buildings of everything valuable, after which he paid some
lawyers to keep us off him while the equipment made him
a fat profit working in bavaria.
Other closures came from more harmless reasons. Where
my father worked basically had one customer, the russian
government (telco equipment). After the unification the russians
couldn't pay hard cash, so business dead.
> >> >Remember that literally all factories and
> >> >industries in east germany were smashed in the first years after reunion.
> >>
> >> ?? False and ridiculous.
> >Ok, it took three years. Other than that I've seen enough ruins.
>
> That is just false. There are ruins, of course, but also many intact
> and still operating industrial establishments that have been and are
> gradually upgrading their capital equipment.
I'm not going to enter a credentials fight here, nor do I claim to have rented
the truth. It's a free country and anyone is invited to visit
east germany and have a look at the industrial landscape today and in what
ways it differs from west germany. But even if Dresden is tempting for cultural
reasons you should not limit your experience to the saxon state because that's
the rich one, comparatively.
Maybe we have different perceptions about closure of companies?
Maybe you go after the published numbers of insolvencies?
For me a closure is when a 5000 head company turns into a 15 people
company whose job it is to keep the fence intact and the buildings from
crumbling so that nobody gets hurt.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
thomsen
> "Johnny 5" <joh...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns953374BE5403...@65.32.1.8...
>
>>"Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in
>>news:ce5r4i$90c$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com:
>>
>>
>>>The radical solution would be to split it off again, give it a
>>>separate currency and let it float. Loads of new industry because of
>>>the low wages.
>>>However for the westerners it would look like a failure and for the
>>>easterners like taken-in-sucked-dry-thrown-away.
Many people in the West regarded it as a failure even before it took
place. Looks like everybody feels sucked-in-thrown-away these days:
ask people e.g. in Gelsenkirchen and other places that went broke
as much as any East German city. But then: who did the sucking?
>>Why is soft currency economics Radical? A floating currency could fix
>>thier problems no?
>
> Politics. We were supposed to have been rescued under the wings of
> the fat, caring mother hen west-germany for living happily ever after.
Funny you should say so. In fact, it were the East Germans that
forced unification upon us - literally: the West Germans were
never asked for consent.
> But, I agree with you, it would fix the economic problems. However
> the first person proposing that would be shot. So would the next
> dozen.
It would also fix some West german problems like the annual bill
of 50 Mlrd (american; 50 billions) of euro for costs of unification.
Gues why nobody really would like to discuss that in public?
BTW. I supported unification - but I was somewhat taken aback by
the way it happened.
> Lots of Greetings!
> Volker
regards,
A.
ro...@telus.net
<volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:41068af7...@news.telus.net...
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:53:41 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
>> <volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >Short time later most east germans were fired.
>> >>
>> >> ?? Completely false.
>> >Oh, right? I know of *NO ONE* apart from government clerks
>> >and some teachers who wasn't unemployed at least once after
>> >the unification.
>>
>> You just don't know enough people, then. The German government
>> arranged for many industrial concerns to be privatized with
>> undertakings by the new owners not to fire workers.
>Yes. Most of which were kept for at least three months.
In most cases they were also still employed years later.
>Also, you simply *can't* force an employer to keep employees.
>Because you can't force him not to close the plant. At least not
>for an infinite amount of time.
True, sometmies companies gave undertakings that they were
subsequently unable to fulfill, and went broke. That's the free
market for you.
>Synthesewerk Schwarzheide was one of the bigger examples.
>Big promise not to fire people, shortly later the factory
>was closed, unemployment rose from 10% to 80% in one go
>in that area.
Now was that merely a _promise_ not to fire, or an actual contract
with consequences?
>There were other things too going on, like in the company my
>mother worked. New boss from west germany, big mouthed
>like anything, disappeared with 5 million.
Well, it's not like similar things didn't happen in East Germany
before unification.
>> >> >Remember that literally all factories and
>> >> >industries in east germany were smashed in the first years after reunion.
>> >>
>> >> ?? False and ridiculous.
>> >Ok, it took three years. Other than that I've seen enough ruins.
>>
>> That is just false. There are ruins, of course, but also many intact
>> and still operating industrial establishments that have been and are
>> gradually upgrading their capital equipment.
>I'm not going to enter a credentials fight here, nor do I claim to have rented
>the truth. It's a free country and anyone is invited to visit
>east germany and have a look at the industrial landscape today and in what
>ways it differs from west germany.
?? It was also very different before unification.
>But even if Dresden is tempting for cultural
>reasons you should not limit your experience to the saxon state because that's
>the rich one, comparatively.
Yes, some places are better than others. East Berlin is not in bad
shape economically, although it still looks pretty awful. One of my
clients is still running some paper plants in Thuringia that date back
decades. Anything related to resource extraction, like mining or
forestry, is likely still operating.
>Maybe we have different perceptions about closure of companies?
>Maybe you go after the published numbers of insolvencies?
It's not that hard to find information on the Web about companies that
are still operating pre-unification plants.
-- Roy L
Bernd Felsche
>Volker Hetzer wrote:
> > "Johnny 5" <joh...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:Xns953374BE5403...@65.32.1.8...
> >>"Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in
> >>news:ce5r4i$90c$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com:
> >>>The radical solution would be to split it off again, give it a
> >>>separate currency and let it float. Loads of new industry because of
> >>>the low wages.
> >>>However for the westerners it would look like a failure and for the
> >>>easterners like taken-in-sucked-dry-thrown-away.
>Many people in the West regarded it as a failure even before it took
>place. Looks like everybody feels sucked-in-thrown-away these days:
>ask people e.g. in Gelsenkirchen and other places that went broke
>as much as any East German city. But then: who did the sucking?
Germany was, and probably still is highly conservative and reluctant
to change. Conservatism in terms of work is wide-spread. A job for
life is a difficult thing in today's world, unless you can manage to
work for yourself and change your work as the market climate
changes.
Businesses which failed to adapt their human resources to the new
economies in the 1980's and 1990's laid off many thousands in the
West. The East kept those people employed at 1960's standards; often
in 1960's facilities because the government controlled the market.
In 1989, that no longer became the case. The East had to catch up
with the West's agonies of the previous two or three decades.
> >>Why is soft currency economics Radical? A floating currency could fix
> >>thier problems no?
> >
> > Politics. We were supposed to have been rescued under the wings of
> > the fat, caring mother hen west-germany for living happily ever after.
>Funny you should say so. In fact, it were the East Germans that
>forced unification upon us - literally: the West Germans were
>never asked for consent.
Ahem... the Federal Republic's government forced unification. If
you like, you can blame it on Kohl; he tried to take the credit for
it. The East Germans were ignorant of market economy; it wasn't
until the Wessies plundered the grocery shops in the border regions
that they started to get an inkling of 'market economy'. To most of
the population in the East, the West was a place where everybody had
everything that they wanted; and if they didn't, they could go and
buy it; just like the advertisements on TV.
> > But, I agree with you, it would fix the economic problems. However
> > the first person proposing that would be shot. So would the next
> > dozen.
>It would also fix some West german problems like the annual bill
>of 50 Mlrd (american; 50 billions) of euro for costs of unification.
>Gues why nobody really would like to discuss that in public?
>BTW. I supported unification - but I was somewhat taken aback by
>the way it happened.
I was taken aback at the apparent apathy displayed by Kohl, et al
when suggesting that the task of unification would be done easily
with the Federal Republic's existing wealth.
Having spent only 10 days in the GDR in 1987; those comments didn't
even pass the laugh test. Desolation was probably the best word to
describe most of the GDR at the time, which was extracting the last
drops of blood from the stone in order to prepare for it's 40th
anniversary. The "provinces" were being stripped to make the capital
look good.
I don't know who fell for that particular line. It was bound to
disappoint *everybody*.
The Federal Republic was relatively wealthy; but if you'd stepped up
at the podium and declared that everyboy in the West must sacrifice
one third of all that they have in order to bring their brothers in
the East up to a similar level of economic well-being, then all of
the West's industrial might would have magiced a gallows as you were
uttering your words.
Nobody wanted to know that it was going to be a long, difficult
slog. As the Wall came down in Berlin, Willi Brandt uttered words
to the effect that it was going to be a long, difficult process. A
lone voice of reason.
I'd write more but I have to go and be a capitalist for a few hours
today.
Blake Dodson
I must say... Good things take time. This means sacrifices for some
and gains for others. In the end the investment will be worth far more
than the sacrifices made.
M.O.
Blake
Volker Hetzer
"thomsen" <a.th...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2mqd5aF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
> Funny you should say so. In fact, it were the East Germans that
> forced unification upon us
"Minister ohne Geschaeftsbereich" - remember?
"Bluehende Landsschaften"- ditto
(For the others: minister without ministry and blooming landscapes "in a few years".
They are blooming all right, but somehow we thought this guy meant "prospering
landscapes".)
> - literally: the West Germans were
> never asked for consent.
I wasn't asked either.
I always envied the czechs. They got to take their time and worked it out
on their own. I visited them once in 1993 and all this joy and enthusiasm
we had for about three months was still going on there years later.
>
> > But, I agree with you, it would fix the economic problems. However
> > the first person proposing that would be shot. So would the next
> > dozen.
>
> It would also fix some West german problems like the annual bill
> of 50 Mlrd (american; 50 billions) of euro for costs of unification.
> Gues why nobody really would like to discuss that in public?
> BTW. I supported unification - but I was somewhat taken aback by
> the way it happened.
By what exactly?
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Volker Hetzer
<ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4107f613...@news.telus.net...
> >Synthesewerk Schwarzheide was one of the bigger examples.
> >Big promise not to fire people, shortly later the factory
> >was closed, unemployment rose from 10% to 80% in one go
> >in that area.
>
> Now was that merely a _promise_ not to fire, or an actual contract
> with consequences?
where the lie was, a colleague of mine was there last month and
talked to the people living there.
>
> >There were other things too going on, like in the company my
> >mother worked. New boss from west germany, big mouthed
> >like anything, disappeared with 5 million.
>
> Well, it's not like similar things didn't happen in East Germany
> before unification.
Can you give an example?
Possible where this led to a closure, like in my example?
> Yes, some places are better than others. East Berlin is not in bad
> shape economically, although it still looks pretty awful. One of my
> clients is still running some paper plants in Thuringia that date back
> decades. Anything related to resource extraction, like mining or
> forestry, is likely still operating.
There the high profile case was Bischofferode. Where that western union
guy went there and told the employees that they had to close
because their continued existence would endanger western jobs.
But ok, we still have two sand pits in my area. The quarries have
closed though. The pits probably employ less than 50 people now.
Otherwise, the biggest employer is Jaegermeister with a bottling
plant. Probably a hundred people.
> It's not that hard to find information on the Web about companies that
> are still operating pre-unification plants.
Could you provide some links? Do they also tell about the scale of the operation,
like how many people, what kind of turnover?
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
ro...@telus.net
<volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4107f613...@news.telus.net...
>
>> Well, it's not like similar things didn't happen in East Germany
>> before unification.
>Can you give an example?
Unfortunately, all searches about financial scandals in Germany now
lead to Helmut Kohl....
>Possible where this led to a closure, like in my example?
Closure wouldn't be the result in a socialist environment.
>> It's not that hard to find information on the Web about companies that
>> are still operating pre-unification plants.
>Could you provide some links? Do they also tell about the scale of the operation,
>like how many people, what kind of turnover?
Google has been acting up, but it took me about three minutes to find
this:
http://www.mercerint.com/regular/news_releases.cfm?itemID=343&pageID=22
about a still-operating paper mill at Heidenau in the former East
Germany.
-- Roy L
E.F.Schelby
Hi, Andreas:
I think we should look somewhere in the middle between these two
points. Wasn't it Stalin who said: give the Germans fifteen years
and they will be back on their feet?
American ideas and preferences shifted, and when I look at some of
the things going on in Iraq today (U.S. politicians like to hold up
West Germany as a shining example of nation-building) I get a jolt
of deja vu. In addition, as someone who, as a little kid, was first
liberated by the Americans and a few weeks later turned over to the
Russians by the very same liberators, I learned early lessons about
Stalinist bullying and American "improvisation".
There is now much mythology imbedded in the U.S. version of events.
But unless we settle for a deterministic view of history, we can at
least acknowledge that back then there were other options and
compromises available.
>You know that in Germany, during long years this was a subject of
>hot discussions.
Yes, I know.
>The problem however is, whether any intentions >declared by Stalin
>as to a democratic and neutral Germany could >be taken seriously?
Happy Austria took Stalin up on his offer and fared rather well as a
democratic and neutral country. Of course modern Austria is small.
>The USSR was the most important war ally, but otherwise had shown
>not only at home, but also abroad everywhere >in East and Central Europe,
>that besides being a totalitarian dictatorship with everything that implied
>(except for racist mass murder), that it could not be trusted.
I agree. On the other hand, the Allies were quite satisfied with the
fact that Russia carried an enormous burden during the war
as the West's partner. The US could have shown more collegial
willingness for cooperation on the 'German question'. There was room
to maneuver.
>Poland experienced that >twice, in 1939 and in 1944/45, the Baltic
>countries as well, >and Tchechoslovakia experienced it shortly afterwards.
>It is true that Finalnd (which however lost a large part of its
>territory to the SU) and Austria were tolerated as neutral
>neighbours - but it is rather doubtful that the SU would have
>respected an independent Germany as neighbour of the communist
>empire.
Perhaps the European part of the communist empire really took shape
only after relations between the former Allies turned seriously
confrontational? With the onset of the Cold War?
>Moreover, bad experiences with the easter occupant were
>notorious after the war, and is quite doubtful whether the german
>population would have preferred a situation where a united
>Germany would be at the mercy of Stalin and his successors.
Of course we will never know what could've happened, but I suspect
things didn't have to be so either/or. A lot of pain and harm could
have been reduced or even prevented without this radical split in
the middle of Europe. And think of the costs of the arms race.
And why would Germany be at the mercy of the USSR? Allied troops,
either in Germany or stationed in neighboring countries, would've
kept a sharp eye on Stalin -- not so much for the protection of a
one-piece-Germany, but out of self-interest.They did this anyway, on
a far grander scale and with both Germanys facing each other as
potential enemies across their Iron Curtain. That wasn't much fun,
to be sure.
There is an article by David Fromkin on the Middle East in the
current issue of Die Zeit. It talks about *Sykes-Picot* as shorthand
for arbitrary colonial nation-building done without the slightest
democratic regard for the populations involved. I think what
happened to Germany fits the same pattern. Old habits die slowly.
[...]
>And there is another point, that often is deliberately omitted.
>After the war, Germany was divided in more than the 4 occupation
>zones - there were the different territories that were handed over
>to the USSR and Poland, there was also the Saarland under french
>control. The handing over of the eastern territories and the
>expulsion of the overwhelming majority of their population was
>to a large extend inspired, or at least encouraged by Stalin.
>That was not exactly an inviting perspective for putting a
>future democratic Germany under Stalin's control.
The "Big Three" agreed to the expulsions and territorial
'adjustments'. They discussed this at Yalta and they signed at
Potsdam. It is true that Britain and the US didn't expect quite as
many Germans to be driven out, but nevertheless they signed. All of
them were the architects of these policies. One wishes that the
Americans had paid a bit more attention to Stalin's rotten record
while they pampered him with lend-lease and concessions. His record
had been bad long before 1945 and that bothered no one. Just as
Uzbekistan's lousy record bothers a current government very little
as long as that country is useful. True, being under Stalin's
control was not an inviting perspective. But that is precisely what
happened to the people in the eastern half of Germany and in all of
eastern Europe.
>There still may come up a lot of documents and some witness'
>records about Stalin's well-meaning intentions and plans.
>Howeverm, they will always be outweighted by Stalin's own record.
>But one can continue dreaming, why not?
I don't think Eisenberg dreams, Andreas. She looks at the record in
a manner slightly less stifled by the former ideological grip of the
Cold War.
>That doesn't preclude that the cold war generated a lot of
>hatred and paranoia on both sides.
True. But isn't it ironic that some of the problems caused by the
division of Germany and of Europe were not resolved? They were
simply put on ice. And now they are defrosted.
Best regards,
E.
thomsen
>>There still may come up a lot of documents and some witness'
>>records about Stalin's well-meaning intentions and plans.
>>Howeverm, they will always be outweighted by Stalin's own record.
>>But one can continue dreaming, why not?
>
> I don't think Eisenberg dreams, Andreas. She looks at the record in
> a manner slightly less stifled by the former ideological grip of the
> Cold War.
That's possible. Anyway, the cold war is long over. It is interesting,
however, that Stalinism somehow seems to be an under-estimated
subject. I do not mean "communism" and "anti-communism" her. In fact,
I often observed that convinced anti-communists tended to hardly
make any distinction between Stalin's totalitarian regime and the
following forms of bureaucratic dictatorship (Khrushchev, Brezhnev,
and on a lesser scale Honecker) that admittedly were bad enough,
by nothing compared to the terror of "Uncle Joe". So - an "Evil
Empire" certainly was the principal partner of the West in Teheran,
Yalta, and Potsdam, but the empire that later US governments were
to confront in later years of the "Cold War" certainly was not so evil
anymore, at least after 1956.
To many American politicians, however, the criterion of "evilness"
seems to have been however, essentially how much harm it could
possibly do to the United States. To Europeans the matter looked
a bit different.
>>That doesn't preclude that the cold war generated a lot of
>>hatred and paranoia on both sides.
>
> True. But isn't it ironic that some of the problems caused by the
> division of Germany and of Europe were not resolved? They were
> simply put on ice. And now they are defrosted.
Ironic? Not really. I'd say that it was to be expected by anybody
knowing a little bit about European history - I mean, the history
of bothe "Eastern" and "Western" Europe. But who does?
>
> Best regards,
> E.
>
Volker Hetzer
<ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:410ab0d9...@news.telus.net...
> Closure wouldn't be the result in a socialist environment.
of a few hundred or thousand people. (Never mind the bumpkin at
the top.)
>
> >> It's not that hard to find information on the Web about companies that
> >> are still operating pre-unification plants.
> >Could you provide some links? Do they also tell about the scale of the operation,
> >like how many people, what kind of turnover?
>
> Google has been acting up, but it took me about three minutes to find
> this:
>
> http://www.mercerint.com/regular/news_releases.cfm?itemID=343&pageID=22
>
> about a still-operating paper mill at Heidenau in the former East
> Germany.
As you said, *some* companies have survived, others have survived by name (Practica)
employing a few percent of the original workforce, some few have thrived (Jenoptik)
but those small to medium sized companies that "litter" the west german cities and villages,
and did before in east germany too, have gone.
In my home city it was an engine factory, an engine parts factory, a toy factory, a furniture
factory (the name still exists, it's a funiture shop now), a company that coloured yarn, a big
goods distributor and the brewery.
What's left is one sand pit and the state forestry. Also the small fry like companies
providing electricity and water and stuff.
What has come up is three or four big shopping centres, a bit of building industry
(providing sand and cement) and a bit further off, the bottling plant of Jaegermeister.
In the countryside, many collective farms seem to have wheathered it (with reduced
personnel), also some commercial fishing exists.
(All this is just off the top of my head, if you are interested in details, the city is called
Kamenz and has about 15000 inhabitants. Nice city but becoming slowly empty.)
What's needed in a town of that size is IMHO two or three companies, each employing
a few hundred people and exporting out of the town, possibly out of the country.
I don't see that coming in the next few years.
To go back on the subject line, I don't know what's wrong with the people. Those
who can leave do, and work in the west. Those who can't don't have the money to make
east germany prosper. The government spends a lot of money but to little effect.
We've tried left and right federal governments, with little difference. Saxon has had a
right wing government for some time now and prospers moderately but it was heavily
industrialized before the unification too.
Splitting up is not an option.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
E.F.Schelby
>E.F.Schelby wrote:
>> thomsen <a.th...@gmx.de> wrote:
>[...]
>> I don't think Eisenberg dreams, Andreas. She looks at the record in
>> a manner slightly less stifled by the former ideological grip of the
>> Cold War.
>
>That's possible. It is interesting,>however, that Stalinism somehow
>seems to be an under-estimated >subject. [...] So - an "Evil
>Empire" certainly was the principal partner of the West in Teheran,
>Yalta, and Potsdam, but the empire that later US governments were
>to confront in later years of the "Cold War" certainly was not so evil
>anymore, at least after 1956.
At Teheran & Yalta it was not yet regarded as an evil empire. At
Potsdam there was an inkling.
>To many American politicians, however, the criterion of "evilness"
>seems to have been however, essentially how much harm it could
>possibly do to the United States.
That's the most important criterion for the United States. The
second most important one is called 'American interests.'
Accordingly, the Bush administration's "proposed 2005 budget is the
largest nuclear weapons budget in history, even so the Cold War is
over." The quote is from Father John Dear, who lives in the desert
near Los Alamos and will today, together with other New Mexicans,
line the road up the hill to the mother-lab of weapons of mass
destruction.This is the 59th anniversary of the atomic bombing of
Hiroshima. Father Dear wrote 20 books against war and violence. His
voice in the wilderness didn't do much good so far.
>To Europeans the matter looked a bit different.
Perhaps that is why the walls and fences came down in Europe,to the
surprise of the CIA, which couldn't see any of it coming.
Regards,
E.
P.S. Latest Bushism: "Our enemies are innovative and
resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new
ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
ro...@telus.net
<volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:410ab0d9...@news.telus.net...
>> Closure wouldn't be the result in a socialist environment.
>That's my point. On that level one bumpkin couldn't screw the lives
>of a few hundred or thousand people. (Never mind the bumpkin at
>the top.)
Right. The seen vs the unseen. Take a dollar from each of 10 million
people, and nobody notices. Take $10K from each of 1K people, they
notice.
>To go back on the subject line, I don't know what's wrong with the people.
There's nothing really "wrong" with the people other than the fact
that they grew up under authoritarian control of the economy.
>The government spends a lot of money but to little effect.
Of course. When it decided to give away all the additional land value
it was going to create with that spending to idle private landowners
for doing nothing, it guaranteed the failure of all its efforts. It's
like trying to fill a leaky tank: first you have to patch the hole.
>We've tried left and right federal governments, with little difference.
But you haven't tried recovering publicly created land rent for public
purposes, which would transform the former East Germany into Europe's
most prosperous region in about a decade.
-- Roy L
thomsen
> thomsen <a.th...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>That's possible. It is interesting,>however, that Stalinism somehow
>>seems to be an under-estimated >subject. [...] So - an "Evil
>>Empire" certainly was the principal partner of the West in Teheran,
>>Yalta, and Potsdam, but the empire that later US governments were
>>to confront in later years of the "Cold War" certainly was not so evil
>>anymore, at least after 1956.
>
> At Teheran & Yalta it was not yet regarded as an evil empire. At
> Potsdam there was an inkling.
Well, to anybody outside of maybe the present american public,
it might be interesting to know why and how. Was the ignorance
intentional? I mean, Stalin _was_ known, and knowbody can seriously
pretend that american politicians _couldn't_ know. At least the
Ribbentrop-Stalin pact was known, as was Stalin's intend to keep
or to regain what Hitler first had offered him.
>>To many American politicians, however, the criterion of "evilness"
>>seems to have been however, essentially how much harm it could
>>possibly do to the United States.
>
>
> That's the most important criterion for the United States. The
> second most important one is called 'American interests.'
>
> Accordingly, the Bush administration's "proposed 2005 budget is the
> largest nuclear weapons budget in history, even so the Cold War is
> over." The quote is from Father John Dear, who lives in the desert
> near Los Alamos and will today, together with other New Mexicans,
> line the road up the hill to the mother-lab of weapons of mass
> destruction.This is the 59th anniversary of the atomic bombing of
> Hiroshima. Father Dear wrote 20 books against war and violence. His
> voice in the wilderness didn't do much good so far.
>
>
>>To Europeans the matter looked a bit different.
>
>
> Perhaps that is why the walls and fences came down in Europe,to the
> surprise of the CIA, which couldn't see any of it coming.
>
> Regards,
> E.
>
> P.S. Latest Bushism: "Our enemies are innovative and
> resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new
> ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
>
Oh well, I cannot laugh anymore about Bush. Nor am I interested
in Michael Moore's rantings. The "niveau" of the whole "debate"
is just depressing: it is far below of anything I had expected
from the USA.
regards,
A.
E.F.Schelby
>E.F.Schelby wrote:
>> thomsen <a.th...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Well, to anybody outside of maybe the present american public,
>it might be interesting to know why and how. Was the ignorance
>intentional? I mean, Stalin _was_ known, and knowbody can seriously
>pretend that american politicians _couldn't_ know. At least the
>Ribbentrop-Stalin pact was known, as was Stalin's intend to keep
>or to regain what Hitler first had offered him.
I really don't know how to answer this simply. A lot of paper has
been printed on the why and how. American politicians and officials
were not of one mind. The man in charge saw postwar (global)
policing as the job for three countries: US, USSR, and Britain. It
seems that Stalin's ethical (dis)qualifications were not an
obstacle. During the famous Sept.1943 conversation FDR had with
Cardinal Spellman of New York, he apparently accepted that the USSR
would gain a foothold deep inside of Europe. Things would be harsh.
He hoped that European influence would eventually make the Russians
less barbarian. And to Averell Harriman FDR said in Nov.1944 "that
he didn't care whether the countries bordering Russia became
communized" or not. (John Lamberton Harper. American Visions of
Europe, Cambridge U., 1994, pp.88-89).
And now E.ducks and goes back to gardening, bird watching, and other
uplifting pursuits.
Greetings
E.
Volker Hetzer
<ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4113c2bb...@news.telus.net...
> Of course. When it decided to give away all the additional land value
> it was going to create with that spending to idle private landowners
> for doing nothing, it guaranteed the failure of all its efforts. It's
> like trying to fill a leaky tank: first you have to patch the hole.
The only agricultural companies prospering are the old collective farms
that *didn't* split up into small farmers.
> >We've tried left and right federal governments, with little difference.
>
> But you haven't tried recovering publicly created land rent for public
> purposes, which would transform the former East Germany into Europe's
> most prosperous region in about a decade.
What's "publicly created land"? The area has remained constant.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Quirk
> > But you haven't tried recovering publicly created land rent for public
> > purposes, which would transform the former East Germany into Europe's
> > most prosperous region in about a decade.
> What's "publicly created land"? The area has remained constant.
I'm not sure about "Publicly Created Land" since all no land was
created, I think he means publicly created land _RENT_. The Rental
values of the land is very much created by the community. By opening
funky cafes in Prenzlauer Berg for instance, or by expanding Lehrter
Stadtbahnhof in Mitte, the Public makes the near-by Rents larger.
A lot of land has been transfered from Public to Private hands, this
greatly increases the emount of Rent collected and accumulated by
private, frequently West German, owners. Land Rent is a very important
component of the economy and a perfect source of Social Accumulation,
if the East German Lands kept more of their Land, they could raise
social spending, demand in the economy would go up, liquidity
preferences would decrease and incomes would grow across the board.
Henry George and John Maynard Keynes would dance arm in arm around the
statue of Fritz the Great in Friederichshain.
Here in Berlin, it was just announced that more Buildings would be
sold to private owners to make up for short falls in the social
budget. This is of course nonsence, since selling those builings will
only decrease public revenue. But its a good example of how East
Germans are being systematicly robbed.
Even the public financial institutions are being actively plundered,
for instance the Berlin Banking Scandal, were the governement is using
Social Money to pay "gaurantees" against investment losses by the
Capitalist class. What a scam!
Regards,
Dmytri.
ro...@telus.net
<volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4113c2bb...@news.telus.net...
>> Of course. When it decided to give away all the additional land value
>> it was going to create with that spending to idle private landowners
>> for doing nothing, it guaranteed the failure of all its efforts. It's
>> like trying to fill a leaky tank: first you have to patch the hole.
>Can you run that by me again?
It is not easy to understand, and like people raised under capitalism,
those raised under socialism have been systematically prevented from
learning about it.
The spending of a competent government almost all ends up as increased
land rent. When the land is privately owned, and the land rent is
captured and retained by private landowners, it is effectively a
massive welfare subsidy giveaway, but to the rich instead of the poor.
Land rent amounts to about 20% of GDP in a modern industrial economy.
That is a very large amount of money to be giving away to the rich for
doing nothing. Germany cannot really afford to do that, and hope to
foster a healthy economy in its eastern states: most of the government
spending there just leaks out into the hands of private landowners,
guaranteeing economic failure. The economy of the Weimar Republic was
suffocated by similar massive giveaways to private landowners, which
were much larger than the hated WW I reparations payments, and greatly
aggravated social inequalities and injustices.
>The only agricultural companies prospering are the old collective farms
>that *didn't* split up into small farmers.
Almost all land value is in built-up areas. Agriculture accounts for
very little. All the land which was formerly public in East Germany
and is now private represents value that is being created by
government and the community, and given away to private (mainly West
German and foreign) landowners.
>> >We've tried left and right federal governments, with little difference.
>>
>> But you haven't tried recovering publicly created land rent for public
>> purposes, which would transform the former East Germany into Europe's
>> most prosperous region in about a decade.
>What's "publicly created land"?
I said publicly created land _rent_. Land rent is the value one can
get for use of land or other natural resources. It is created by
government and the community, not by the owner who gets to pocket it.
A healthy economy can give away 10% of GDP to landowners for doing
nothing, and there is no noticeable problem. But the East German
economy is not healthy. Notice that when Japan gradually reduced and
finally abolished its land tax, increasing the giveaway to landowners
to 20% or more of its GDP, its economy went from thriving boom to
decade-long stagnation, from which it is only just now emerging.
-- Roy L
sinister
"Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:cfd8vu$kma$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>
To add to Roy's comments about land rent:
Classical economists defined 3 factors of production: land (==> rent),
labor (==> wages), capital (==> interest).
For a nice write up of the issues Roy alludes to, see
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
(I don't agree with all the views expressed there. But it's a good summary
nonetheless.)
>
> Lots of Greetings!
> Volker
sinister
"Quirk" <qu...@syntac.net> wrote in message
news:4e20d3f.04081...@posting.google.com...
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:<cfd8vu$kma$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com>...
>
> > > But you haven't tried recovering publicly created land rent for public
> > > purposes, which would transform the former East Germany into Europe's
> > > most prosperous region in about a decade.
>
> > What's "publicly created land"? The area has remained constant.
>
> I'm not sure about "Publicly Created Land" since all no land was
> created, I think he means publicly created land _RENT_. The Rental
> values of the land is very much created by the community. By opening
> funky cafes in Prenzlauer Berg for instance, or by expanding Lehrter
> Stadtbahnhof in Mitte, the Public makes the near-by Rents larger.
>
> A lot of land has been transfered from Public to Private hands, this
> greatly increases the emount of Rent collected and accumulated by
> private, frequently West German, owners. Land Rent is a very important
> component of the economy and a perfect source of Social Accumulation,
> if the East German Lands kept more of their Land, they could raise
> social spending, demand in the economy would go up, liquidity
> preferences would decrease and incomes would grow across the board.
> Henry George and John Maynard Keynes would dance arm in arm around the
> statue of Fritz the Great in Friederichshain.
Did Keynes support George's program? I hadn't heard that.
Darren Rhodes
"sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:nVISc.9543$EQ5...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:cfd8vu$kma$1...@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
> >
> > <ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4113c2bb...@news.telus.net...
> > > Of course. When it decided to give away all the additional land value
> > > it was going to create with that spending to idle private landowners
> > > for doing nothing, it guaranteed the failure of all its efforts. It's
> > > like trying to fill a leaky tank: first you have to patch the hole.
> > Can you run that by me again?
> > The only agricultural companies prospering are the old collective farms
> > that *didn't* split up into small farmers.
> >
> >
> > > >We've tried left and right federal governments, with little
difference.
> > >
> > > But you haven't tried recovering publicly created land rent for public
> > > purposes, which would transform the former East Germany into Europe's
> > > most prosperous region in about a decade.
> > What's "publicly created land"? The area has remained constant.
>
> To add to Roy's comments about land rent:
> Classical economists defined 3 factors of production: land (==> rent),
> labor (==> wages), capital (==> interest).
>
Do you regard information as a factor of production? Darren.
Volker Hetzer
<ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:411ac2f7...@news.telus.net...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:03:42 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
> <volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> ><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4113c2bb...@news.telus.net...
> >> Of course. When it decided to give away all the additional land value
> >> it was going to create with that spending to idle private landowners
> >> for doing nothing, it guaranteed the failure of all its efforts. It's
> >> like trying to fill a leaky tank: first you have to patch the hole.
> >Can you run that by me again?
> land rent. When the land is privately owned, and the land rent is
> captured and retained by private landowners, it is effectively a
> massive welfare subsidy giveaway, but to the rich instead of the poor.
and such?
The government puts up infrastructure and hopes that companies start there,
or private citizens use the facilities (like use the internet), right?
What would you suggest?
>
> Land rent amounts to about 20% of GDP in a modern industrial economy.
> That is a very large amount of money to be giving away to the rich for
> doing nothing. Germany cannot really afford to do that, and hope to
> foster a healthy economy in its eastern states: most of the government
> spending there just leaks out into the hands of private landowners,
> guaranteeing economic failure.
Typically cities sell off their land because they need short term cash
or because they lack the cash to develop an area.
Also, if I understand you correctly, taxation of companies would also
count as "land rent"? Yet everybody complains that germanys taxes
are too high.
> >The only agricultural companies prospering are the old collective farms
> >that *didn't* split up into small farmers.
>
> Almost all land value is in built-up areas. Agriculture accounts for
> very little.
Ok, misunderstanding on my part.
> All the land which was formerly public in East Germany
> and is now private represents value that is being created by
> government and the community, and given away to private (mainly West
> German and foreign) landowners.
Well, that was in the unification contract. Property was to be handed back
instead of compensated. (Don't ask me to comment on this.) Tax breaks
(if you agree that they count) are used to attract business.
However, business generally feels that it's easier to build a shop where people
can spend their social aid paid for by west german taxes on west german
products. (Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large its true.)
> >> >We've tried left and right federal governments, with little difference.
> >>
> >> But you haven't tried recovering publicly created land rent for public
> >> purposes, which would transform the former East Germany into Europe's
> >> most prosperous region in about a decade.
> >What's "publicly created land"?
>
> I said publicly created land _rent_.
I had trouble parsing the sentence because rent looked like the past of "to rend"
and I didn't know what you meant anyway. Thanks for the clarification.
> Land rent is the value one can
> get for use of land or other natural resources.
You lost me here again. The government should own land and administer it
in a profitable way? Please see below.
> It is created by
> government and the community, not by the owner who gets to pocket it.
Please have patience with my density but I don't think I have understood what
you mean, so here's what I *think* you mean:
There are publicly owned ressources like forests, estate in cities and so on.
Now, the government can try to derive some income from it (which you
call rent) or it can sell it off.
For some reason you think that government owned (or administered) property
is better for the society than privately owned (or administered) property.
If that's your point then I have to say I'd love to see a sensible and accountable
government do well with the ressources entrusted to them. However, all the
governments I have known were neither sensible nor accountable (old and
new governments) and generally botched the job.
Thanks for your patience!
Volker
ro...@telus.net
<darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:nVISc.9543$EQ5...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>>
>> To add to Roy's comments about land rent:
>> Classical economists defined 3 factors of production: land (==> rent),
>> labor (==> wages), capital (==> interest).
>
>Do you regard information as a factor of production? Darren.
Information is considered to contribute to production as part of labor
and/or capital. It is also not scarce as the other production factors
are: if it exists, it can be reproduced at arbitrarily low cost.
-- Roy L
Volker Hetzer
> For a nice write up of the issues Roy alludes to, see
> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
>
> (I don't agree with all the views expressed there. But it's a good summary
> nonetheless.)
Thanks!
Volker
ro...@telus.net
<volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:411ac2f7...@news.telus.net...
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:03:42 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
>> <volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> ><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4113c2bb...@news.telus.net...
>> >> Of course. When it decided to give away all the additional land value
>> >> it was going to create with that spending to idle private landowners
>> >> for doing nothing, it guaranteed the failure of all its efforts. It's
>> >> like trying to fill a leaky tank: first you have to patch the hole.
>> >Can you run that by me again?
>> The spending of a competent government almost all ends up as increased
>> land rent. When the land is privately owned, and the land rent is
>> captured and retained by private landowners, it is effectively a
>> massive welfare subsidy giveaway, but to the rich instead of the poor.
>Ok, so I presume you mean new access roads and buried glass fiber cables
>and such?
When a competent government spends money on pretty much anything, the
effect is almost always to make the land within its borders more
desirable. That means increased land rents. How much more desirable
do you think the land in Germany's eastern states has become since
reunification? I would estimate that the total land value increase is
probably on the order of $1T. Most of that immense value was simply
given away to private landowners for doing nothing. What would it
have bought for the East German economy and people had it not been
given away to the rich?
>The government puts up infrastructure and hopes that companies start there,
>or private citizens use the facilities (like use the internet), right?
>What would you suggest?
I would suggest that the government pay for the services and
infrastructure the community wants by recovering the value the
community creates, rather than by stealing the value private
individuals and firms create.
>> Land rent amounts to about 20% of GDP in a modern industrial economy.
>> That is a very large amount of money to be giving away to the rich for
>> doing nothing. Germany cannot really afford to do that, and hope to
>> foster a healthy economy in its eastern states: most of the government
>> spending there just leaks out into the hands of private landowners,
>> guaranteeing economic failure.
>Typically cities sell off their land because they need short term cash
>or because they lack the cash to develop an area.
No. They sell it off because they do the bidding of wealthy private
interests who demand ever larger flows of unearned wealth into their
pockets.
>Also, if I understand you correctly, taxation of companies would also
>count as "land rent"?
No, although most taxes do flow through to land in at least some
degree.
>Yet everybody complains that germanys taxes
>are too high.
All Germany's taxes are too high except the tax on land rent, which is
far too low.
>> All the land which was formerly public in East Germany
>> and is now private represents value that is being created by
>> government and the community, and given away to private (mainly West
>> German and foreign) landowners.
>Well, that was in the unification contract.
Yes, I know. As in the XSSR, the requirement that the increased land
value resulting from desocialization be given away to wealthy private
interests for doing nothing had absolute and unconditional priority
over all other considerations. Everything was negotiable except that.
>Property was to be handed back
>instead of compensated. (Don't ask me to comment on this.)
I am commenting on it. The former landowners demanded, and got,
immense quantities of unearned wealth, most of it in effect stolen
from West German taxpayers, with the predictable result of prolonged
economic depression and unemployment in the former East Germany and a
crushing tax burden in the former West Germany. German landowners did
the same sort of thing in the 1920s and 1930s, with results that we
all know all too well.
"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from
history." -- Friedrich Hegel
>Tax breaks
>(if you agree that they count)
Depends what taxes get broken.
>are used to attract business.
Right. To counteract the economic damage caused by giving away too
much money to the rich, the government gives away more money to the
rich...
>> Land rent is the value one can
>> get for use of land or other natural resources.
>You lost me here again. The government should own land and administer it
>in a profitable way?
Government administers possession and use of land in any case. All
governments do this, because that's what government _is_. And it
makes perfect sense, because the rent of land is publicly, not
privately created.
So the main question is, will the government administer the land in
such a way as to give the rent away to privileged private landowners
who do not create it, or will it administer the land in such a way
that the rent is recovered and used for the purposes of the community
that does create it?
>> It is created by
>> government and the community, not by the owner who gets to pocket it.
>
>Please have patience with my density but I don't think I have understood what
>you mean,
Right. You are an intelligent and reasonably well informed
individual, and yet you are completely ignorant of the facts of
economics regarding land. Who do you think has kept you ignorant of
those facts, and why?
>so here's what I *think* you mean:
>There are publicly owned ressources like forests, estate in cities and so on.
The rent of land is publicly created whether it is privately or
publicly owned.
>Now, the government can try to derive some income from it (which you
>call rent) or it can sell it off.
The rent exists whether it is recovered to pay for the public services
and infrastructure that create it, or given away to private landowners
for doing nothing. Selling off public land just means that the buyer
is buying the land from the community rather than a private owner.
But for reasons I have explained in previous threads, selling public
land cannot recover the full value of the future rents, especially
when a large amount is sold in a short period of time.
>For some reason you think that government owned (or administered) property
>is better for the society than privately owned (or administered) property.
No, for some reason I think that private ownership of privately
created value and public ownership of publicly created value is better
for society than either public appropriation of privately created
value or private appropriation of publicly created value.
>If that's your point then I have to say I'd love to see a sensible and accountable
>government do well with the ressources entrusted to them.
Singapore and Hong Kong have done very well by leasing out publicly
owned land. So did ancient Rome. The fraction of publicly created
land rent that is recovered for public purposes is one of the best
predictors of economic growth and prosperity (the only better one
being the fraction of privately created value that is retained by its
private creators and devoted to their purposes).
>However, all the
>governments I have known were neither sensible nor accountable (old and
>new governments) and generally botched the job.
Meiji Japan achieved the highest economic growth and the most rapid
modernization of industry ever seen in the history of the world up to
that time. It did so while financing its government almost
exclusively by a 2.5% annual tax on land value. East Germany could
achieve similar results by adopting a similar policy. In fact, almost
any underdeveloped country could.
-- Roy L
Mark Monson
>
> Please have patience with my density but I don't think I have understood what
> you mean, so here's what I *think* you mean:
> There are publicly owned ressources like forests, estate in cities and so on.
> Now, the government can try to derive some income from it (which you
> call rent) or it can sell it off.
> For some reason you think that government owned (or administered) property
> is better for the society than privately owned (or administered) property.
> If that's your point then I have to say I'd love to see a sensible and accountable
> government do well with the ressources entrusted to them. However, all the
> governments I have known were neither sensible nor accountable (old and
> new governments) and generally botched the job.
Government can collect the rent through taxation without leasing the land directly
to tenants. In the Land Value Taxation system, a land title is bought and sold as
property along with the privately owned building. The government assesses and then
levies an annual tax on the value of the land value only and no tax on the building.
In this way, government owned land and buildings can be auctioned off to private
persons without privatizing the rent of land - something that rightly should
continue to be socialized.
MM
Darren Rhodes
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:411bb954...@news.telus.net...
If two entities attempt to produce something and one of the entities has
information as to the method of production while the other entity does not
have this information there will be a huge cost disparity of the otherwise
equivalent products. As the products become more sophisticated the cost
discrepancy can be such that without the necessary information it is not
possible to make the product (in this case information _is_ a factor of
production). As for the scarcity of information - doesn't copyright make
information _artificially_ scarce since it cannot _legally_ be reproduced at
arbitrarily low cost?
Darren.
Quirk
> > greatly increases the emount of Rent collected and accumulated by
> > private, frequently West German, owners. Land Rent is a very important
> > component of the economy and a perfect source of Social Accumulation,
> > if the East German Lands kept more of their Land, they could raise
> > social spending, demand in the economy would go up, liquidity
> > preferences would decrease and incomes would grow across the board.
> > Henry George and John Maynard Keynes would dance arm in arm around the
> > statue of Fritz the Great in Friederichshain.
>
> Did Keynes support George's program? I hadn't heard that.
I have no idea, I do not know of any comments Keynes made regarding
George. They are dancing arm in arm because in my little example I use
the Georgist idea of Land Rent as the basis for Social Accumulation
and then follow it with a Keynesian analysis of the resulting Social
expenditure.
ro...@telus.net
<darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:411bb954...@news.telus.net...
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:05:55 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>> <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:nVISc.9543$EQ5...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>> >>
>> >> To add to Roy's comments about land rent:
>> >> Classical economists defined 3 factors of production: land (==> rent),
>> >> labor (==> wages), capital (==> interest).
>> >
>> >Do you regard information as a factor of production? Darren.
>>
>> Information is considered to contribute to production as part of labor
>> and/or capital. It is also not scarce as the other production factors
>> are: if it exists, it can be reproduced at arbitrarily low cost.
>
>If two entities attempt to produce something and one of the entities has
>information as to the method of production while the other entity does not
>have this information there will be a huge cost disparity of the otherwise
>equivalent products.
Right. The skill of the worker that possesses the information makes
the difference. But skills are all considered part of "labor."
>As the products become more sophisticated the cost
>discrepancy can be such that without the necessary information it is not
>possible to make the product (in this case information _is_ a factor of
>production).
It is just part of labor and/or capital.
>As for the scarcity of information - doesn't copyright make
>information _artificially_ scarce since it cannot _legally_ be reproduced at
>arbitrarily low cost?
Yes. But that means the information is not actually a production
factor. Rather, the intellectual property privilege is a barrier to
entry. Consider the prallel cases of agricultural quotas, taxi
medallions, etc. A taxi medallion is not a factor of production just
because there is a law that says you have to have one in order to push
a hack.
-- Roy L
Darren Rhodes
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:411dbde3...@news.telus.net...
Isn't 'skill': that is, the ability to turn information into knowledge and
hence use it for commercial gain an intrinsic part of labour? Whereas,
information is extrinsic to labour: without the information there is nothing
for the labour to apply its' skills upon? On this basis isn't information
separate from labour; whereas if skill is defined as the ability to convert
information to knowledge then this _is_ part of labour.
> >As for the scarcity of information - doesn't copyright make
> >information _artificially_ scarce since it cannot _legally_ be reproduced
at
> >arbitrarily low cost?
>
> Yes. But that means the information is not actually a production
> factor. Rather, the intellectual property privilege is a barrier to
> entry. Consider the prallel cases of agricultural quotas, taxi
> medallions, etc. A taxi medallion is not a factor of production just
> because there is a law that says you have to have one in order to push
> a hack.
>
> -- Roy L
By that argument charging rent on land means that land is no longer a
production factor. Similarly, charging tax upon employing labour; by the
argument above, suddenly means that labour is no longer a factor of
production.
Thanks for your reply, Roy; but still, it appears that under the
circumstances initially outlined; information is the fourth factor of
production. Darren.
Mark Monson
"Darren Rhodes" <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cfnt35$gd7$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
An atmosphere of good will, cooperative spirit, business ethics, civic
responsibility, and advanced knowledge (information) are all intangible aids to
production. They are not included in the Factors of Production because unlike
Land, Labor, and Capital they do not receive discreet returns in the distribution of
wealth.
MM
Rue The Day
No, Roy is correct. The information is embodied within the labor and
capital.
> > >As for the scarcity of information - doesn't copyright make
> > >information _artificially_ scarce since it cannot _legally_ be reproduced
> at
> > >arbitrarily low cost?
> >
> > Yes. But that means the information is not actually a production
> > factor. Rather, the intellectual property privilege is a barrier to
> > entry. Consider the prallel cases of agricultural quotas, taxi
> > medallions, etc. A taxi medallion is not a factor of production just
> > because there is a law that says you have to have one in order to push
> > a hack.
> >
> > -- Roy L
>
> By that argument charging rent on land means that land is no longer a
> production factor.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? You're confusing the taxi with
the taxi medallion. The taxi is capital, and thus is a factor of
production. The land is land, and thus is a factor of production.
Land titles and taxi medallions are not necessary for the land or
taxis to exist.
>Similarly, charging tax upon employing labour; by the
> argument above, suddenly means that labour is no longer a factor of
> production.
Huh???
> Thanks for your reply, Roy; but still, it appears that under the
> circumstances initially outlined; information is the fourth factor of
> production.
No, it isn't. Without any information at all, labor and capital could
not exist. Information is an intrinsic part of labor and capital.
ro...@telus.net
<darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
By that "logic," air, Vitamin C, and about a zillion other things
would count as separate factors of production.
>On this basis isn't information
>separate from labour; whereas if skill is defined as the ability to convert
>information to knowledge then this _is_ part of labour.
That's not how skill is defined.
>> >As for the scarcity of information - doesn't copyright make
>> >information _artificially_ scarce since it cannot _legally_ be reproduced
>at
>> >arbitrarily low cost?
>>
>> Yes. But that means the information is not actually a production
>> factor. Rather, the intellectual property privilege is a barrier to
>> entry. Consider the prallel cases of agricultural quotas, taxi
>> medallions, etc. A taxi medallion is not a factor of production just
>> because there is a law that says you have to have one in order to push
>> a hack.
>
>By that argument charging rent on land means that land is no longer a
>production factor.
??? No. You seem not to have understood my argument at all, nor,
indeed, any of the relevant arguments. A taxicab is a production
factor (capital), but not the taxi medallion. Similarly, land is a
production factor, but not the land title, nor the landowner, nor the
land rent.
>Similarly, charging tax upon employing labour; by the
>argument above, suddenly means that labour is no longer a factor of
>production.
?? No, by the argument above, it is the _tax_ that is not a
production factor.
>Thanks for your reply, Roy; but still, it appears that under the
>circumstances initially outlined; information is the fourth factor of
>production.
No, it isn't. It is obtained in the form of labor or capital.
-- Roy L
Darren Rhodes
"Mark Monson" <m_mo...@ztech.com> wrote in message
news:YqMTc.6354$ii....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Aren't royalties from patents and copyrights, (viz, information) a 'discreet
return in the distribution of wealth' ? Hence, by your argument is
information the fourth factor of production? Darren.
Darren Rhodes
"Rue The Day" <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:a44a8c58.04081...@posting.google.com...
Care to present an argument or are you thumping your fist on the desk as
your telling us this ???
I just don't get the last part ... I agree that without any information at
all labour and capital could not exist but I'm thinking about new processes.
Old processes can exist without _new_ information; but _new_ porcesses
cannot exist without _new_ information thus, I'm arguing that since this
information is necessary for the _new_ process it is a factor of production.
Where am I going wrong? Darren.
The Trucker
In the short example at
http://greatervoice.org/econ/TheBerryPatch.php ----------------------
Man is an inquisitive creature and when he gets a day off from drudgery he
has time to think and to experiment and such. While idle hands may be the
Devil's workshop, these idle hands are also the bastion of creativity. This
man wants life to be better and he knows that if he can carry more berries
then he can take more days off. And because he thinks and dreams and is
naturally lazy he conceives of this wonderful invention called a basket.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
how do you style the idea to make a basket? Is it intellectual capital
or is it just labor or happenstance, or what? Is it information?
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson. http://GreaterVoice.org
ro...@telus.net
<darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> > By that argument charging rent on land means that land is no longer a
>> > production factor. Similarly, charging tax upon employing labour; by
>the
>> > argument above, suddenly means that labour is no longer a factor of
>> > production.
>> >
>> > Thanks for your reply, Roy; but still, it appears that under the
>> > circumstances initially outlined; information is the fourth factor of
>> > production. Darren.
>>
>> An atmosphere of good will, cooperative spirit, business ethics, civic
>> responsibility, and advanced knowledge (information) are all intangible
>aids to
>> production. They are not included in the Factors of Production because
>unlike
>> Land, Labor, and Capital they do not receive discreet returns in the
>distribution of
>> wealth.
>
>Aren't royalties from patents and copyrights, (viz, information) a 'discreet
>return in the distribution of wealth'?
They're a return to privilege. Patents and copyrights do not
contribute to production. They just prevent unauthorized production.
>Hence, by your argument is
>information the fourth factor of production?
No. If the government established a law that said you were not
allowed to breathe without paying a license fee to a private holder of
air-use licenses, would that make air a factor of production?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
He has identified a fact of which you are apparently resolved to
remain ignorant.
>> > Thanks for your reply, Roy; but still, it appears that under the
>> > circumstances initially outlined; information is the fourth factor of
>> > production.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Without any information at all, labor and capital could
>> not exist. Information is an intrinsic part of labor and capital.
>
>I just don't get the last part ... I agree that without any information at
>all labour and capital could not exist but I'm thinking about new processes.
>Old processes can exist without _new_ information; but _new_ porcesses
>cannot exist without _new_ information thus, I'm arguing that since this
>information is necessary for the _new_ process it is a factor of production.
But just like the old information, it is contained in labor and/or
capital. The only difference between the new information and the old
is an arbitrary legal one, not an economic one. Without
government-granted and -enforced IP monopoly privileges, there would
be no separate return to information. No law is needed to provide the
separate returns to land, labor and capital.
>Where am I going wrong?
You are confusing politicians' laws with nature's laws.
-- Roy L
Ron Peterson
> They're a return to privilege. Patents and copyrights do not
> contribute to production. They just prevent unauthorized production.
What do you propose to have instead of patents and copyrights to
encourage the development and sharing of new technologies.
--
Ron
Darren Rhodes
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4120edcf...@news.telus.net...
thanks for your patience thus far ... have you got a suitable link/reference
? Darren.
The Trucker
Fame. It pays very well indeed.
Volker Hetzer
<ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:411bbab0...@news.telus.net...
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:04:34 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
> <volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> ><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:411ac2f7...@news.telus.net...
> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:03:42 +0200, "Volker Hetzer"
> >> <volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><ro...@telus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4113c2bb...@news.telus.net...
> >> >> Of course. When it decided to give away all the additional land value
> >> >> it was going to create with that spending to idle private landowners
> >> >> for doing nothing, it guaranteed the failure of all its efforts. It's
> >> >> like trying to fill a leaky tank: first you have to patch the hole.
> >> >Can you run that by me again?
> >> The spending of a competent government almost all ends up as increased
> >> land rent. When the land is privately owned, and the land rent is
> >> captured and retained by private landowners, it is effectively a
> >> massive welfare subsidy giveaway, but to the rich instead of the poor.
> >Ok, so I presume you mean new access roads and buried glass fiber cables
> >and such?
>
> When a competent government spends money on pretty much anything, the
> effect is almost always to make the land within its borders more
> desirable. That means increased land rents.
right? So, if I build a house on that land and open a casino, the income doesn't
count as land rent? For a wheat field it does count? Where's the border here?
the shop selling the wheat? The mill? The beehive increasing the wheat yield
and producing honey as well? The honey?
Also, at some point you switched from "rent" as "virtual income" to "rent"
as conventional rent, as in renting a flat in a house. Maybe we could
agree on terminology?
Lease derived income:
I lease land to you, you pay me whatever I want. Annual price
money set in the conventional way by supply and demand.
Rent:
"Your" land rent in the way of the hard to calculate "potential"
of the land.
I'm not quoting everything you said but here's what I think I understood:
So, then we have the following:
Land is owned. Land gets leased to other people.
If it's privately owned the owner pays annual tax to the government.
If the owner leases it, nothing changes for the leaser and the leasee pays annually.
If it's government owned, the leasee pays annually to the government.
The government adjusts the annual income (tax/lease money) according to its
monetary needs, correct?
So, just the same amount of money gets drawn out of the citizenship,
only based on land.
The problem then comes down to the usual problem of sqeezing the
maximum amount of money from those having to pay that tax/lease money.
Apart from making the whole tax thing childs play, what's the advantage?
Land would become much more expensive, whereas everything else becomes
a bit cheaper, so I see an economic shift but not necessarily an improvement.
You cited examples like Hong Kong, Singapore and Rome. Can you flesh
out a bit how precisely that LVT stuff was an advantage?
> recovering the value the
> community creates, rather than by stealing the value private
> individuals and firms create.
What's the difference between a bunch of private individuals and
"the community"? How do they differ in value creation? Is
your recovery mechanism the reevaluation of the land (and the
according tax adjustment)?
> Right. To counteract the economic damage caused by giving away too
> much money to the rich, the government gives away more money to the
> rich...
Generally speaking, the rich are also the most mobile. It backfires if you
punish the rich people because they are the first to leave.
>
> >> Land rent is the value one can
> >> get for use of land or other natural resources.
Now that I read this sentence, it sounds pretty pre-industrial to me. :-)
> Government administers possession and use of land in any case. All
> governments do this, because that's what government _is_. And it
> makes perfect sense, because the rent of land is publicly, not
> privately created.
But if a private guy opens a quarry, getting income out of the earth,
doesn't *he* create the land rent? Or are we talking of lease derived
income here?
> Selling off public land just means that the buyer
> is buying the land from the community rather than a private owner.
> But for reasons I have explained in previous threads, selling public
> land cannot recover the full value of the future rents, especially
> when a large amount is sold in a short period of time.
Are we talking rent or lease derived income here?
If the second then I'm not sure whether lease is always better than
sale because if you lease you speculate on increasing land value and if
you sell you speculate on falling land value. So, IMHO, both methods
of transferring land have merits.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
ro...@telus.net
<volker...@ieee.org> wrote:
Some of the income will normally consist of land rent: the amount that
the most productive prospective users would pay to use that land. The
rest of the income you have earned by your investment in the
improvements, the skill with which you manage the property, etc.
>For a wheat field it does count? Where's the border here?
Imagine that all the man-made improvements are demolished, and the
land is allowed to revert to its natural state, like parkland. The
amount that the most productive prospective users would be willing to
pay to use that land is the land rent.
>the shop selling the wheat? The mill? The beehive increasing the wheat yield
>and producing honey as well? The honey?
Land rent is the amount that the most productive users would pay to
use the land.
>Also, at some point you switched from "rent" as "virtual income" to "rent"
> as conventional rent, as in renting a flat in a house.
I hope I did not. Which of my uses of "rent" do you think had the
latter sense?
>Maybe we could
> agree on terminology?
> Lease derived income:
> I lease land to you, you pay me whatever I want. Annual price
> money set in the conventional way by supply and demand.
> Rent:
> "Your" land rent in the way of the hard to calculate "potential"
> of the land.
It's not all that hard to calculate.
>I'm not quoting everything you said but here's what I think I understood:
>So, then we have the following:
>Land is owned. Land gets leased to other people.
It may also be used by the owner.
>If it's privately owned the owner pays annual tax to the government.
Ideally.
>If the owner leases it, nothing changes for the leaser and the leasee pays annually.
Right.
>If it's government owned, the leasee pays annually to the government.
As to a private landowner, right.
>The government adjusts the annual income (tax/lease money) according to its
>monetary needs, correct?
No. Does a private landowner reduce the rent if he already has enough
income for his needs? It is important for government to recover as
much of the rent as is practical, _but_without_exceeding_100%_,
because leaving rent in the hands of private users will lead to
inefficient allocation (suboptimal use) of the land.
>So, just the same amount of money gets drawn out of the citizenship,
>only based on land.
No. Taxing land would greatly reduce the need for government spending
to overcome the destructive effects of current taxation systems.
>The problem then comes down to the usual problem of sqeezing the
>maximum amount of money from those having to pay that tax/lease money.
How do private landowners do it?
>Apart from making the whole tax thing childs play, what's the advantage?
A freer, fairer, and more prosperous economy.
>Land would become much more expensive,
No, it would not. The cost of it would simply be paid to government
rather than to idle private owners.
>whereas everything else becomes
>a bit cheaper, so I see an economic shift but not necessarily an improvement.
The improvement would be massive, like the difference between the
economy of Augustan Rome and Diocletian Rome, or Edo-period Japan and
Meiji Japan.
>You cited examples like Hong Kong, Singapore and Rome. Can you flesh
>out a bit how precisely that LVT stuff was an advantage?
It removed part of the excess burden of inefficient taxes that
discourage production.
>> recovering the value the
>> community creates, rather than by stealing the value private
>> individuals and firms create.
>What's the difference between a bunch of private individuals and
>"the community"?
The mafia is a bunch of private individuals. They are not the
community.
Capisci?
>How do they differ in value creation?
They create value in different things, as well as in different ways.
>Is
>your recovery mechanism the reevaluation of the land (and the
>according tax adjustment)?
It's the tax.
>> Right. To counteract the economic damage caused by giving away too
>> much money to the rich, the government gives away more money to the
>> rich...
>Generally speaking, the rich are also the most mobile. It backfires if you
>punish the rich people because they are the first to leave.
Their land can't leave. Who cares if they do?
It's not like we don't have numerous historical examples, like the
ancien regime in France, Edo Japan, Tsarist Russia, etc., etc., etc.,
etc., etc. where the presence of a parasitic wealthy landowning class
crushed the economy and the people.
>> >> Land rent is the value one can
>> >> get for use of land or other natural resources.
>Now that I read this sentence, it sounds pretty pre-industrial to me. :-)
<yawn> I have already explained to you how a 2.5% land value tax
transformed Japan from a pre-industrial economy to an advanced
industrial economy in a single generation. Land rent is a slowly
increasing fraction of GDP, so the more advanced the economy, the more
land rent dominates it.
>> Government administers possession and use of land in any case. All
>> governments do this, because that's what government _is_. And it
>> makes perfect sense, because the rent of land is publicly, not
>> privately created.
>But if a private guy opens a quarry, getting income out of the earth,
>doesn't *he* create the land rent?
Not if someone else would be willing to pay to use the same land.
>Or are we talking of lease derived
>income here?
No.
>> Selling off public land just means that the buyer
>> is buying the land from the community rather than a private owner.
>> But for reasons I have explained in previous threads, selling public
>> land cannot recover the full value of the future rents, especially
>> when a large amount is sold in a short period of time.
>Are we talking rent or lease derived income here?
Rent.
>If the second then I'm not sure whether lease is always better than
>sale because if you lease you speculate on increasing land value and if
>you sell you speculate on falling land value. So, IMHO, both methods
>of transferring land have merits.
Selling means you think the economy will falter, _indefinitely_. What
kind of government intends to preside over perpetual economic failure
and stagnation?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
I posted the following a few months back:
I would propose a system of open licensing for intellectual products
that does away with monopoly privileges altogether, and replaces the
current clumsy combination of civil and criminal law with,
effectively, a tax on economic rent, half of which would be remitted
to the creators of intellectual products according to their market
value, the other half used to defray administration costs and
contribute to maintenance of the government and community that make
creative endeavors profitable.
Under this system, a creator who wanted to be paid for his work would
register any new intellectual product with a government office similar
to the Patent Office by paying the office a user fee of his own
choosing. On payment of this fee, the office would investigate the
product to verify its originality, utility, non-obviousness,
eligibility, etc. If the product passed these tests, the creator
would be paid back half his fee, and be registered as the originator
of the product, the office keeping the other half of the fee as a
service charge. Anyone else who wanted to reproduce the product would
then have to pay the office the same fee as the creator, to be able to
produce the product for one year. Again, the registered creator would
be paid half of all such user fees, and the office would keep half
(any surplus would be remitted to the government, like tax revenue).
Any demonstration of prior art, independent creation or predictable
development by skilled practitioners would automatically void the
registration and place the product in the public domain. Standards,
formats, protocols, interfaces, etc. would not be eligible for
registration.
Any prospective user would also have the option of paying _more_ than
the original user fee, thus increasing the fee to that new level for
all subsequent users for a period of one year. The originator would
be paid half of all such increased fees, as before, and would also
have the option of increasing the user fee in the same way after his
own one-year registration period had elapsed. If a period of one year
elapsed with no user fees being paid, the originator would be able to
reset the user fee at whatever level he chose, by payment of that
amount.
The user fee requirement for users of a registered product would be in
effect for a period of 10 years, or until total user fee payments
reached 1000 times the initial fee paid, whichever came first.
This system would encourage creation and disclosure of intellectual
products just as the IP system does (perhaps even more), but without
the deadening economic effect of monopoly privileges. Because the
user fee is a fixed cost once paid, each paid-up user would have an
incentive to produce more of the product, not less, giving consumers
the benefit of increased supply and more competition. By contrast,
current IP licensing almost always eliminates competition, and
per-piece or percentage royalties are a variable cost that reduce
total production.
The expiry of the registration after payments totaling 1000 times the
initial payment would allow the creator to set the level of ultimate
total payment he considered sufficient reward for creating the
product. Any payment more than what he requires would clearly be
economic rent anyway, so as the product is not scarce, there is no
point in requiring such payments in return for allowing use.
Until systems like the proposed one have been tried and found wanting,
any claim that the current system of IP monopolies is necessary (or
even the best or most efficient way) to stimulate creation and
publication of intellectual products is without foundation.
-- Roy L
Grinch
<darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4120edcf...@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:03:10 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>> <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Rue The Day" <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote in message
>> >news:a44a8c58.04081...@posting.google.com...
>> >> "Darren Rhodes" <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>> >news:<cfnt35$gd7$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
>> >> > <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >news:411dbde3...@news.telus.net...
>> >> > > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:44:40 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>> >> > > <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >As the products become more sophisticated the cost
>> >> > > >discrepancy can be such that without the necessary information it is not
>> >> > > >possible to make the product (in this case information _is_ a factor of
>> >> > > >production).
Obviously.
>> >> > > It is just part of labor and/or capital.
>> >> >
>> >> > Isn't 'skill': that is, the ability to turn information into knowledge and
>> >> > hence use it for commercial gain an intrinsic part of labour?
How does one obtain meaningful "skills"?
By investing to obtain them -- investing money and labor.
What do we call a productive factor that is created and obtained by
investment of money and labor?
It is called "capital".
But this sort is very clearly distinct from classical capital, an
additional factor of production, most generically called "human
capital". It is prominently recognized and analyzed as a distinct
factor of productivity in the economic literature of, oh, the last
hundred years.
As are other lasting productive factors created by investments of
money and labor, such as "organizational capital" and "intellectual
(or knowledge) capital".
All very distinct from the capital of the classicists.
...
>> >> No, Roy is correct. The information is embodied within the labor and
>> >> capital.
>> >Care to present an argument or are you thumping your fist on the desk as
>> >your telling us this ???
>>
>> He has identified a fact of which you are apparently resolved to
>> remain ignorant.
"Roy is correct when he says the Earth is bannana shaped."
"Care to present an argument or are you just thumping...??"
"He has identified a fact of which you are apparently resolved to
remain ignorant."
LMAO ;-)
> >> > Thanks for your reply, Roy; but still, it appears that under the
>> >> > circumstances initially outlined; information is the fourth factor of
>> >> > production.
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't. Without any information at all, labor and capital could
>> >> not exist. Information is an intrinsic part of labor and capital.
Bwah! And without any labor at all capital could not exist.
Thus labor is not a separate factor of production. ;-)
The Georgists are really demonstrating their logical powers today!
>> >I just don't get the last part ...
Good for you!
>> > I agree that without any information at
>> >all labour and capital could not exist but I'm thinking about new processes.
>> >Old processes can exist without _new_ information; but _new_ porcesses
>> >cannot exist without _new_ information thus, I'm arguing that since this
>> >information is necessary for the _new_ process it is a factor of production.
>>
>> But just like the old information, it is contained in labor and/or
>> capital. The only difference between the new information and the old
>> is an arbitrary legal one, not an economic one.
That is, as long as one disregards the economic cost of investing
money and labor to develop it ... to create skills sets in people so
they can use it ...to create organization structures that make its use
possible, and so on.
Hey, you're going to grad school soon aren't you?
Why are you going to be paying all that tuition and doing all that
work -- investing money and labor -- to obtain information and develop
skills that will add to your productive capacity when they *aren't
scarce*? You should already have them for free!
>> Without
>> government-granted and -enforced IP monopoly privileges, there would
>> be no separate return to information.
Bwah! ha! ha! ;-)
Nobody's ever generated income through a return to knowledge that
wasn't covered by IP laws!!
LMAO! ;-)
>> No law is needed to provide the
>> separate returns to land, labor and capital.
Really? ;-)
>> >Where am I going wrong?
>>
>> You are confusing politicians' laws with nature's laws.
Nature's law created tens of thousands of years of humanity living
with a life expectancy of 20.
Lately with a few human innovations we've been doing a little better
than that, in spite of the politicians.
>> -- Roy L
>
>thanks for your patience thus far ... have you got a suitable link/reference
>? Darren.
Well, if one doesn't have a standard text on economic development at
hand, one could, working up the intellectual ladder, in about 30
seconds, google up...
"Most modern analyses usually cite four to seven types of capital..."
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Factors%20of%20production
"Broadening the definition of capital..."
http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/capital__economics_.html as
A professors's presentation for class:
http://www.bus.lsu.edu/economics/faculty/dterrell/econ2010/chap12.ppt.
A Fed paper on the development of understanding of these issues,
covering the separate importance of "human capital", "organizational
capital", etc...
http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/qr/qr1722.pdf
And from there one can always go to the "Fed in Print", type in "human
capital" and see how many papers are pulled up.
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/fedinprint/index.html
A fair amount of references to what some claim economists say doesn't
exist -- apart from being "embodied" in old-fashioned labor and
capital! ;-)
As for Roy and the paleo-Georgists not being up on all this, you've
gotta realize they have wedded themselves inviolably to the "classical
era" truths of three factors of production, Ricardian rent, seven
planets, and the aether.
But Ricardo died in 1823, and it's not fair to push them too hard on
subsequent developments in analysis
Grinch
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:44:40 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
<darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:411bb954...@news.telus.net...
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:05:55 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>> <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:nVISc.9543$EQ5...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>> >>
>> >> To add to Roy's comments about land rent:
>> >> Classical economists defined 3 factors of production: land (==> rent),
>> >> labor (==> wages), capital (==> interest).
Yes, and classical astronomers of the same period defined the solar
system as having seven planets, and classical physicists were big on
the aether.
But 1840s definitions and analyses aren't a whole lot more convincing
in economics than anywhere else, for all that some revere the
"classics".
>> >Do you regard information as a factor of production? Darren.
>>
>> Information is considered ...
I love the passive voice. By whom?
By the authors of the scores of papers on the Fed's web site alone on
"human capital" as a separate factor of production?
>> to contribute to production as part of labor
>> and/or capital.
>> It is also not scarce as the other production factors
>> are: if it exists,
What?? It's "not scarce" but it might not exist?? So we'd have to
invest money and labor to create it?
What an odd definition of "not scarce".
>>it can be reproduced at arbitrarily low cost.
Right, the information needed for an individual to have the skill set
of an MIT-trained engineer, Harvard doctor, Wharton MBA (not to
mention that of somebody who's actually picked up worthwhile
information and skills from real-world experience) can be obtained by
anybody at "arbitrarily low cost" in terms of investment in money,
time and labor.
Suuure they can... ;-)
You could obtain all the information needed by a heart surgeon or
Fortune 500 CFO, or to pass the bar exam, tomorrow if you wanted it,
at "arbitrarily low cost".
Except for the damn copyright law!!! ;-)
>> -- Roy L
>
>If two entities attempt to produce something and one of the entities has
>information as to the method of production while the other entity does not
>have this information there will be a huge cost disparity of the otherwise
>equivalent products. As the products become more sophisticated the cost
>discrepancy can be such that without the necessary information it is not
>possible to make the product (in this case information _is_ a factor of
>production).
Of course it is. And there are *shelves* of books and papers written
on "organizational capital" -- the information and skills sets that
must be developed through investments of money and labor to provide an
organization with a structure providing a lasting level of
productivity. As a productive factor apart from the "classical
three." Post-1840s analysis.
And not in any way reliant on intellectual property laws, btw.
> As for the scarcity of information - doesn't copyright make
>information _artificially_ scarce since it cannot _legally_ be reproduced at
>arbitrarily low cost?
No.
Copyright doesn't restirct use of information at all.
Anyone can take the *information* found in a copyrighted work and do
whatever one wants with it. You can *reproduce the information* any
way you want
What one can't do is copy the other person's *presentation* of the
information, then sell that copied presentation of it as your own, to
the cost of the person who did.
On the list of onerous costs of doing business, that's about 10
millionth.
(And that's disregarding the fact that before effective copyright in
the US and Britain, compiler/publishers of commercially useful
information protected their investments in their publications by
selling them to users under *contracts* which *did* prescribe how
information could and could not be used, which terms were fully
enforcable under contract law. Which system do you prefer as a user
of information?)
>Darren.
>
>
wilfred
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a3k4i0pbbl536ulv0...@4ax.com...
One debate is as to whether education functions as "human capital",
increasing productivity, or whether it just functions as a signal that the
worker in question is a high productivity worker, so education may be
plentiful, but have no effect on productivity.
a ringing endorsement for 'islands of organisation in seas of market
transactions', and a hint that markets, just at least sometimes, don't
clear? :)
> > As for the scarcity of information - doesn't copyright make
> >information _artificially_ scarce since it cannot _legally_ be reproduced
at
> >arbitrarily low cost?
>
> No.
>
> Copyright doesn't restirct use of information at all.
>
> Anyone can take the *information* found in a copyrighted work and do
> whatever one wants with it. You can *reproduce the information* any
> way you want
Not the way UK copywright works, but it probably differs with country.
> What one can't do is copy the other person's *presentation* of the
> information, then sell that copied presentation of it as your own, to
> the cost of the person who did.
>
> On the list of onerous costs of doing business, that's about 10
> millionth.
>
> (And that's disregarding the fact that before effective copyright in
> the US and Britain, compiler/publishers of commercially useful
> information protected their investments in their publications by
> selling them to users under *contracts* which *did* prescribe how
> information could and could not be used, which terms were fully
> enforcable under contract law. Which system do you prefer as a user
> of information?)
I suppose, if we invoke Coase, it doesn't matter much.
Robert Vienneau
oldn...@mindspring.com wrote:
> What do we call a productive factor that is created and obtained by
> investment of money and labor?
>
> It is called "capital".
>
> But this sort is very clearly distinct from classical capital, an
> additional factor of production, most generically called "human
> capital". It is prominently recognized and analyzed as a distinct
> factor of productivity in the economic literature of, oh, the last
> hundred years.
> That is, as long as one disregards the economic cost of investing
> money and labor to develop it ... to create skills sets in people so
> they can use it ...to create organization structures that make its use
> possible, and so on.
>
> Hey, you're going to grad school soon aren't you?
>
> Why are you going to be paying all that tuition and doing all that
> work -- investing money and labor -- to obtain information and develop
> skills that will add to your productive capacity when they *aren't
> scarce*? You should already have them for free!
> Well, if one doesn't have a standard text on economic development at
> hand, one could, working up the intellectual ladder, in about 30
> seconds, google up...
>
> "Most modern analyses usually cite four to seven types of capital..."
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Factors%20of%20production
Jim Glass is either ignorant or just pretending there is a
settled theory on these matters.
The fact is that mainstream economists have no settled theory of
capital and what explains the returns to capital. What theories
they had were demolished years ago in the Cambridge Capital
Controversy.
And teaching reflects this confusion. Reference:
M. I. Naples and N. Aslanbigui, "What *Does* Determine the
Profit Rate? The Neoclassical Theories Presented in Introductory
Textbooks", Cambridge Journal of Economics, V. 20, p. 53-71,
1996.
This confusion is continued in theories of different types of "capital",
e.g., human capital.
I am not endorsing the views expressed elsewhere on this thread,
inasmuch as I have been paying little attention.
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
The Trucker
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:20:19 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
> <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4120edcf...@news.telus.net...
>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:03:10 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>>> <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Rue The Day" <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:a44a8c58.04081...@posting.google.com...
>>> >> "Darren Rhodes" <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:<cfnt35$gd7$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
>>> >> > <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:411dbde3...@news.telus.net...
>>> >> > > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:44:40 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>>> >> > > <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > >As the products become more sophisticated the cost
>>> >> > > >discrepancy can be such that without the necessary information
>>> >> > > >it is not possible to make the product (in this case information
>>> >> > > >_is_ a factor of production).
>
> Obviously.
It is certainly debatable. Below, Grinch does a pretty good job
of including this sort of thing into "capital". The learning
is the labor and once completed the knowledge and the skill can
be looked at as capital. And as newer discoveries come about
the stuff we have depreciates and we have to go learn some new
stuff.
>>> >> > > It is just part of labor and/or capital.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Isn't 'skill': that is, the ability to turn information into
>>> >> > knowledge and hence use it for commercial gain an intrinsic part of
>>> >> > labour?
>
> How does one obtain meaningful "skills"?
>
> By investing to obtain them -- investing money and labor.
>
> What do we call a productive factor that is created and obtained by
> investment of money and labor?
>
> It is called "capital".
>
> But this sort is very clearly distinct from classical capital, an
> additional factor of production, most generically called "human
> capital". It is prominently recognized and analyzed as a distinct
> factor of productivity in the economic literature of, oh, the last
> hundred years.
Why? I called it that without looking at the "literature".
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Real_Capital.php
> As are other lasting productive factors created by investments of
> money and labor, such as "organizational capital" and "intellectual
> (or knowledge) capital".
>
> All very distinct from the capital of the classicists.
I don't know whether that is true or not, but don't see the significance.
Like, who cares?
> ...
>>> >> No, Roy is correct. The information is embodied within the labor and
>>> >> capital.
>
>>> >Care to present an argument or are you thumping your fist on the desk
>>> >as your telling us this ???
>>>
>>> He has identified a fact of which you are apparently resolved to
>>> remain ignorant.
See the web page above for an argument as to why it is part of labor
and capital. And, unbelievably, Grinch seems to say the same thing.
But maybe he wants to separate this sort of "capital" out for special
treatment. Don't know why.
> "Roy is correct when he says the Earth is bannana shaped."
>
> "Care to present an argument or are you just thumping...??"
>
> "He has identified a fact of which you are apparently resolved to
> remain ignorant."
>
> LMAO ;-)
>
>> >> > Thanks for your reply, Roy; but still, it appears that under the
>>> >> > circumstances initially outlined; information is the fourth factor
>>> >> > of production.
>>> >>
>>> >> No, it isn't. Without any information at all, labor and capital
>>> >> could
>>> >> not exist. Information is an intrinsic part of labor and capital.
>
> Bwah! And without any labor at all capital could not exist.
This is a point with which most Georgists and Geoists would agree
and it illustrates the pernicious nature of "factors of production".
I think it is fair to say that these "factors" were adopted to ease
the burden of conveying what was already (in the eyes of the
classicals) factual and obvious.
There are but two elements in the study of economics and these
are land and man. And it seems to me that the goal of economic
inquiry is to discover how best to organize our efforts (labor)
so as to maximize the utility of land (all that is not man and all
that would still be without man) for the benefit of man. And
capital is a product of these two elements as are "goods". By
definition "capital" is not immediately consumed and is used in
the production of more capital or more goods. And it is adopted
as a factor of production by virtue of its use. It is a derived
"third" factor and all such derivatives were to be thus
encompassed by the word _capital_. We have adjectives to
differentiate forms of capital. But the stuff is still capital.
And that's my story and I'm stickin to it!
> Thus labor is not a separate factor of production. ;-)
>
> The Georgists are really demonstrating their logical powers today!
>
>>> >I just don't get the last part ...
>
> Good for you!
>
>>> > I agree that without any information at
>>> >all labour and capital could not exist but I'm thinking about new
>>> >processes. Old processes can exist without _new_ information; but _new_
>>> >porcesses cannot exist without _new_ information thus, I'm arguing that
>>> >since this information is necessary for the _new_ process it is a
>>> >factor of production.
>>>
>>> But just like the old information, it is contained in labor and/or
>>> capital. The only difference between the new information and the old
>>> is an arbitrary legal one, not an economic one.
>
> That is, as long as one disregards the economic cost of investing
> money and labor to develop it ... to create skills sets in people so
> they can use it ...to create organization structures that make its use
> possible, and so on.
>
> Hey, you're going to grad school soon aren't you?
>
> Why are you going to be paying all that tuition and doing all that
> work -- investing money and labor -- to obtain information and develop
> skills that will add to your productive capacity when they *aren't
> scarce*? You should already have them for free!
So the result of the investment is not information or knowledge as
a factor of production. It is simply intellectual capital. Darren
Rhodes seems to be saying, however, that the knowledge (information)
before it is learned by those that will apply it is a a factor of
production. e.g. as it lies there in the text it is a factor. That
is a little more tenable than the embodied knowledge inside the
graduate. I would still call it intellectual capital in any case.
It is the result of labors not consumed but used in the production
of further goods and capital. That text did not just "appear" in
the book.
>>> Without
>>> government-granted and -enforced IP monopoly privileges, there would
>>> be no separate return to information.
>
> Bwah! ha! ha! ;-)
>
> Nobody's ever generated income through a return to knowledge that
> wasn't covered by IP laws!!
>
> LMAO! ;-)
Not unless they USED the knowledge (labored) to produce something
or sold it under secrecy covenants. And the latter comes close
to being an IP type of thing.
The question is one of WHY. Why would we seek to call intellectual
capital or organizational capital some special factor?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:44:40 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
><darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:411bb954...@news.telus.net...
>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:05:55 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>>> <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"sinister" <sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>> >news:nVISc.9543$EQ5...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>>> >>
>>> >> To add to Roy's comments about land rent:
>>> >> Classical economists defined 3 factors of production: land (==> rent),
>>> >> labor (==> wages), capital (==> interest).
>
>Yes, and classical astronomers of the same period defined the solar
>system as having seven planets,
That is of course false.
>and classical physicists were big on
>the aether.
Ah. So, in your world, the falsity of any given false theory proves
that all theories of the same vintage are likewise false.
I wish I could congratulate you on setting a new Olympic record in
illogic, Grinch, but in all honesty I can't. This is pretty
pedestrian stuff, even for you. You need to work on exceeding your
personal "best."
>But 1840s definitions and analyses aren't a whole lot more convincing
>in economics than anywhere else, for all that some revere the
>"classics".
Some things are eternal. Like the dishonesty of lawyers.
>>> >Do you regard information as a factor of production? Darren.
>>>
>>> Information is considered ...
>
>I love the passive voice. By whom?
Those who are informed on the subject.
>By the authors of the scores of papers on the Fed's web site alone on
>"human capital" as a separate factor of production?
Care to specify one?
And "human capital" wouldn't happen to be, well, _labor_, would it?
>>> to contribute to production as part of labor
>>> and/or capital.
>
>>> It is also not scarce as the other production factors
>>> are: if it exists,
>
>What?? It's "not scarce" but it might not exist??
And now let's roll tape on Grinch, competing in the 3 metre strawman
event...
If it doesn't exist, how can it be a production factor?
>So we'd have to
>invest money and labor to create it?
If it doesn't exist, it's not a production factor. If it does, it's
not scarce, because it can be reproduced at arbitrarily low cost.
I realize you will never agree to know such facts, though.
>What an odd definition of "not scarce".
Just an economic one. Nothing you would ever be willing to know.
>>>it can be reproduced at arbitrarily low cost.
>
>Right, the information needed for an individual to have the skill set
>of an MIT-trained engineer, Harvard doctor, Wharton MBA (not to
>mention that of somebody who's actually picked up worthwhile
>information and skills from real-world experience) can be obtained by
>anybody at "arbitrarily low cost" in terms of investment in money,
>time and labor.
>
>Suuure they can... ;-)
Of course, you are now just surreptitiously appropriating the concept
of labor and renaming it "information."
>You could obtain all the information needed by a heart surgeon or
>Fortune 500 CFO, or to pass the bar exam, tomorrow if you wanted it,
>at "arbitrarily low cost".
Well, we know the bar exam is a pretty low hurdle (for reasons which
must be all too obvious at this moment), but I doubt the information
needed to be a heart surgeon or Fortune 500 CFO is readily available.
>Except for the damn copyright law!!! ;-)
Which you claim below has no effect....
>>If two entities attempt to produce something and one of the entities has
>>information as to the method of production while the other entity does not
>>have this information there will be a huge cost disparity of the otherwise
>>equivalent products. As the products become more sophisticated the cost
>>discrepancy can be such that without the necessary information it is not
>>possible to make the product (in this case information _is_ a factor of
>>production).
>
>Of course it is. And there are *shelves* of books and papers written
>on "organizational capital" -- the information and skills sets that
>must be developed through investments of money and labor to provide an
>organization with a structure providing a lasting level of
>productivity.
Labor and capital.
>As a productive factor apart from the "classical
>three." Post-1840s analysis.
<yawn> Communism was also post-1840s analysis....
>> As for the scarcity of information - doesn't copyright make
>>information _artificially_ scarce since it cannot _legally_ be reproduced at
>>arbitrarily low cost?
>
>No.
Ah. Grinch has denied it. No stronger proof of the previous
statement's truth could be offered.
>Copyright doesn't restirct use of information at all.
You are of course lying, as usual.
>Anyone can take the *information* found in a copyrighted work and do
>whatever one wants with it. You can *reproduce the information* any
>way you want
As long as you don't mind the occasional visit by a SWAT team...
>What one can't do is copy the other person's *presentation* of the
>information, then sell that copied presentation of it as your own, to
>the cost of the person who did.
That is of course also false, as successful copyright infringement
suits over independently written music prove. Copyright also
penalizes people for reproducing information _for_their_own_use_, no
selling of it involved.
Do you never tire of seeing your lies demolished this way, Grinch?
>On the list of onerous costs of doing business, that's about 10
>millionth.
You are lying filth. I happen to work in a business where monopoly
copyright privileges exert an increasing stranglehold, and your claims
are idiotic and laughable. Having to get and pay its "owners" for
permission to use publicly available information has become a huge
burden on production and a major financial cost.
>(And that's disregarding the fact that before effective copyright in
>the US and Britain, compiler/publishers of commercially useful
>information protected their investments in their publications by
>selling them to users under *contracts* which *did* prescribe how
>information could and could not be used, which terms were fully
>enforcable under contract law. Which system do you prefer as a user
>of information?)
I prefer the one system you can't stand: freedom.
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
<darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> I agree that without any information
> at
> all labour and capital could not exist but I'm thinking about new
> processes.
> Old processes can exist without _new_ information; but _new_ porcesses
> cannot exist without _new_ information thus, I'm arguing that since this
> information is necessary for the _new_ process it is a factor of
> production.
> Where am I going wrong?
I think that one should not analyze this situation in terms of
"information", but in terms of "entrepreneurial ability". It is
the function of the entrepreneur to identify processes that he
or she thinks may produce more or better or cheaper commodities.
This isn't really "information" existing independently of ones
beliefs and perceptions. The entrepreneur must test their beliefs
by attempting to obtain funds and testing their theory out.
Some economists, like Alfred Marshall, if I remember correctly,
thought of entrepreneurial ability as a factor of production
that would receive a equilibrium return. This idea, where the
returns to entrepreneurship is treated as a kind of wage
of skilled labor, has never made much sense to me.
It seems to me that no regular return can be expected for the
supposed insights of the entrepreneur. Sometimes the opportunities
he or she has identified will pay off handsomely. And sometimes
they will not. In any case, others will try to identify why
their competitors are making more, and attempt to emulate them.
So the returns to entrepreneurship seem like a disequilibrium
phenomenon to me. In equilibrium, these returns will either
be competed away or reduced to a rent if the entrepreneurs'
news ideas cannot be disseminated, perhaps because they
are protected by a government-granted monopoly, such as
a patent. In any case, the information obtained by the
entrepreneur will, in equilibrium, be embodied in capital
equipment, labor, business organizations, and conventional
methods of doing business.
Consider the idea that there are three factors of production,
labor, land, and capital receiving, respectively, wages,
rent, and profit or interest. And that the return to each
factor is determined by the supply and demand for that factor.
I can see why some might have read this trinitarian theory
into Adam Smith. But the Classical economists had another
theory of value and distribution. They - for example, Ricardo -
thought of the value of (gross) output as being that of the
sum of capital goods used up in production and value added
by labor. Subtract out the value of the capital goods and
wages. The net value that remains is paid out in rent and
profits. I'd like to say that the trinitarian formula is for
the vulgar and the other theory was considered more
scientific. That may be true as far as it goes, but one
should recognize that the scientific theory was a commonplace
in some popular working-class literature in the classical
period.
abacus
> the US and Britain, compiler/publishers of commercially useful
> information protected their investments in their publications by
> selling them to users under *contracts* which *did* prescribe how
> information could and could not be used, which terms were fully
> enforcable under contract law. Which system do you prefer as a user
> of information?)
>
Would those *contracts* prescribing how information could and could
not be used by similar to the licensing agreements common on most
software products these days?
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:20:19 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
><darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:4120edcf...@news.telus.net...
>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:03:10 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>>> <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Rue The Day" <ruet...@outgun.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:a44a8c58.04081...@posting.google.com...
>>> >> "Darren Rhodes" <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:<cfnt35$gd7$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
>>> >> > <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:411dbde3...@news.telus.net...
>>> >> > > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:44:40 +0000 (UTC), "Darren Rhodes"
>>> >> > > <darren....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > >As the products become more sophisticated the cost
>>> >> > > >discrepancy can be such that without the necessary information it is not
>>> >> > > >possible to make the product (in this case information _is_ a factor of
>>> >> > > >production).
>
>Obviously.
Obviously, information is _needed_ for production, but that is not
what is meant by a "factor of production." Information is embodied in
all labor and capital, and cannot be applied to production except via
labor or capital. In contrast to the true factors of production,
information is also not _occupied_ by being devoted to production.
Land, labor and capital that are devoted to the production of one
thing cannot simultaneously be devoted to production of something
else. Information can: using it for producing one thing leaves it
just as available for all other uses, productive and otherwise. These
are the reasons why information is not called a factor of production
in classical economics.
>>> >> > > It is just part of labor and/or capital.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Isn't 'skill': that is, the ability to turn information into knowledge and
>>> >> > hence use it for commercial gain an intrinsic part of labour?
>
>How does one obtain meaningful "skills"?
>
>By investing to obtain them -- investing money and labor.
>
>What do we call a productive factor that is created and obtained by
>investment of money and labor?
>
>It is called "capital".
<yawn> Labor is also created and obtained by investment of money and
labor. Does that make it capital?
Capital consists of concrete, owned physical products of human labor
that can be used for production.
>But this sort is very clearly distinct from classical capital, an
>additional factor of production, most generically called "human
>capital".
Human beings are only capital if they are slaves.
>It is prominently recognized and analyzed as a distinct
>factor of productivity in the economic literature of, oh, the last
>hundred years.
Most prominent is the lack of clear, coherent and agreed definitions
of these factors of productivity (_not_ of production). You are
confusing social, environmental factors that affect productivity with
individual factors needed for individual acts of production.
>As are other lasting productive factors created by investments of
>money and labor, such as "organizational capital" and "intellectual
>(or knowledge) capital".
>
>All very distinct from the capital of the classicists.
Yes, and not factors of production in the same sense.
>>> >> No, Roy is correct. The information is embodied within the labor and
>>> >> capital.
>
>>> >Care to present an argument or are you thumping your fist on the desk as
>>> >your telling us this ???
>>>
>>> He has identified a fact of which you are apparently resolved to
>>> remain ignorant.
>
>"Roy is correct when he says the Earth is bannana shaped."
<yawn> Please identify any information that is used in specific acts
of production but is not embodied in labor or capital.
>"Care to present an argument or are you just thumping...??"
>
>"He has identified a fact of which you are apparently resolved to
>remain ignorant."
As are you, obviously.
>> >> > Thanks for your reply, Roy; but still, it appears that under the
>>> >> > circumstances initially outlined; information is the fourth factor of
>>> >> > production.
>>> >>
>>> >> No, it isn't. Without any information at all, labor and capital could
>>> >> not exist. Information is an intrinsic part of labor and capital.
>
>Bwah! And without any labor at all capital could not exist.
>
>Thus labor is not a separate factor of production. ;-)
>
>The Georgists are really demonstrating their logical powers today!
ROTFL!!
Speaking of demonstrating logical powers, the logical implication of
the fact that capital cannot exist without labor is that labor is an
intrinsic part of (i.e., embodied in) capital, not that labor is not a
separate factor of production.
The reason information is not considered a separate factor of
production is that it is _inseparable_from_ labor and capital. Labor
and capital are only useful to production to the extent that they
embody information that is useful to production, and information is
only useful to production to the extent that it is embodied in labor
and capital.
>>> > I agree that without any information at
>>> >all labour and capital could not exist but I'm thinking about new processes.
>>> >Old processes can exist without _new_ information; but _new_ porcesses
>>> >cannot exist without _new_ information thus, I'm arguing that since this
>>> >information is necessary for the _new_ process it is a factor of production.
>>>
>>> But just like the old information, it is contained in labor and/or
>>> capital. The only difference between the new information and the old
>>> is an arbitrary legal one, not an economic one.
>
>That is, as long as one disregards the economic cost of investing
>money and labor to develop it ... to create skills sets in people so
>they can use it ...to create organization structures that make its use
>possible, and so on.
All those apply as much to old information as to new. Your argument
is without content.
>Why are you going to be paying all that tuition and doing all that
>work -- investing money and labor -- to obtain information and develop
>skills that will add to your productive capacity when they *aren't
>scarce*? You should already have them for free!
The information he needs to learn _is_ available for free, in the
university library. He is paying primarily for the services of people
who will help him learn it faster and more accurately (and for the
certification at the end that he _has_ learned it, of course).
>>> Without
>>> government-granted and -enforced IP monopoly privileges, there would
>>> be no separate return to information.
>
>Bwah! ha! ha! ;-)
>
>Nobody's ever generated income through a return to knowledge that
>wasn't covered by IP laws!!
Correct. Not a return separate from those to labor and capital.
>>> No law is needed to provide the
>>> separate returns to land, labor and capital.
>
>Really? ;-)
Well, laws are needed to divert the separate return to land into idle
landowners' pockets, but not to create that return ex nihilo, as with
IP rents.
>>> >Where am I going wrong?
>>>
>>> You are confusing politicians' laws with nature's laws.
>
>Nature's law created tens of thousands of years of humanity living
>with a life expectancy of 20.
However beneficial rule of law may be, that doesn't give politicians'
laws the status of natural laws.
>Lately with a few human innovations we've been doing a little better
>than that, in spite of the politicians.
But even more in spite of the lawyers...
>>thanks for your patience thus far ... have you got a suitable link/reference
>>? Darren.
>
>Well, if one doesn't have a standard text on economic development at
>hand, one could, working up the intellectual ladder, in about 30
>seconds, google up...
>
>"Most modern analyses usually cite four to seven types of capital..."
>http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Factors%20of%20production
<yawn> Too bad you didn't read your own source -- again:
"When disputes arise regarding these fine distinctions, most
economists will fall back to the three classical factors. No major
theory has yet substantially altered the foundation assumptions of
either "left" (Marxist) or "right" (neoclassical) theory."
>"Broadening the definition of capital..."
>http://www.fact-index.com/c/ca/capital__economics_.html
Uh-huh. Calling land "natural capital" doesn't make it into a product
of labor, and doesn't make unearned land rent into interest on
productive investment.
>A professors's presentation for class:
>http://www.bus.lsu.edu/economics/faculty/dterrell/econ2010/chap12.ppt.
Which makes a number of highly dubious claims, such as that the growth
rates of per capita GDP and population are inversely related --
despite counter-examples like the UK and Brazil, provided in the
professor's own table.
>A Fed paper on the development of understanding of these issues,
>covering the separate importance of "human capital", "organizational
>capital", etc...
>http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/qr/qr1722.pdf
Which is about the _societal_ factors that determine national
_productivity_, not the individual factors that must be applied
_separately_ to achieve each individual act of production.
>And from there one can always go to the "Fed in Print", type in "human
>capital" and see how many papers are pulled up.
>http://www.frbsf.org/publications/fedinprint/index.html
Almost all of which are about societal capital -- the environmental
factors that _affect_ production -- not the individual factors that
must be applied separately to _effect_ each separate, individual act
of production.
>As for Roy and the paleo-Georgists not being up on all this, you've
>gotta realize they have wedded themselves inviolably to the "classical
>era" truths of three factors of production, Ricardian rent, seven
>planets, and the aether.
What do you hope to gain by spewing such idiocy?
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>Some economists, like Alfred Marshall, if I remember correctly,
>thought of entrepreneurial ability as a factor of production
>that would receive a equilibrium return. This idea, where the
>returns to entrepreneurship is treated as a kind of wage
>of skilled labor, has never made much sense to me.
It makes sense if "entrepreneurial ability" is measured
tautologically, by its individual returns.
>It seems to me that no regular return can be expected for the
>supposed insights of the entrepreneur. Sometimes the opportunities
>he or she has identified will pay off handsomely. And sometimes
>they will not.
Same as the labor of a solitary worker, who will sometimes prosper,
and sometimes find he has been wasting his time and effort.
>In any case, others will try to identify why
>their competitors are making more, and attempt to emulate them.
And wage workers don't do this?
>Consider the idea that there are three factors of production,
>labor, land, and capital receiving, respectively, wages,
>rent, and profit or interest. And that the return to each
>factor is determined by the supply and demand for that factor.
This is not defensible. Supply and demand determine price, not
return.
>I can see why some might have read this trinitarian theory
>into Adam Smith. But the Classical economists had another
>theory of value and distribution. They - for example, Ricardo -
>thought of the value of (gross) output as being that of the
>sum of capital goods used up in production and value added
>by labor.
?? But where are supply and demand, here??
-- Roy L
kevincar
> "Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:KZ2Mc.8836
> $eM2.5402@attbi_s51:
>
> > Johnny 5 wrote:
> >
> >> At the end of capitalism, everyone has all of thier wants and needs
> >> satisfied right?
> >
[---]
>
> Ok so as far as the base level of maslows hierarchy, we will have reached
> a socialist system, where no baby hungers for food and no childs youth
> and fun is sacrificed. We aren't there yet, your nieghbor is starving to
> death but you want to try the 4 new kinds of bread at subway - seems
> silly doesn't it?
Hi J5-
You got a lot goin' on in this post of yours, so I'll just kinda step thru it;
The basic problem you are describing is this; Food has economic value.
Ergo, who then is going to give away something of economic value?
State and National governments have a hard time doing this, because
human nature being as it is, it soon becomes "income redistribution"
which VERY soon becomes "class warfare".
I don't understand where your Maslow statement is coming from;
All societies go all the way up and down Maslow's hierarchy. It's mostly
a matter of opportunity towards personal self-actualization that the
particular society affords its citizens... Which leads me to believe
you are confusing "rights" with "opportunity" because most nations
have personal rights that are ceterus parabus similar.
When government is involved on a very personal level (ie, Zoom camera
to your starving neighbor's shopping-cart) benefits distibution
becomes very spotty- The Clinton administration ratified "welfare
reform" which states (I'm paraphrasing here) a person has the right
to three years of *assistance* in order to become a self-sufficient
human being.
Being wholly logical, your starving neighbor has rights that are equal
to yours; but your neightbor does *not* necessarily have equal
opportunities to yours.
What you are eluding to, I believe, is that either this government
does not afford "Equal Opportunity" to people (which we've obviously
legislated to death), or you are upset because the U.S. gov't
needs "Better distribution mechanism's to the needy"... Which is
indeed a problem, because we can't even *count* poor people
when we do a national census...
Which leads exactly back to *you* -
If you actually *do* have a starving neighbor, and aren't just
talking out of your butt, have you told him/her how to apply
for welfare benefits? Every state in the Union has a web site
on how to do it.
K.C
Robert Vienneau
> >I can see why some might have read this trinitarian theory
> >into Adam Smith. But the Classical economists had another
> >theory of value and distribution. They - for example, Ricardo -
> >thought of the value of (gross) output as being that of the
> >sum of capital goods used up in production and value added
> >by labor.
> ?? But where are supply and demand, here??
"It is...not, as has been often said, the proportion between
supply and demand...which must ultimately regulate the
price of commodities...: the proportion between supply and
demand may, indeed, for a time, affect the market value of
a commodity, until it is supplied in greater or less
abundance; but this effect will be only of temporary
duration."
-- David Ricardo, Principles, Chapter XXX
"The opinion that the price of commodities depends solely
on the proportion of supply to demand, or demand to supply,
has bcome an axiom in political economy, and has been the
source of much error in that science."
-- David Ricardo, Principles, Chapter XXX
"[This opinion] is true of monopolized commodities, and
indeed of the market price of all other commodities for a
limited period...
Commodities which are monopolized, either by an individual,
or by a company, vary according to the law which Lord
Lauderdale has laid down: they fall in proportion as the
sellers augment their quantity, and rise in proportion to
the eagerness of the buyers to purchase them; their price
has no connexion with their natural value: but the prices
of commodities, which are subject to competition, and
whose quantity may be increased in any moderate degree,
will ultimately depend... not on the state of demand and
supply."
-- David Ricardo, Principles, Chapter XXX
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>In article <4123b3f9...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> >I can see why some might have read this trinitarian theory
>> >into Adam Smith. But the Classical economists had another
>> >theory of value and distribution. They - for example, Ricardo -
>> >thought of the value of (gross) output as being that of the
>> >sum of capital goods used up in production and value added
>> >by labor.
>
>> ?? But where are supply and demand, here??
>
> "It is...not, as has been often said, the proportion between
> supply and demand...which must ultimately regulate the
> price of commodities...:
It is not clear how "the proportion between supply and demand" relates
to the meeting of supply and demand curves.
>the proportion between supply and
> demand may, indeed, for a time, affect the market value of
> a commodity, until it is supplied in greater or less
> abundance; but this effect will be only of temporary
> duration."
> -- David Ricardo, Principles, Chapter XXX
Much as I respect Ricardo, this seems to be hopelessly confused. Is
not being supplied in greater or less abundance by _definition_ going
to affect supply? Ricardo seems to be claiming here that price is not
determined by supply and demand, because an increase in supply will
reduce price, and a decline in supply increase it!
> "The opinion that the price of commodities depends solely
> on the proportion of supply to demand, or demand to supply,
> has bcome an axiom in political economy, and has been the
> source of much error in that science."
> -- David Ricardo, Principles, Chapter XXX
>
> "[This opinion] is true of monopolized commodities, and
> indeed of the market price of all other commodities for a
> limited period...
Now this is a different matter. The long-term relationships of
supply, demand and price are quite different from their short-term
relationships, because price has a long-term effect on supply, via
producer decision making.
> Commodities which are monopolized, either by an individual,
> or by a company, vary according to the law which Lord
> Lauderdale has laid down: they fall in proportion as the
> sellers augment their quantity, and rise in proportion to
> the eagerness of the buyers to purchase them; their price
> has no connexion with their natural value: but the prices
> of commodities, which are subject to competition, and
> whose quantity may be increased in any moderate degree,
> will ultimately depend... not on the state of demand and
> supply."
> -- David Ricardo, Principles, Chapter XXX
See above.
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
No. Ricardo has another theory of price. He says prices are not
determined by supply and demand, except for a short period or in the
case of monopoly.
Mark Monson
"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
news:rvien-1817E5....@news.dreamscape.com...
Classical economist Henry George agrees with Ricardo that the supply and demand
effect on prices is short term correction. Once equilibrium is reestablished,
prices are based on labor saved through purchase. In a system where labor is free
to move around to find the best opportunities, and where non labor originated
production factors are not monopolized, price differential will somewhat mirror
labor input differential. But in the most accurate analysis, what sets price
difference is labor SAVED through purchasing an item rather than difference in labor
EXPENDED in production of the item.
MM
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
But the equivalent logical problem persists: is not any given point in
time part of one of those short periods within which supply and demand
will determine price?
-- Roy L
Robert Vienneau
Monson" <m_mo...@ztech.com> wrote:
As I state in my notes that I may sometime expand, George does not
accept classical economics. He mixes classical and neoclassical
ideas together in a confused fashion. My notes:
<http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/GeorgeReview.html>
I don't know what George has to do with the sort-of-conversation
that was going on. I don't recall where George puts forth the
theory that Mark Monson says he does. I don't think that Ricardo
puts forth that theory.
And George explicitly attacks various ideas that he thinks
the Classical economists put forth to explain price. See the
first two books of Progress and Poverty.
I say that Ricardo rejects the theory of supply and demand as a
theory of price, except for a short period or for monopolies. And
Mark Monson has not explained Ricardo's theory.
> In a system where
> labor is free
> to move around to find the best opportunities, and where non labor
> originated
> production factors are not monopolized, price differential will somewhat
> mirror
> labor input differential. But in the most accurate analysis, what sets
> price
> difference is labor SAVED through purchasing an item rather than
> difference in labor
> EXPENDED in production of the item.
That bit about labor saved (or labor commanded, in Smith's jargon)
is not Ricardo's theory of value. Modern economists, such as
Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz and those building on Johnny von Neumann's
endogenous growth model have shown how to make sense of Ricardo.
In particular, these economists have vindicated these statements:
"The rate of profits and of interest must depend on the
proportion of production to the consumption necessary for
such production."
-- D. Ricardo, Letter of 5 Aug. 1814 to Malthus
"A rise in wages, from an alteration in the value of money,
produces a general effect on price, and for that reason it
produces no real effect whatever on profits. On the contrary,
a rise of wages, from the circumstance of the labourer being
more liberally rewarded... has a great effect in lowering
profits. In the one case, no greater proportion
of the annual labour of the country is devoted to the support
of the labourers; in the other case, a larger portion is so
supported."
-- D. Ricardo, _Principles_, 3rd Edition, Chap. I, Sect. VII.
Ron Peterson
Supply and demand are probably determining price for a product only when
sales of that product are growing significantly more than the
population.
Conventional automobile sales aren't growing much so those prices are
constrained but hybrid vehicles (Prius, Insight) sales are growing so
the lack of supply and high demand are determining price. The use value
of the hybrid vehicles is higher because of the lower fuel costs and
that puts an upper limit on the price for hybrid vehicles.
--
Ron
Robert Vienneau
This is another one of those cases of "The less they know, the less
they know it." The question was what is Ricardo's theory. It is not
my fault that Roy does not know of the distinction between market
and "natural" prices or what the issues here are. It is not my
fault that he thinks variations around a trend must be explained
by the same theory as that that explains the size of the trend.
"...we must not be supposed to deny the accidental and
temporary deviations of the actual or market price of commodities
from this, their primary and natural price.
In the ordinary course of events, there is no commodity which
continues for any length of time to be supplied precisely in that
degree of abundance, which the wants and wishes of mankind
require, and therefore there is none which is not subject to
accidental and temporary variations of price.
It is only in consequence of such variations, that capital is
apportioned precisely, in the requisite abundance and no more,
to the production of the different commodities which happen to
be in demand. With the rise or fall of price, profits are
elevated above, or depressed below their general level, and
capital is either encouraged to enter into, or is warned to
depart from the particular employment in which the variation
has taken place.
Whilst every man is free to employ his capital where he pleases,
he will naturally seek for it that employment which is most
advantageoues; he will naturally be dissatisfied with a profit
of 10 per cent., if by removing his capital he can obtain a
profit of 15 per cent. This restless desire on the part of all
employers of stock, to quit a less profitable for a more
advantageous business, has a strong tendency to equalize the
rate of profits of all, or to fix them in such proportions,
as may in the estimation of the parties, compensate for any
advantage which one may have, or may appear to have over the
other. It is perhaps very difficult to trace the steps by
which this change is effected: it is probably effected, by a
manufacturer not absolutely changing his employment, but only
lessening the quantity of capital he has in that employment.
In all rich countries, there is a number of men forming what
is called the monied class; these men are engaged in no trade,
but live on the interest of their money, which is employed
in discounting bills, or in loans to the more industrious
part of the community. The bankers too employ a large capital
on the same objects. The capital so employed forms a circulating
capital of a large amount, and is employed, in larger or smaller
proportions, by the different trades of a country. There is
perhaps no manufacturer, however rich, who limits his business
to the extent that his own funds alone will allow: he has
always some portion of this floating capital, increasing or
diminishing according to the activity of demand for his
commodities. When the demand for silks increases, and that for
cloth diminishes, the clothier does not remove with his capital
to the silk trade, but he dismisses some of his workmen, he
discontinues his demand for the loan from bankers and monied
men; while the case of the silk manufacturer is the reverse:
he wishes to the silk trade, and thus his motive for borrowing
is increased: he borrows more, and thus capital is transferred
from one employment to another, without the necessity of a
manufacturer discontinuing his usual occupation. When we look
to the markets of a large town, and observe how regularly they
are supplied both with home and foreign commodities, in the
quantity which they are required, under all circumstances of a
varying demand, arising from the caprice of taste, or a change
in the amount of population, without often producing either
the effects of a glut from a too abundant supply, or an
enormously high price from the supply being unequal to the
demand, we must confess that the principle which apportions
capital to each trade in the precise amount that it is required,
is more active than is generally supposed.
A capitalist, in seeking profitable employment for his funds,
will naturally take into consideration all the advantages which
one occupation possesses over another. He may therefore be
willing to forego a part of his money profit, in consideration
of the security, cleanlness, ease, or any other real or
fancied advantage which one employment may possess over
another.
If from a consideration of these circumstances, the profits
of stock should be so adjusted, that in one trade they were
20, in another 25, and in another 30 per cent., they would
probably continue permanently with that relative difference,
and with that difference only; for if any cause should
elevate the profits of one of these trades 10 per cent. either
these profits would be temporary, and would soon fall back
to their usual station, or the profits of the others would
be elevated in the same proportion."
-- David Ricardo, _Principles_, Ch. iV, "On Natural and
Market Price"
ro...@telus.net
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
No, the question was, "Is it correct?"
>It is not
>my fault that Roy does not know of the distinction between market
>and "natural" prices or what the issues here are.
I believe I know it well enough, though not exactly what you mean by
"the issues here."
>It is not my
>fault that he thinks variations around a trend must be explained
>by the same theory as that that explains the size of the trend.
IMO it is rather that supply and demand do determine price, but are
not the causal primaries. Think of market price as being like the
point where a ball is caught. It depends on the catcher's position
and the path of the ball (supply and demand). But those in turn
depend on gravity, the ball's initial velocity, and the catcher's
initial position, hand-eye coordination and hand speed, among other
things.
That doesn't explain market price, except insofar as it presages a
more general and more modern concept: the effects on supply and demand
of their long-run elasticities, over time.
-- Roy L