Gee, that's a nice theory. The good thing is that we don't need to theorize about what will (continue to) happen if we don't set a living wage, we have a long history where we can show what happens when people get subservient and don't fight for their rights. They get paid less and less, and their treatment is worse and worse. The history is very real. Your theory that if we lower wages enough that somehow employers will employ the maximum amount of people, is absolutely baseless, has no history to it, and no evidence. Your assertion that setting a minimum or living wage that employers will stop hiring people, is also baseless. Employers have ALWAYS sought to hire the least amount of people possible. The idea that allowing them to treat their employees like shit will change has no basis in reality.
The other obvious thing worth pointing out, is that prices are set by supply and demand. Since there has never been 100% employment, in other words, there has always been an oversupply of labor, one can conclude that the market value of labor is heading towards $0 an hour. Clearly the price set by the market is unworkable. If employers actually hired people when the price of labor was low to non-existant, then why haven't they hired all of the Americans willing to work for less than $5.15 an hour? Why haven't they employed all of the people of Mexico, who are willing to work for whatever the market will bear? Oh wait, that's right, it's because everything you've said about employers hiring as many people as possible if the price is low enough is false.
Capitalism is a positive sum game. While I certainly disagree with that statement, in this case it makes sense. When Unions fight for extra rights, then employers who are unecessarily hoarding all that cash are forced to give some of it away. This helps out everyone in the economy (except for a very small, very wealthy group). Unions are positive sum. When a Union struggles and wins extra rights, all workers benefit. The idea that somehow by forcing employers to take care of their employees and pay them a living wage will destory the market is ridiculous. We all benefit when society consists of people that are paid well, healthy, and happy. Perhaps you would like to go back to the early 20th century when children were worked 14+ hour days, and people were treated like machines (oh, wait, that second one hasn't changed much). If it weren't for Unions, chances are that you would be working a miserable, low wage job, and the country would be entirely in the pockets of the rich by now. You have quite a bit to be grateful for, it's too bad that you don't realize it.
That's right, and because we've failed to complain about this, that's the way it's going to stay. If we had organized and fought for our rights, we wouldn't be getting screwed like this. But, becuase we're letting our employers do all the lobbying through groups such as the ITAA, we're getting screwed for another 10 years. But, maybe if you're subservient enough and let them dock your pay some more, you'll be able to hang on for a while longer. And, before you go bashing the labor movement, just remember that the only reason you're getting paid as much as you are is because of the courage of others to risk life and limb to fight for their rights. Subservience has never won extra rights. We all benefit when a group goes on strike. Because of the connected nature of the market, all employees are lifted up when even a small group wins extra rights.
There's no doubt that the dollar is highly overvalued. But the idea that middle class people, who have seen only a fraction of the profits from that inflated dollar, should be forced to continue to pay over-inflated prices to US coprorations that turn around and fire them is ridiculous. Americans pay astronimcal educational costs (not to mention over-inflated prices for nearly everything) for even a four year degree, and the primary selling point of paying this cost for their education is that employers want this or that or they are looking for a certain skill, etc. I think that it is highly deceptive to say the least, for corporations to shirk their tax responsibilities, not even perform the most basic training (instead requiring Americans to train themselves), and then, when their profits are only fabulous instead of stupendous, move their business offshore. My viewpoint is that if they are going to make money off the American people then they should pay into that system.
Speaking of Britain and India, do you want to know how the Britsh ruled India? They basically went in and got the people of India to fight each other. So, they bought off a certain small segment of the Indian population, which was then used to enforce the system of colonial rule on those below them. As long as the people of India, who were all oppressed in one or another, refused to unite, the system of rule remained intact. It wasn't until the people of India united against their oppressors that they were able to shirk the chains of colonial rule. Being more subserviant, as you are promoting that Americans do, has never won us any rights. The fact that you aren't working 16 hours a day rests on the fact that others had enough courage to form unions and take a unified stand against the power of big business and corporations. You make what you do due to the courage of others, not because you're such a subserviant, loyal worker. If you had any understanding of history, you would know this already.
isn't that he won't eventually give it all away or do some good, I believe him when he says that he will. However, people like Gates and those that run Microsoft have very little faith in people. Their arrogance is hard to beat. Even for such wildly successful people as those new hires, I wouldn't doubt for a second that they are getting a mere fraction of what Microsoft makes off them. Why would a proposed philanthropist such as Gates withhold all that cash, even from their "wildly successful" new hires? I think the answer is simple, he doesn't have faith in people to do the right thing with that money. This is of course if we take Gates at his word when he says he wants to help people with that money. While Bill Gates may eventually give talented people a chance, the damage he has done to the system by hoarding all that cash and unfairly eliminating competition far outweighs the benefits that will happen when he does give it away.
Right, but the problem is, if you wait until a resource is scarce, then you've reacted too late in many cases. It's a very risky way to run a society. It's like putting off paperwork to the last minute, it might never affect you under normal circumstances but all it takes in one slip-up and then you're in trouble.
Right, and the root of this problem is that the primary motivation of participants in capitalism is to make dollars, and there is absolutely no incentive provided to conserve resources. I was listening to the radio a couple of weeks ago (NPR I think) and there was an economist explaining the problems with GDP as a unit of measure. These problems have been know about for awhile, but nobody cares to fix them. The problem is that everything counts as an increase in GDP. So, if a natural disaster strikes, and a bunch of jobs are created to clean up the mess, that's not a loss, it's considered a plus when measured by the GDP. The GDP basically counts destruction of resources as a net positive. Can you imagine a household budget that counted debt as a net positive? Well, according to the GDP, as long as money is being exchanged, then that's a plus, never mind that the money is being spent to clean up a disaster, or build bombs (the ultimate disposable product), or create a bunch of spam, it's all classified as positive. Believe or not, the destruction caused by 9/11, hurricanes, etc. actually counts as a net positive in GDP. So, with a system of measurement that lumps in everything and counts it all as a good thing, is it any wonder that our system is so screwed up? Nowhere, not even in our tools for economic measurement, is there even a measurement for such things as wastage of natural resources, human misery, etc. What's funny, is that the bad guy in the movie "The Fifth Element" says pretty much the same thing, "I'm doing society a favor by creating all of this destruction (he's a weapons maker), see I'm creating jobs, without destruction, the peopel responsible for cleaning up this mess wouldn't have jobs." The irony is that our measurement of GDP does nothing to refute him and in fact, supports his assertion.
Setting aside the landfill situation for a moment. Why would you want to make things more difficult, more miserable, and at the same time consume more resources. This to me seems like a win, lose, lose, lose situation. 1. Automakers win. 2. Workers lose since they have to work harder. 3. The environment loeses since there is more junk being created. 4. More resources are consumed to make those cars, not to mention all the extra driving that is done. etc.
A friend of mine wondered how we would justify feeding people for free if technology replaced their jobs. My response is that in a sane society, you would simply weigh the cost of the gas that they would consume driving to work everyday, vs the output of a machine doing that job. Then you would look at the overall budget and realize that it would be cheaper just to let them do whatever they want and not come to work, than to make them burn up several gallons of gas (and other resources) a week driving their Ford Explorer to work, all so that they can be treated like a robot. There are a lot of jobs like that, jobs that aren't really needed, working in factories that are beyond obsolete, but are kept around to keep a lid on the violence that would surely ensue if half of all Americans were suddenly jobless. The problem with the current situation is that we are burning up a lot of resources to keep the illusion of market economics alive. We could just admit that it's all a sham, be done with it, and simplify things greatly, minimizing work, resource consumption, the whole ball of wax. The problem is, giving the little people all that free time would be dangerous to those in power. So, instead, the illusion must be maintained.
Why would you blame technology where blaming market economics makes more sense? Automakers are motivated by one thing, profits, and since it's more profitable to make disposable cars, that's the direction they will go. This has little to do with technology. So, perhaps you guys should quit titling your articles, "Technology makes cars disposable" and switch to a more honest assessment of the problem, which is "Market Economics makes cars disposable". In fact, the majority of the problems in the tech industry is related to the haphazard, profit motivated nature of market economics. It's a very short term kind of thinking, where somehow it makes sense to create a bunch of junk that only last 10 years. It's what I like to refer to as innovation of garbage, where the primary motivation is create products that head for the nearest landfill as quickly as possible so that another one can be sold. In a sane society, technology would be used to minimize effort, create efficient products that last, etc., in an insane society, technology is used to create extra work (extra jobs), products that fill land fills as quickly as possible, and in general, waste everyone's time. Yay capitalism. In the long run, we will need to come up with a better system than any that are around today, otherwise, it's only going to get worse.
Just one more question, if it takes huge sums of money to motivate people to create new inventions, then why do they write free software? You would think that the counterexample to your assumption would have occured to you, since you happen to be posting on a site powered by, and largely in favor of, free software. None of those people require money to get motivated. As far as weakening intellectual property, I'm assuming that you're talking about weakening it's protections for the little guy. Well, that's already a problem, and I can't see how stregthening or weakening IP laws will change that until we provide more built-in protections in the legal system for people who don't have millions to spend on lawyers.
Thankyou for the kind words. What's ironic, is that the poster that I responded to is on a site that promotes free software, software that is largely created for the pure reason that the people writing it love what they do, and yet his post is a question asking how we will motivate people to create new ideas and inventions without handing them huge sums of money. Am I the only one that sees the irony in that? He's got a counterexample to his idea staring him right in the face, and he can't see it.
I can tell that you aren't an innovator, if you were, you wouldn't buy into the pro IP arguments that are made by slick businessmen like Bill Gates. The majority of innoviation is done by Phd's and undergrads working in university research departments, many of them vastly underpaid, and who receive 90+% of their funding for this innovation from the government, not corporations, with undergrads often living below the poverty line. Perhaps if you want to understand why they perform valuable research, for stipends that would made a junior high teacher blush, then maybe you should quit watching tv and ask one of them, the answer might surprise you. But, you're probably too lazy, so I'll give you the short answer. They innoviate, write software, design buildings, perform research, because they have a love for science and creating ideas, systems, etc.. Then once enough research is performed, in the pharmaceutical industry, for example, then the giant megacorp completes the last 1% of work required to test said drug and patent, and then rip off taxpayers to the tune of billions. Most of the "innovation" done by drug companies is developing better search engines so that they can more efficiently mine the public literature. That's right, you pay for the majority of the research through government grants, and then said corporation rips you off. Pretty neat, huh? And you wonder where your taxpayer money is going.... *smirk*
Just as an aside, my handle is composer777, and yes, I have another degree in music. Much the same thing happens in music. Musicians practice and play because they love what they do. They get really good, then megacorp comes along, picks and chooses who they want, makes a bundle off the hard work of that musician, and tosses them away. If you ask them why they are so greedy, they'll tell you because it's the only way to motivate people to create good music. Bullshit, the best musicians would play no matter what they are getting paid. They charge $20 for a CD because they know morons like you are dumb enough to buy into their propaganda.
Given the fact that the majority of innovation is financed by the US government, not corporations, and only 40% of corporations paid taxes during the boom years of 1996-2000, how does bleeding the tax base dry foster innovation? Wouldn't a better way to provide value to the American people be to give them their money back, with interest?
If you need information on how the government finances the majority of innovation, then you can take a look at this: 1. www.nih.gov. The NIH, otherwise known as the Nation Institute of Health, pays for the majority of research into promising new drugs. Most of the grants provided by the NIH is given to scientists making approximately 30-40K a year (which is strong evidence of the fact that stupendous profits are not necessary for innovation). When drug companies talk about innovation, they are referring to innovating new search technologies (yes, really) that will allow them to search through public research databases even quicker, so that they can then patent the drug and rip off the American public. 2. www.darpa.gov. DARPA, is the branch of the defense department responsible for creating the internet. Control over the internet was then handed over to private corporations in the 1990's. 3. Looking at the history of Telecommunications shows a case of an industry that was given billions by the government, as well as special rights and priveledges to exclusively provide for this needed infrastructure. 4. The US airline industry was also financed largely by the US governemtn. Most US airline companies, such as Boeing, Northrup Gruman, Lockheed Martin, got the majority of their money through lucrative gravy train defense contracts. Despite recent complaints of regulation, the airline industry would likely not exist if it were not for the money poured into it's coffers by big government. 5. Cable is yet another example. 6. The power industry has also enjoyed quite a bit of lucrative profits from regulation.
If we look at the big cash cows of the future, mainly pharmaceuticals and biotech, the majority of it is government funded. If we look at the electronics industry, the majority of the foundation was laid down by the US government. So, my question is, what have corporations done with our money? Where is it? Why aren't they willing to pay taxes to the government and people that have given them so much? Why should the American people let you leave the country without turning you upside down and shaking out every red cent that you have stolen from us?
1) By minimal living standards, I'm talking about freedom. You are right that one of the arguments made in favor of slavery was that slave owners would take good care of their slaves since they owned them, rather than "renting" them, and that slavery was not abolished merely to increase material wealth among the slaves. It was just about protecting the rights of non-whites, otherwise, indentured servitude (which was a contributing factor to the rise of slavery) would have still been allowed.
2)From everything I have read, Chomsky is against free markets, for the reason that completely free markets result in large amounts of power with no accountability. You are correct that he argues that currently we have no free market, since the government lavishes billions on private corporations. However, even if Chomsky was for free markets, that has little bearing on the fact that free markets result in far less than optimal solutions to our social problems. Markets do nothing to address certain social needs, such as the need for long term thinking and planning, and enforcing the concept of free markets strictly requires that one does not pay attention to these issues, but instead, religiously believe that eventually things will even out. Markets are painfully short-sighted in their approach, Chomsky in fact argues that subsidy is a good thing, and that markets are a bad thing. Markets are fundamentally irrational, and therefore are a horribly chaotic way to address such things as the environment, long term scientific research, etc. If it weren't for government subsidy, we wouldn't be having this conversation, since it is highly unlikely that ARPANET, and as a result, the internet, would have come about. The same can be said for quite a bit of the progress that has come from governmnt funding. Chomsky does not argue against this subsidy, instead, he says it is necessary, he argues against handing the technology, and as a result, the profits, to the wealthiest few in our society.
That's just a follow-up to my last post. If you can actually derirve some kind of formula explaining property rights, or why IBM should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property, I would certainly like to see it. The last time I checked, things such as property rights, freedom of speech, etc., were decided simply because people thought that it would be a good thing to have in a society, not based on some kind of "logical" or mathematical proof. You see, American isn't the kind of country where we simply let people starve and work as slaves for the rich, we're not 3rd world Brazil you know, at least not yet.
Not to mention, as I said below, that there is no logical basis for IBM's right to their property. IBM has property rights because at some point, people decide that a fundamental right to property would be a nice thing to have. However, it's important to note that arguing in favor of IBM's current right to do whatever they want with their property is not an argument based on logic anymore than arguing in favor the right for food and shelter. The fact that people think logic has anything to do with this is evidence of just how poor the US educational system is at teaching logic and reason. I know, teaching people how to think would probably be a bit dangerous to current US society, but it would be nice if they quit using logic all the time when talking about rights. I suppose what he means by logic is "principles that I have never questioned", in this case, IBM's "right" to do whatever they want with their property.
One of my favorite catchphrases is to sarcastically say,"Why shouldn't someone be allowed to do X?" It's a lot of fun to do, especially after completely demolishing someone's perspective by shining a blinding light on reality.
It does no good to ask these questions without taking a serious look at reality. When you do, you will find all the answers that you need. There is no doubt that limiting freedom should not be done in an arbitrary and reckless manner, and that the burden of proof is on those who seek to limit freedom. However, all one has to do is look at the evidence to see that market fundamentalism is a horrible and flawed social policy. No one in their right mind asks questions such as, "Why shouldn't people be allowed to trade stocks using insider information? Who are we to limit their freedom of speech?" At least, no one that has studied the Great Depression.
And, if we take a look at what is happening with "Free" trade, we can see that it is being used as a tool to crush the weak. It is placing property rights above all other rights, in fact, it doesn't even recognize such basic things as being able to eat, or have decent healthcare as rights. In the point of view of market fundamentalists, the only things worth protecting are the rights of IBM, and those with property, to enjoy their property, and everyone else can starve and die, since they have no rights. This is all good and well, until one realizes that there is no logical basis for rights at all. Rights are whatever we decide them to be. Therefore, it makes no logical sense to promote IBM's right to their property any more than it does to promote the right of working people to have food, shelter, and decent medical care. We decide what should be a right based on what kind of society we want. If we want a society where IBM can dump a thousand people out on the street on a whim, and those people have no protections, then we can keep going in the direction "free" trade and market fundamentalism. If we want a society that treats each human being with dignity and respect, and gives everyone in it a way of contributing (including the 8-10% that are now unemployed), then we can give more priority to things such as a right to work, right to medical care, etc. There is no logic to it, it's based on what you feel is right. Logic is a tool, and it's application to this kind of problem is severely limited.
The reason why IBM, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want with their property is because property rights should be balanced with other desirable social ends. Honoring property rights should not trump all other social policy. If IBM moves their money to some other country, and as a result, thousands of people lose their jobs, the environment of the world takes a turn for the worse as IBM and others take advantage of India's inferior environmental protections, and the overall standard of living takes a nose dive, as IBM pockets the difference in increases profits, then we need to take a serious look at whether IBM's right over their property should come above other's standards of living, the envrionment, etc. These things do not operate in a vacuum, and if you want to understand the issue, it pays to realize that what IBM does affects not only itself, but a large amount of other people. Therefore, IBM should behave with an appropriate amount of responsibility, that is, if we want a society that behaves in a sane manner. My ownership of a 700 watt stereo does not give me the right to turn the volume up any more than IBM's right to it's property should give it absolute power over that property. The same reason why we outlawed slavery can be used as a basis for arguing against free trade. Slavery was outlawed because it was understood that freedom of contract should not take precedence over things such as a minimal standard of living for all. In a society that places freedom of contract, and property rights, above all else, the logical extension is, of course slavery, as those without po
I didn't get that implication at all. The absence of morality doesn't mean that something is immoral, it means that it is amoral. For example, my computer lacks morals, that does not mean it is immoral, it is AMORAL, meaning that it is a system that does not concern or address the issue of morals. I think it is safe to say, with all of the cases of immoral behavior that we have seen from CEOs, that capitalism is not a system that concerns itself with morality. In fact, capitalism does quite a bit to hide immoral practices among the participants. So, I could go and buy a shirt, and have no idea that it is being made in some 3rd world sweatshop without putting out a considerable effort at research the particular company. On the other side, I might have gotten my money by robbing a bank, and a store that takes my money would have to put out a considerable effort to find this out. Capitalism in fact hides quite a bit of immoral behavior, and aruably encourages it. So, for someone to say that free trade encourages moral decision-making is ludicrous. Arguably, by moving labor to the other side of the planet, it does a great deal to hide the conditions under which those laborers toil. If a CEO is working people to death in some 3rd world country, one could buy his company's product and be none-the-wiser. Of course, he's just doing his job, it's the existnce of the job itself(in this case, CEO) , and the supporting institutions (otherwise known as corporations) that should be questioned.
I don't think anyone has ever said that hiring people in other countries is immoral. That is not the heart of the issue. I suppose it depends on how far someone has to be taken advantage of before it becomes morally suspect. If you think that everything goes as long as both parties agree to it, then keep in mind that by logical extension you are also supporting indentured servitude and slavery, since there are many cases of people voluntarily entering into indentured servitude. The gripe most people have with "free" trade, is that in many parts of the world, it's resulting in conditions not unlike slavery, and also pushing American jobs in that direction (yes, we still have a way to go before things get as bad as they were in the past).
The US military budget is greater than the next ten largest military budgets combined. I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has quite a a bit more military power than even all of the nations in the EU. Now, economically, the EU can definitely compete with the US, as is being shown by the falling value of the dollar in relation to the euro. And, if it's worth anything, I highly doubt that the US could win an all out war with the EU without annihilating the entire world in the process. So, it's not likely that we'll be invading Europe any time soon.
and commodities don't have a right to complain. Commodities are supposed to happily participate in the market and flow to wherever there is demand. If I buy a car, it doesn't complain that I didn't pay enough for it, or that I'm relocating it to a different state. The same goes for workers, if one loses their job, no problem, just move to India, where there is apparently greater demand. My car wouldn't complain about having to go to India, so why should I? Why should it be any different when dealing with workers? They're just commodities, they have no rights.
This is of course what market fundamentalism is about. It's about relegating worker's rights to the scrap heap, not even recognizing them, and putting the rights of property owners first. And, as commodities, we aren't supposed to complain, we're supposed to simply go somewhere else if we don't like the conditions, and let the invisible hand work it's magic. And, when there is nowhere else to go, we're supposed to shut up, like any other commodity would. The one crucial fact that you are overlooking is that people are not commodities.
Oh yes, that's right, the government. The government formed the internet for military and academic useage. Then access to that network was handed over to private corporations in the 90's. Anyone who thinks that the government can't create a network infrastructure would be well-served by remembering who invented it in the first place.
There is no doubt that the GPL is a bit reactionary and short-sighted. The obvious question of how developers are going to eat is an important one, and we need to come up with a better system than the one we have currently. (However, we could also ask the question of where the money goes in our current system, and the majority of it doesn't go to the developers). In the long run, we will need to figure out a way to feed the people that develop open source software, that is, if we want a self-sustaining movement. There is no reason that someone who forks over $50,000+ to get a degree in CS should have to bag groceries in order to eat.
What makes the GPL unique isn't the amount of control that it has, but instead is the fact that this control doesn't directly serve large corporations. The GPL doesn't directly serve large corporations, and whatever service it does provide to the likes of an IBM, it does much more to free the grip of corporate software control than it does to help it. Just because the GPL benefits IBM doesn't mean that we should quit supporting it. An atmosphere containing oxygen also benefits IBM, that's not an argument against it.
After all, in our current system, what's the alternative? The alternative is handing complete control back to IBM, Microsoft, et al. You don't fight tyranny by giving in to it. I think that's a point of the GPL, is to show that copyrights and patents are a horribly flawed system that gives too much control to the owners of a particular idea. By arguing against the GPL, IP owners such as Bill Gates are in fact supporting the spirit of RMS's ideas, which to me are about removing the coporate control over ideas that is enforced through our current patent and copyright system. The viral nature of copyrights didn't start with the GPL, the viral and hierarchical nature of ideas has been exploited by private power for decades in order to overcharge for the valuable service of being there first. The controversy is over the fact that for the first time the viral nature of copyrights isn't serving to enforce and protect private dictatorships such as Microsoft.
I like Chomsky's response to such philosophical discussion, which is that while it might be very interesting on an academic level, that it can also tend to be a waste of time and distract us from real world problems. Discussing ideas too much outside of the scope of reality can often take one so far away from reality that the discussion becomes abstract to the point of meaninglessness. In order to reach a true understanding, we need to remain cognizant of the real world ramifications of these concepts. This should always be the measuring stick for social policy, the real world ramifications, not logical correctness or academic purity. If an idea is perfect, and logical, but it's result is pain, suffering, and loss of freedom, then the idea should be thrown out, and the problems solved.
The problem with too much academic discussion, is that while we're trying to come up with the perfect logic to explain why things need to change, others are suffering. Devoting too much time to finding a purely logical and abstract solution is metaphorically equivalent to not saving your friend's life because you're busy trying to logically justify why he has a right to live. If we take this approach with such complex problems as intellectual property, market economics, and other stuff, society may well come and go before we come up with any academically pure and philosophically coherent vision. Sometimes, you just need to do what is right because you think it's the right thing to do. Our opponents aren't logical, that is obvious, but they'll be happy to wait for you to come up with a logical argument for your side. In the mean-time, they'll be busy plundering the planet while we come up with philosophical arguments for why they should stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, that's a nice theory. The good thing is that we don't need to theorize about what will (continue to) happen if we don't set a living wage, we have a long history where we can show what happens when people get subservient and don't fight for their rights. They get paid less and less, and their treatment is worse and worse. The history is very real. Your theory that if we lower wages enough that somehow employers will employ the maximum amount of people, is absolutely baseless, has no history to it, and no evidence. Your assertion that setting a minimum or living wage that employers will stop hiring people, is also baseless. Employers have ALWAYS sought to hire the least amount of people possible. The idea that allowing them to treat their employees like shit will change has no basis in reality.
The other obvious thing worth pointing out, is that prices are set by supply and demand. Since there has never been 100% employment, in other words, there has always been an oversupply of labor, one can conclude that the market value of labor is heading towards $0 an hour. Clearly the price set by the market is unworkable. If employers actually hired people when the price of labor was low to non-existant, then why haven't they hired all of the Americans willing to work for less than $5.15 an hour? Why haven't they employed all of the people of Mexico, who are willing to work for whatever the market will bear? Oh wait, that's right, it's because everything you've said about employers hiring as many people as possible if the price is low enough is false.
Capitalism is a positive sum game. While I certainly disagree with that statement, in this case it makes sense. When Unions fight for extra rights, then employers who are unecessarily hoarding all that cash are forced to give some of it away. This helps out everyone in the economy (except for a very small, very wealthy group). Unions are positive sum. When a Union struggles and wins extra rights, all workers benefit. The idea that somehow by forcing employers to take care of their employees and pay them a living wage will destory the market is ridiculous. We all benefit when society consists of people that are paid well, healthy, and happy. Perhaps you would like to go back to the early 20th century when children were worked 14+ hour days, and people were treated like machines (oh, wait, that second one hasn't changed much). If it weren't for Unions, chances are that you would be working a miserable, low wage job, and the country would be entirely in the pockets of the rich by now. You have quite a bit to be grateful for, it's too bad that you don't realize it.
That's right, and because we've failed to complain about this, that's the way it's going to stay. If we had organized and fought for our rights, we wouldn't be getting screwed like this. But, becuase we're letting our employers do all the lobbying through groups such as the ITAA, we're getting screwed for another 10 years. But, maybe if you're subservient enough and let them dock your pay some more, you'll be able to hang on for a while longer. And, before you go bashing the labor movement, just remember that the only reason you're getting paid as much as you are is because of the courage of others to risk life and limb to fight for their rights. Subservience has never won extra rights. We all benefit when a group goes on strike. Because of the connected nature of the market, all employees are lifted up when even a small group wins extra rights.
There's no doubt that the dollar is highly overvalued. But the idea that middle class people, who have seen only a fraction of the profits from that inflated dollar, should be forced to continue to pay over-inflated prices to US coprorations that turn around and fire them is ridiculous. Americans pay astronimcal educational costs (not to mention over-inflated prices for nearly everything) for even a four year degree, and the primary selling point of paying this cost for their education is that employers want this or that or they are looking for a certain skill, etc. I think that it is highly deceptive to say the least, for corporations to shirk their tax responsibilities, not even perform the most basic training (instead requiring Americans to train themselves), and then, when their profits are only fabulous instead of stupendous, move their business offshore. My viewpoint is that if they are going to make money off the American people then they should pay into that system.
Speaking of Britain and India, do you want to know how the Britsh ruled India? They basically went in and got the people of India to fight each other. So, they bought off a certain small segment of the Indian population, which was then used to enforce the system of colonial rule on those below them. As long as the people of India, who were all oppressed in one or another, refused to unite, the system of rule remained intact. It wasn't until the people of India united against their oppressors that they were able to shirk the chains of colonial rule. Being more subserviant, as you are promoting that Americans do, has never won us any rights. The fact that you aren't working 16 hours a day rests on the fact that others had enough courage to form unions and take a unified stand against the power of big business and corporations. You make what you do due to the courage of others, not because you're such a subserviant, loyal worker. If you had any understanding of history, you would know this already.
isn't that he won't eventually give it all away or do some good, I believe him when he says that he will. However, people like Gates and those that run Microsoft have very little faith in people. Their arrogance is hard to beat. Even for such wildly successful people as those new hires, I wouldn't doubt for a second that they are getting a mere fraction of what Microsoft makes off them. Why would a proposed philanthropist such as Gates withhold all that cash, even from their "wildly successful" new hires? I think the answer is simple, he doesn't have faith in people to do the right thing with that money. This is of course if we take Gates at his word when he says he wants to help people with that money. While Bill Gates may eventually give talented people a chance, the damage he has done to the system by hoarding all that cash and unfairly eliminating competition far outweighs the benefits that will happen when he does give it away.
Right, but the problem is, if you wait until a resource is scarce, then you've reacted too late in many cases. It's a very risky way to run a society. It's like putting off paperwork to the last minute, it might never affect you under normal circumstances but all it takes in one slip-up and then you're in trouble.
Right, and the root of this problem is that the primary motivation of participants in capitalism is to make dollars, and there is absolutely no incentive provided to conserve resources. I was listening to the radio a couple of weeks ago (NPR I think) and there was an economist explaining the problems with GDP as a unit of measure. These problems have been know about for awhile, but nobody cares to fix them. The problem is that everything counts as an increase in GDP. So, if a natural disaster strikes, and a bunch of jobs are created to clean up the mess, that's not a loss, it's considered a plus when measured by the GDP. The GDP basically counts destruction of resources as a net positive. Can you imagine a household budget that counted debt as a net positive? Well, according to the GDP, as long as money is being exchanged, then that's a plus, never mind that the money is being spent to clean up a disaster, or build bombs (the ultimate disposable product), or create a bunch of spam, it's all classified as positive. Believe or not, the destruction caused by 9/11, hurricanes, etc. actually counts as a net positive in GDP. So, with a system of measurement that lumps in everything and counts it all as a good thing, is it any wonder that our system is so screwed up? Nowhere, not even in our tools for economic measurement, is there even a measurement for such things as wastage of natural resources, human misery, etc. What's funny, is that the bad guy in the movie "The Fifth Element" says pretty much the same thing, "I'm doing society a favor by creating all of this destruction (he's a weapons maker), see I'm creating jobs, without destruction, the peopel responsible for cleaning up this mess wouldn't have jobs." The irony is that our measurement of GDP does nothing to refute him and in fact, supports his assertion.
Setting aside the landfill situation for a moment. Why would you want to make things more difficult, more miserable, and at the same time consume more resources. This to me seems like a win, lose, lose, lose situation.
1. Automakers win.
2. Workers lose since they have to work harder.
3. The environment loeses since there is more junk being created.
4. More resources are consumed to make those cars, not to mention all the extra driving that is done. etc.
A friend of mine wondered how we would justify feeding people for free if technology replaced their jobs. My response is that in a sane society, you would simply weigh the cost of the gas that they would consume driving to work everyday, vs the output of a machine doing that job. Then you would look at the overall budget and realize that it would be cheaper just to let them do whatever they want and not come to work, than to make them burn up several gallons of gas (and other resources) a week driving their Ford Explorer to work, all so that they can be treated like a robot. There are a lot of jobs like that, jobs that aren't really needed, working in factories that are beyond obsolete, but are kept around to keep a lid on the violence that would surely ensue if half of all Americans were suddenly jobless. The problem with the current situation is that we are burning up a lot of resources to keep the illusion of market economics alive. We could just admit that it's all a sham, be done with it, and simplify things greatly, minimizing work, resource consumption, the whole ball of wax. The problem is, giving the little people all that free time would be dangerous to those in power. So, instead, the illusion must be maintained.
"Market Economics makes cars disposable"
should have been...
"Technology Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix"
and this
"Market Economics makes cars disposable"
should have been this...
"Market Economics Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix"
but I suppose you guys are smart enough to figure that out. Time for more caffeine...
Why would you blame technology where blaming market economics makes more sense? Automakers are motivated by one thing, profits, and since it's more profitable to make disposable cars, that's the direction they will go. This has little to do with technology. So, perhaps you guys should quit titling your articles, "Technology makes cars disposable" and switch to a more honest assessment of the problem, which is "Market Economics makes cars disposable". In fact, the majority of the problems in the tech industry is related to the haphazard, profit motivated nature of market economics. It's a very short term kind of thinking, where somehow it makes sense to create a bunch of junk that only last 10 years. It's what I like to refer to as innovation of garbage, where the primary motivation is create products that head for the nearest landfill as quickly as possible so that another one can be sold. In a sane society, technology would be used to minimize effort, create efficient products that last, etc., in an insane society, technology is used to create extra work (extra jobs), products that fill land fills as quickly as possible, and in general, waste everyone's time. Yay capitalism. In the long run, we will need to come up with a better system than any that are around today, otherwise, it's only going to get worse.
Just one more question, if it takes huge sums of money to motivate people to create new inventions, then why do they write free software? You would think that the counterexample to your assumption would have occured to you, since you happen to be posting on a site powered by, and largely in favor of, free software. None of those people require money to get motivated. As far as weakening intellectual property, I'm assuming that you're talking about weakening it's protections for the little guy. Well, that's already a problem, and I can't see how stregthening or weakening IP laws will change that until we provide more built-in protections in the legal system for people who don't have millions to spend on lawyers.
Thankyou for the kind words. What's ironic, is that the poster that I responded to is on a site that promotes free software, software that is largely created for the pure reason that the people writing it love what they do, and yet his post is a question asking how we will motivate people to create new ideas and inventions without handing them huge sums of money. Am I the only one that sees the irony in that? He's got a counterexample to his idea staring him right in the face, and he can't see it.
I can tell that you aren't an innovator, if you were, you wouldn't buy into the pro IP arguments that are made by slick businessmen like Bill Gates. The majority of innoviation is done by Phd's and undergrads working in university research departments, many of them vastly underpaid, and who receive 90+% of their funding for this innovation from the government, not corporations, with undergrads often living below the poverty line. Perhaps if you want to understand why they perform valuable research, for stipends that would made a junior high teacher blush, then maybe you should quit watching tv and ask one of them, the answer might surprise you. But, you're probably too lazy, so I'll give you the short answer. They innoviate, write software, design buildings, perform research, because they have a love for science and creating ideas, systems, etc.. Then once enough research is performed, in the pharmaceutical industry, for example, then the giant megacorp completes the last 1% of work required to test said drug and patent, and then rip off taxpayers to the tune of billions. Most of the "innovation" done by drug companies is developing better search engines so that they can more efficiently mine the public literature. That's right, you pay for the majority of the research through government grants, and then said corporation rips you off. Pretty neat, huh? And you wonder where your taxpayer money is going.... *smirk*
Just as an aside, my handle is composer777, and yes, I have another degree in music. Much the same thing happens in music. Musicians practice and play because they love what they do. They get really good, then megacorp comes along, picks and chooses who they want, makes a bundle off the hard work of that musician, and tosses them away. If you ask them why they are so greedy, they'll tell you because it's the only way to motivate people to create good music. Bullshit, the best musicians would play no matter what they are getting paid. They charge $20 for a CD because they know morons like you are dumb enough to buy into their propaganda.
Given the fact that the majority of innovation is financed by the US government, not corporations, and only 40% of corporations paid taxes during the boom years of 1996-2000, how does bleeding the tax base dry foster innovation? Wouldn't a better way to provide value to the American people be to give them their money back, with interest?
If you need information on how the government finances the majority of innovation, then you can take a look at this:
1. www.nih.gov. The NIH, otherwise known as the Nation Institute of Health, pays for the majority of research into promising new drugs. Most of the grants provided by the NIH is given to scientists making approximately 30-40K a year (which is strong evidence of the fact that stupendous profits are not necessary for innovation). When drug companies talk about innovation, they are referring to innovating new search technologies (yes, really) that will allow them to search through public research databases even quicker, so that they can then patent the drug and rip off the American public.
2. www.darpa.gov. DARPA, is the branch of the defense department responsible for creating the internet. Control over the internet was then handed over to private corporations in the 1990's.
3. Looking at the history of Telecommunications shows a case of an industry that was given billions by the government, as well as special rights and priveledges to exclusively provide for this needed infrastructure.
4. The US airline industry was also financed largely by the US governemtn. Most US airline companies, such as Boeing, Northrup Gruman, Lockheed Martin, got the majority of their money through lucrative gravy train defense contracts. Despite recent complaints of regulation, the airline industry would likely not exist if it were not for the money poured into it's coffers by big government.
5. Cable is yet another example.
6. The power industry has also enjoyed quite a bit of lucrative profits from regulation.
If we look at the big cash cows of the future, mainly pharmaceuticals and biotech, the majority of it is government funded. If we look at the electronics industry, the majority of the foundation was laid down by the US government. So, my question is, what have corporations done with our money? Where is it? Why aren't they willing to pay taxes to the government and people that have given them so much? Why should the American people let you leave the country without turning you upside down and shaking out every red cent that you have stolen from us?
1) By minimal living standards, I'm talking about freedom. You are right that one of the arguments made in favor of slavery was that slave owners would take good care of their slaves since they owned them, rather than "renting" them, and that slavery was not abolished merely to increase material wealth among the slaves. It was just about protecting the rights of non-whites, otherwise, indentured servitude (which was a contributing factor to the rise of slavery) would have still been allowed.
2)From everything I have read, Chomsky is against free markets, for the reason that completely free markets result in large amounts of power with no accountability. You are correct that he argues that currently we have no free market, since the government lavishes billions on private corporations. However, even if Chomsky was for free markets, that has little bearing on the fact that free markets result in far less than optimal solutions to our social problems. Markets do nothing to address certain social needs, such as the need for long term thinking and planning, and enforcing the concept of free markets strictly requires that one does not pay attention to these issues, but instead, religiously believe that eventually things will even out. Markets are painfully short-sighted in their approach, Chomsky in fact argues that subsidy is a good thing, and that markets are a bad thing. Markets are fundamentally irrational, and therefore are a horribly chaotic way to address such things as the environment, long term scientific research, etc. If it weren't for government subsidy, we wouldn't be having this conversation, since it is highly unlikely that ARPANET, and as a result, the internet, would have come about. The same can be said for quite a bit of the progress that has come from governmnt funding. Chomsky does not argue against this subsidy, instead, he says it is necessary, he argues against handing the technology, and as a result, the profits, to the wealthiest few in our society.
That's just a follow-up to my last post. If you can actually derirve some kind of formula explaining property rights, or why IBM should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property, I would certainly like to see it. The last time I checked, things such as property rights, freedom of speech, etc., were decided simply because people thought that it would be a good thing to have in a society, not based on some kind of "logical" or mathematical proof. You see, American isn't the kind of country where we simply let people starve and work as slaves for the rich, we're not 3rd world Brazil you know, at least not yet.
Not to mention, as I said below, that there is no logical basis for IBM's right to their property. IBM has property rights because at some point, people decide that a fundamental right to property would be a nice thing to have. However, it's important to note that arguing in favor of IBM's current right to do whatever they want with their property is not an argument based on logic anymore than arguing in favor the right for food and shelter. The fact that people think logic has anything to do with this is evidence of just how poor the US educational system is at teaching logic and reason. I know, teaching people how to think would probably be a bit dangerous to current US society, but it would be nice if they quit using logic all the time when talking about rights. I suppose what he means by logic is "principles that I have never questioned", in this case, IBM's "right" to do whatever they want with their property.
One of my favorite catchphrases is to sarcastically say,"Why shouldn't someone be allowed to do X?" It's a lot of fun to do, especially after completely demolishing someone's perspective by shining a blinding light on reality.
It does no good to ask these questions without taking a serious look at reality. When you do, you will find all the answers that you need. There is no doubt that limiting freedom should not be done in an arbitrary and reckless manner, and that the burden of proof is on those who seek to limit freedom. However, all one has to do is look at the evidence to see that market fundamentalism is a horrible and flawed social policy. No one in their right mind asks questions such as,
"Why shouldn't people be allowed to trade stocks using insider information? Who are we to limit their freedom of speech?"
At least, no one that has studied the Great Depression.
And, if we take a look at what is happening with "Free" trade, we can see that it is being used as a tool to crush the weak. It is placing property rights above all other rights, in fact, it doesn't even recognize such basic things as being able to eat, or have decent healthcare as rights. In the point of view of market fundamentalists, the only things worth protecting are the rights of IBM, and those with property, to enjoy their property, and everyone else can starve and die, since they have no rights. This is all good and well, until one realizes that there is no logical basis for rights at all. Rights are whatever we decide them to be. Therefore, it makes no logical sense to promote IBM's right to their property any more than it does to promote the right of working people to have food, shelter, and decent medical care. We decide what should be a right based on what kind of society we want. If we want a society where IBM can dump a thousand people out on the street on a whim, and those people have no protections, then we can keep going in the direction "free" trade and market fundamentalism. If we want a society that treats each human being with dignity and respect, and gives everyone in it a way of contributing (including the 8-10% that are now unemployed), then we can give more priority to things such as a right to work, right to medical care, etc. There is no logic to it, it's based on what you feel is right. Logic is a tool, and it's application to this kind of problem is severely limited.
The reason why IBM, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want with their property is because property rights should be balanced with other desirable social ends. Honoring property rights should not trump all other social policy. If IBM moves their money to some other country, and as a result, thousands of people lose their jobs, the environment of the world takes a turn for the worse as IBM and others take advantage of India's inferior environmental protections, and the overall standard of living takes a nose dive, as IBM pockets the difference in increases profits, then we need to take a serious look at whether IBM's right over their property should come above other's standards of living, the envrionment, etc. These things do not operate in a vacuum, and if you want to understand the issue, it pays to realize that what IBM does affects not only itself, but a large amount of other people. Therefore, IBM should behave with an appropriate amount of responsibility, that is, if we want a society that behaves in a sane manner. My ownership of a 700 watt stereo does not give me the right to turn the volume up any more than IBM's right to it's property should give it absolute power over that property. The same reason why we outlawed slavery can be used as a basis for arguing against free trade. Slavery was outlawed because it was understood that freedom of contract should not take precedence over things such as a minimal standard of living for all. In a society that places freedom of contract, and property rights, above all else, the logical extension is, of course slavery, as those without po
I didn't get that implication at all. The absence of morality doesn't mean that something is immoral, it means that it is amoral. For example, my computer lacks morals, that does not mean it is immoral, it is AMORAL, meaning that it is a system that does not concern or address the issue of morals. I think it is safe to say, with all of the cases of immoral behavior that we have seen from CEOs, that capitalism is not a system that concerns itself with morality. In fact, capitalism does quite a bit to hide immoral practices among the participants. So, I could go and buy a shirt, and have no idea that it is being made in some 3rd world sweatshop without putting out a considerable effort at research the particular company. On the other side, I might have gotten my money by robbing a bank, and a store that takes my money would have to put out a considerable effort to find this out. Capitalism in fact hides quite a bit of immoral behavior, and aruably encourages it. So, for someone to say that free trade encourages moral decision-making is ludicrous. Arguably, by moving labor to the other side of the planet, it does a great deal to hide the conditions under which those laborers toil. If a CEO is working people to death in some 3rd world country, one could buy his company's product and be none-the-wiser. Of course, he's just doing his job, it's the existnce of the job itself(in this case, CEO) , and the supporting institutions (otherwise known as corporations) that should be questioned.
I don't think anyone has ever said that hiring people in other countries is immoral. That is not the heart of the issue. I suppose it depends on how far someone has to be taken advantage of before it becomes morally suspect. If you think that everything goes as long as both parties agree to it, then keep in mind that by logical extension you are also supporting indentured servitude and slavery, since there are many cases of people voluntarily entering into indentured servitude. The gripe most people have with "free" trade, is that in many parts of the world, it's resulting in conditions not unlike slavery, and also pushing American jobs in that direction (yes, we still have a way to go before things get as bad as they were in the past).
The US military budget is greater than the next ten largest military budgets combined. I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has quite a a bit more military power than even all of the nations in the EU. Now, economically, the EU can definitely compete with the US, as is being shown by the falling value of the dollar in relation to the euro. And, if it's worth anything, I highly doubt that the US could win an all out war with the EU without annihilating the entire world in the process. So, it's not likely that we'll be invading Europe any time soon.
and commodities don't have a right to complain. Commodities are supposed to happily participate in the market and flow to wherever there is demand. If I buy a car, it doesn't complain that I didn't pay enough for it, or that I'm relocating it to a different state. The same goes for workers, if one loses their job, no problem, just move to India, where there is apparently greater demand. My car wouldn't complain about having to go to India, so why should I? Why should it be any different when dealing with workers? They're just commodities, they have no rights.
This is of course what market fundamentalism is about. It's about relegating worker's rights to the scrap heap, not even recognizing them, and putting the rights of property owners first. And, as commodities, we aren't supposed to complain, we're supposed to simply go somewhere else if we don't like the conditions, and let the invisible hand work it's magic. And, when there is nowhere else to go, we're supposed to shut up, like any other commodity would. The one crucial fact that you are overlooking is that people are not commodities.
Oh yes, that's right, the government. The government formed the internet for military and academic useage. Then access to that network was handed over to private corporations in the 90's. Anyone who thinks that the government can't create a network infrastructure would be well-served by remembering who invented it in the first place.
There is no doubt that the GPL is a bit reactionary and short-sighted. The obvious question of how developers are going to eat is an important one, and we need to come up with a better system than the one we have currently. (However, we could also ask the question of where the money goes in our current system, and the majority of it doesn't go to the developers). In the long run, we will need to figure out a way to feed the people that develop open source software, that is, if we want a self-sustaining movement. There is no reason that someone who forks over $50,000+ to get a degree in CS should have to bag groceries in order to eat.
What makes the GPL unique isn't the amount of control that it has, but instead is the fact that this control doesn't directly serve large corporations. The GPL doesn't directly serve large corporations, and whatever service it does provide to the likes of an IBM, it does much more to free the grip of corporate software control than it does to help it. Just because the GPL benefits IBM doesn't mean that we should quit supporting it. An atmosphere containing oxygen also benefits IBM, that's not an argument against it.
After all, in our current system, what's the alternative? The alternative is handing complete control back to IBM, Microsoft, et al. You don't fight tyranny by giving in to it. I think that's a point of the GPL, is to show that copyrights and patents are a horribly flawed system that gives too much control to the owners of a particular idea. By arguing against the GPL, IP owners such as Bill Gates are in fact supporting the spirit of RMS's ideas, which to me are about removing the coporate control over ideas that is enforced through our current patent and copyright system. The viral nature of copyrights didn't start with the GPL, the viral and hierarchical nature of ideas has been exploited by private power for decades in order to overcharge for the valuable service of being there first. The controversy is over the fact that for the first time the viral nature of copyrights isn't serving to enforce and protect private dictatorships such as Microsoft.
I like Chomsky's response to such philosophical discussion, which is that while it might be very interesting on an academic level, that it can also tend to be a waste of time and distract us from real world problems. Discussing ideas too much outside of the scope of reality can often take one so far away from reality that the discussion becomes abstract to the point of meaninglessness. In order to reach a true understanding, we need to remain cognizant of the real world ramifications of these concepts. This should always be the measuring stick for social policy, the real world ramifications, not logical correctness or academic purity. If an idea is perfect, and logical, but it's result is pain, suffering, and loss of freedom, then the idea should be thrown out, and the problems solved.
The problem with too much academic discussion, is that while we're trying to come up with the perfect logic to explain why things need to change, others are suffering. Devoting too much time to finding a purely logical and abstract solution is metaphorically equivalent to not saving your friend's life because you're busy trying to logically justify why he has a right to live. If we take this approach with such complex problems as intellectual property, market economics, and other stuff, society may well come and go before we come up with any academically pure and philosophically coherent vision. Sometimes, you just need to do what is right because you think it's the right thing to do. Our opponents aren't logical, that is obvious, but they'll be happy to wait for you to come up with a logical argument for your side. In the mean-time, they'll be busy plundering the planet while we come up with philosophical arguments for why they should stop.