The remarkably humble unwashed masses, or is that sarcasm I detect there. Innovation throughout the vast majority of the historical record was very, very slow.
Of course, without strong ip laws there's no reason to innovate. Any suggestions? Clearly this debate belongs on a larger basis than the 1D, "stronger - weaker". How about a policy of "use it or lose it?"
I won't write a treatIse on the incompatibility of utilitarianism and categorical imperative if you don't try to tell me utilitarianism is obviously the only basis for ethics.
Sorry for posting to an old thread.
Interesting that I mentioned attempts at social engineering by the sword and you went strait for communism. Read a little history. The communists didn't invent the field.
You lost credibility at "organization of human societies can be completely arbitrary." if there's one thing humanity has learned from the political experiments of the last hundred years it is that humanity is not infinitely mutable. No matter how many you kill.
"Happiness is the only value" . . . I won't try to dissuade you of that. I likely won't get anywhere. But that is a perversion of an absolutist utilitarianism that is as mind bogglingly false to me as I'm sure it is self evident to you. Ethics is not so easy as you think.
Last night I was sitting on the couch watching an old 24 while using my iPad to run some quick calculations on my laptop through vnc and monitoring batch jobs on two servers with iSSH. Tonight I'm laying in bed reading the news and will soon drift off to sleep with an interesting lecture from iTunes u. I am seriously impressed with this device. Sometimes I objectively wonder why I'm as impressed as I am, but then the part of my brain that in childhood said "look puppy!" notices the iPad and I'm distracted again.
I'm not trying to push my value system on anyone. I'm just a lowly scientist trying to get by on a modest salary in silicon valley, land of the ludicrously rich, no mean feat. I do think corporations do offer third worlders a significant improvement, and a possibility for even more. Do I think my style of life is better than theirs? I certainly do! Three quick reasons:
1) I didn't dye in childbirth. Neither did my mother, in spite of a horribly complicated pregnancy and a very premature birth.
2) I have all my teeth.
3) I really like McDonald's.
Look at the benefits of moving from agricultural to industrial civilization. In an industrial (or postindustrial) society, technology vastly increases the productivity of farms. I'll quote a little of P.J.O'Rourke's _All the Trouble in the World_(sorry, I hate html, so no block quotes or italics in my messages):
"Only 2.7 percent of the U.S. labor force is employed in agriculture, versus 60 percent in China and 43 percent in Russia. Yet the United States exports forty thousand metric tons of wheat a year, enough to supply China and Russia with all the wheat those two countries need to import despite their hordes of farm workers. Nor is this just a matter of America being a big, lush country. Cramped, industrialized Japan produces as much rice as Burma, which is twice Japan's size and utterly rural. And dumpy little France grows more wheat than Argentina and Australia combined."
He goes on to relate remarkable statistics concerning the bushels/acre from the early 1900s to the 1990s.
Why is it good to increase farm productivity? If only 2.7 percent of the population is farming, the rest are free to be doctors, engineers, builders, and all the other professionals that make life so much easier. I think this vastly increases the quality of life, no matter what your metric.
I think that if you go ask some poor people in the third world you find that they really want to industrialize their countries. This is indeed greed, pure and simple. They want to survive. They want their children to survive. They want to eat Big Macs, and they definitely do not want their children to loose all their teeth while spending their lives tending rice patties.
In fact, I have to say "How dare you?" How dare you try to deny them this. Are you so much better than they that you deserve all the bounty of civilization, while they watch their neighbors crapping their own guts out from a bout of dysentery? I'm not really asking you this question. I know you don't like this and want to stop it. That was more to all the loonies out there that think primitive cultures should be preserved as they are. Like animals in a wilderness preserve.
Now you may say that if your ideals of anarcho-communism were in practice, this wouldn't be happening. Everyone would live a wonderful life without the inequalities inherent in the hierarchical structures of capitalism.
So let's talk about globalization and the wonders of capitalism. This is a brief sketch using Americans as the example of rich G7 type people.
Americans have lots of things they want to make and business ideas to try. Unfortunately, labor is very expensive here. We are too well educated and demand quit a bit. Poor countries have very few educated people and no good business opportunities to offer their people. The US exports its corporations to the poor countries. The poor get paid significantly more than they could earn otherwise (otherwise they wouldn't take the jobs.) This money flows into their economy and creates a bit of prosperity. They build schools so their children can get ahead in life. The children get better jobs. The economy grows. This iterates. In time they buy modern farm and industrial equipment so everyone can work in the good jobs. Things really begin to grow exponentially now.
You may well ask who will provide the labor when fewer and fewer people want to be laborers. Well, as the people become better educated, they contribute to the advancement of technology. There are fewer crapy labor positions, and even those positions are pretty good as farming now requires mostly running machinery (see the U.S. statistics on % of farmers in the population here.)
Basically, capitalism, and its extension into globalization, is all about the most efficient allocation of resources. You are correct in stating that the resources of the world are finite. However, prosperity increases if they are optimally distributed. Once we get near the maximum in efficiency, technology will be the driver of prosperity even more than it is now.
I do not say "'well, yes this is true, but so what? We're all just animals anyway, who cares that happens to people elsewhere. I don't know them. They don't know me. It's the expense we have to pay for our prosperity.'" I see capitalism as the best way to optimize resource allocation that is realistically achievable. (I wish I could wave a magic wand to bring the third world into postindustrial society, but I can't. Capitalism is an optimizer, but as it is extended to the third world it is reacting to an uneven situation. You have to expect some sort of impulse response before you get an even distribution.)
Please realize that while we are all equal as humans in that we have equal rights, we are definitely not equal in ability. The labor of some is more valuable than the labor of others. An economy just can not be based on a grading system where A's are given for effort. Frankly, I think that kind of system is pure evil, but I won't go into that unless you ask.
In response to one of your above statements, I don't worry about the morals of my neighbors. I believe that everyone has a right to do whatever they want, unless it harms another. Believe what you wish. Do what you want. If you try to punch me in the face, censor my newspaper, or slash my tires, I'll have to take steps.
Your statement about the two party system reminds me of a great episode of The Simpsons where the aliens were running for president on both tickets. ("Go ahead, throw your vote away!") Nothing is perfect. The world is full of choices among greater and lesser evils. I certainly don't claim America's implementation of some pretty good ideals is perfect, or anywhere near it (and getting further away by the day.)
"'are these advances . ..'" Capitalism is an ideal and a philosophy, it does not do anything in itself. Of course labor made these things happen. I only say that labor within a capitalist system is more productive than under any other system. Yes it takes an organized system (within which the people labor) for this. Or do you favor science via the mob mentality?
"We have two choices. .." Those aren't our two choices. See the above discussion of the operation of capitalism in the third world.
I've looked at infoshop. It seems to be a hierarchical system of informational documents structured around the organizational philosophy of http and using its standard structural elements. On a finer and more abstract level, letters are arranged into words. Words into sentences. Sentences into paragraphs. These paragraphs contain greater or less amounts of meaning and coherent thought as expressed through the system of language.
I'm not going to post a big reply to this because it makes me feel a bit sad and ashamed of what my country has done.
I pointed out that there are really two debates here: 1) US vs. USSR 2) capitalism vs. communism
I support both the US and capitalism, but I think capitalism is an ideal while the US is an imperfect implimentation of certain ideals (one of which is capitalism.)
You have some real points here. The US has done some dreadful things in the third world. Much of this was done in competition with the USSR. We were trying to save the world from some very evil things. This doesn't make it right, and the good guys don't always win. Oppenheimer said something relevant. "I am not an evil man, but I have done evil things." Please don't take my quote of Oppenheimer as implying an sort of support for his socialist ideals.
In spite of all this, I disagree with much of what you say. I'm not saying that the poor of the world need US companies to survive. I'm saying that jobs in the factories of US companies offer better wages than those offered by the local economy.
Of course they weren't third world before the capitalist countries developed. They weren't poor untill the global standard was raised. They then fell behind. The psychological impact of this then defined some of the common threads of third world culture. Societies suffer terrible psychological stress when they come into contact with more advanced societies.
This all comes down to globalization. The best value for the dollar will always win. If pencils from Taiwan are cheaper in the US than US made pencils, Taiwan wins the pencil market. The most value for the monetary unit in managment skill, intellectual capital, and investment capital is available from the G7. The best value for the monetary unit in labor comes from the third world. This means that the US exports its corporations, and the thirld world "exports" its labor.
No one is required to work for the US corporations. These countries' natural resources (the reason the civilizations are there in the first place) are still there. If the people of these countries want to go back to the economy that existed before US factories, they can. The one undeniable fact is that the factories built by the corporations from industrialized nations offer a better lifestyle than otherwise availiable. Otherewise, no one would work for them.
Don't complain too much about the upper class. They pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. I don't remember the exact number, but I believe that the total federal tax per capita is around $22k. I'm sure not paying that much. I assume some wealthy industrialist is paying a good portion of my share to build the roads etc. The commoners, such as you and I, also benefit from globalization. Our standard of living is raised as the economy grows, and the rich pay most of the taxes. The standard of living also increases in the third world as US companies invest in those economies. (In fact, the US federal gov't could cease taxing the middle to lower classes and barely feel the budget crunch. No wonder tax cuts seem to go predomanently to the rich. They pay for everything.)
I'm also very worried about the direction the world (and the US) are heading. I fear big brother (see the English system of survailence cammeras recetly featured in a TLC (or some variant) special and the rantings of Janet Reno.) I think the difference between our concerns is that I see the liberals as the great threat to freedom and happiness, and you think it is the corporations. We will be in the greatest peril if the corporations ally with the liberals, socialism. Hitler managed it, but I really hope that doesn't happen in my neighborhood.
Re: last paragraph. Stop that. You are a real intellectual I hope to talk to. Stop using catch phrases and empty rhetoric.
Yes, I did say "only" in reference to the TVs, didn't I? My mistake. See the above message.
It is interesting that the Russians, having been told that they are now capitalists, are behaving exactly as the Soviet propaganda machine had told them for years capitalists did behave. The worst nightmare of capitalism is realized in Russia, at least in part, as a consequence of Soviet propaganda. Perhaps I'm wrong. I welcome alternative analyses. (NB: I only said "in part")
I think it's a bit unfair to blame the US for all the poverty in the world. The US is not in the business of governing all of humanity (despite the many stupidities of the last ten years.)
You might ask yourself: "Why are those Vietnamese women (men/Mexican, etc.) working for so low a wage? Why do people in the third world line up for blocks to work at the nasty American plants?" Is it perhaps because the evil American capitalists came along and offered a higher wage then they could earn otherwise? Is it perhaps because the jobs offered by the local economies were actually significantly inferior? Why, wouldn't that make the American capitalists the good guys?!
By the numbers: 1) I addressed this in a message later down the chain that was focused on my liberties in translation. In short: I knew a great wise man when I was in high school who taught me a little Russian. I was informed, and I believe him, that Soviet has a strong connotation of "teacher" and that I was rather more than less correct in my definition as it was used in reference to the state. Additionally, I must add that I don't feel that local government was an innovation of the communists. Village councils and local bureaucracies existed long before Marx and his completely erroneous political philosophy.
As an aside: An interesting and well known story in sociology.
Marx was at an English cocktail party during a time that his theories were all the rage of Europe. He apparently go so fed up with hearing the standard theory of Marxism that he actually yelled out "I am not a Marxist!"
2) I don't in any way say that there was only one "brand" (such a capitalist term) of television. I only stated that in Moscow the single most common brand tended to explode and was the primary (a plurality) cause of accidental fire in that city.
Also, Japanese televisions were sold below cost in America to take over the market. Despite much complaining, this was ignored by the US authorities in a broader effort to promote Japanese industry. They wanted to promote Japanese industry so that Japan would be a force for capitalism in Asia. Read your history. There's an interesting book that is reviewed in the July/August Foreign Affairs that goes into this type of thing.
Quality was not the major issue in the decimation of the US consumer electronics industry of the time.
3) Yes, the Soviet space program was very good for a while, though many of their great missions were flubs and at least one of their World Records was a scam. I wish I could tell the stories in more detail, but I'm visiting CA on a short term job and don't have many of my books here. Please read _Korolev_ and then talk about the Soviet space program. I'm afraid I don't remember the author, but I do have an autographed edition. I have to say here that I think the Soviets did great, stupendous things in the beginning of their space program. However, you do have to take into account that they got over 90% of the engineers working at Penamunde (unsure of spelling) on the German V-x project. They squeezed their brains until they could learn nothing more, then sent them to prison camps or killed them (more human tragedy from the Soviets.) You should also know that I have a B.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, so I really know the history of space flight.
RK surgery was indeed pioneered by a doctor from the old USSR. I didn't say they didn't do anything in science and technology. I just said that they did much, much less than the Americans and copied a great deal.
4) The stock market isn't perfect, but I do stand by what I said. In general it does a good job that promotes competition and prosperity. I see gambling as an entertaining way to throw money away. If it makes the gamblers happy, well--ok. I hope you understand that I don't think everything about the US system is perfect. Instead I think that almost everything about the US system is much better than the communist system, to the point of making communism look foolish. I believe in ideals, and I think those ideals are as close to perfect as I can make them. Their implementation in real systems is a difficult matter and can only approach perfection. See Zeno.
5) First of all, I think you had really better check your list. No I don't think you've said enough. Bring up something a bit more specific, and I'll bet the good is libertarian and the bad is socialist or communist.
Also, you have to check the implementation. Democracy is only a good thing if the rule of law is imposed. Please don't bring up "free markets" and then use examples that exclusively include governments that can't enforce the laws. Using Africa and Mexico as examples of free markets is laughable.
6) Perhaps no homeless, but how were the poorest housed? Perhaps they just lived in prison camps.
7) "The average probably wasn't that different." Whoa! Grasp some reality. Those in the US that live under the poverty line comprise the group that is the most overweight on average. Tell me about poverty in the US. You have to try really hard to starve here.
8) I have avoided neither copyright nor advertising. I have avoided a detailed discussion of economic theory. That would be completely inappropriate on shashdot. Please read the previous post. I don't think I have to say anymore. Don't forget this is an intelligent audience.
9) There is a certain word that must be used with the utmost caution in an intelligent discussion. I'm afraid I must use it here. You are a liar. There were very, very few people in the USSR that really believed in the good of the many, despite what they may have said for the benefit of KGB informants. The desperate are rarely altruistic.
10) Pardon me, but you were only 16 (if I remember correctly) when the government self destructed. I believe the statistics I've seen from reputable sources much more than an innocent, sheltered adolescent who got most of his information from the state news sources.
I already apologized for the imperfection of that translation. I have been told by an ex USSR comrade that I was more right than wrong.
Last paragraph) I doubt that. Check your statistics and site your references then post again.
Your mostly right. Soviet more properly means "advisor."
When I was in high school, I lived near a small university and was a friend of one of the Professors there who taught Russian. He was a Soviet citizen until just after WWII. He was in a German prison camp and has great stories to tell about both situations. A bit like the opposite of the movie "Apt Pupil."
I was informed by him, many years ago, that Soviet had a strong conotation of "teacher," not just advisor. Keep in mind that he was trying to explain the word so that someone who only knew English and latin. He tells me that I was rather more than less correct about the way I used the word in the above message.
I can only assume you lived a very privaliged and innocent life when you lived in the USSR.
General Comments: a) The US is not simply a capitalist country. It is at least 15% socialist. In my oppinion, most of America's problems come from that 15%. Logical analysis supports the opinion.
b) The USSR was not a communist state by any stretch of the imagination. Firstly, the capitalist black market accounted for 50% of the economy. Secondly, Russia never really had a bourgoise class to revolt against, a precondition for communism. Thirdly, the Soviet state was really just a totalitarian state. The "teachers" taught little more than that the state should be feared. (For those who are unfamiliar with the Russian language and Soviet history: Soviet means "teacher," and the Soviet governmet was only intended to exist untill the people were properly educated in what communism demanded of them.)
c) If you wish to have a real discussion on either of the following two separate topics I'd be glad to. Just don't mix them. i. USA vs. USSR ii. Capitalism vs. Communism, or more properly: right-Libertarianism vs. Communism.
Let me address one paragraph at a time. The following discussion mixes topics one and two above rather badly. 0) The only thing I have to say to this is that I disagree.
1) In a competitive marketplace, people need to know about the products that are available. This is the good and wholly necessary side of advertising. The advertising increases the profit from the product, a big plus for the corporation. And the consumer has more information to make a more optimal purchasing decision. This information increases the effeciency of spending of the consumer and is thus good for him too. You may see the manipulation involved in advertising as a negative, but in reality the marketers are here adding great value to the product. They are saying "This product will make you feel important." (or some variation on that) And it does. This is a product that every human wants, and will pay for (happiness.)
I really don't think you can say the Russian economy "worked fine." The single brand of TV set available in Moscow was so poorly made that they were the single greatest cause of accidental fires in that city. Many people died because Soviet electronics were so piss poor. A market economy won't allow that condition for long.
About the homeless situation, this is indeed a failure of the system in the US. I can only say that I don't think this would happen if this were truely a capitalist state. Most Americans do nothing for the homeless because they don't feel that it is their responsibility. Indeed, they are justified in this belief. The government has taken that responsibility upon itself. This is an effect of the socialism in the US.
If no one was homeless in Russia (not entirely true), the obvious question is "How good were the homes?"
2) And how many good inventions did the Soviets come up with? Even in the military, the vast majority of Soviet "inovations" were curiously similar to American inovations and, even more curiously, almost always came out just under a year after their American counterparts.
Technology can only hope to crawl along in a world that provides little to no incentive for it.
3) When using phrases like "'everyone for himself,'" it is important to understand the concept of enlightened self-interest. This could be a really long discussion, so let's just avoid it. The curious thing is that when everyone acts to maximize their personal utility, they not only achieve their goal, but they also also end up maximizing global utility. This is another very, very long discussion with lots of economic theory, so let's avoid this too.
I feel like such a cop out for avoiding those arguements. They are really central to the discussion, but are very long. In short, just look at the US and USSR. Which had the highest standard of living. (Yes, note the word "standard.")
You can not always get ahead by screwing others. Have you ever played Prisoner's Delima or heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? It certainly seems that the USSR was more in the grips of this. No one could loose their job for slacking, and each person thought to himself "If I'm the only one who slacks off, I win big time." Predictably, there were quite a few slackers, and consequently the economy could barely produce enough toilet paper to wipe the butts of the masses.
Damn, you wrote a lot in this paragraph.
"The common good was always the first consideration" is such a bold untruth that I don't even know where to begin. The rest of this paragraph is just as bad. No crime? Come on! The mafia-like black market (a criminal market) made up half the economy. It was the only way to actually get anything. And don't even get me started on the Goulags (just try to imagine a prison the size of a US state with living conditions horribly similar to a Nazi death camp.) No poverty? The whole damn country was poor! No unemployment? Yeah, well that's true.
Sure Russia is floundering under capitalism. How do you expect things to be under the world's most currupt government. As an example of this corruption: the US teams working in Chernobyl (spelling varies) actually have to get Western Union to deliver US currency to the work site so that the Americans can personally distribute it to the Russian workers. They tryed to give the money to the appropriate government agency, but they found that as the money was handed down the chain of command it mysteriously disappeared.
4) I already addressed this when I talked about advertising.
5) The stock market is interesting. Those slips of paper that people are buying actually do have significant worth. They represent partial ownership of the company. Most investors are not day traders. That is, they buy the stock in the belief that that fraction of the company they hold will increase in value over time. They are getting a return on their money (of value to the buyer) in return for the use of their money (of value to the company.) Overall, this makes it easier for companies to raise money and thus stimulates both prosperity (for everyone as the standard of living increases) and competition within the market.
Those who speculate (day traders) are just gambling with their money. It makes them happy, so I guess it's worth the money they will loose. People are free to risk their money. They are also free to loose it.
6) Oh, give it a rest. Take one solid look at the differences in the quality of life (as represented in the standard of living) between the USSR and the US of that time. Think about this as you sit in your quality easy chair, watching the television that isn't exploding or typing on the computer made from microelectronics of capitalist invention.
Don't waste your time quibbling about definitions.
A supreme court justice (I wish I could remember his name) said "My right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins." This is really the essence of what libertarians believe. Government's only job is to protect the rights of its citizens.
While democracy is certainly a part of libertarianism, it is only tacked on to this central idea because it is the best way known to make sure the government is accountable to the people. In contrast, corporations are not in the business of government and only need to be accountable to their owners. They appear totalitarian if you are looking at the their relationship to thier employees; however the employees are only tied to the corporation through contractual obligations. They have no right to a voice in corporate decisions except insofar as their contract stipulates.
And many aren't. I work at a DOE lab, and we definitely do not buy enough SGIs to make their consumer business insignificant by comparison. Also keep in mind that the NSA has their own chip fab facilities, and those fables acres of underground computers are probably not made by SGI.
I agree with the person who said SGI should extend into the consumer graphics hardware business. I can only imagine how fast Diamond Mm et al. would fall to the might of SGI hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
You should be in management consulting. No offense.
Sounds in line with the original script title, "Adventures of Luke Starkiller, as taken from the Journal of the Whills, Saga I: The Star Wars"
And Hidden Fortress was an acknowledged influence. But it's not the same.
The remarkably humble unwashed masses, or is that sarcasm I detect there. Innovation throughout the vast majority of the historical record was very, very slow.
Well done! Anarchist principles incorporated into a philosophy of intellectual property. I did not expect that. (btw, I'm not being sarcastic.)
In that circumstance you directly benefit without patent enforcement. In the current market, that does not apply to any significant degree.
Yes, by mellenia. . . Do you intend to make all my points for me?
Of course, without strong ip laws there's no reason to innovate. Any suggestions? Clearly this debate belongs on a larger basis than the 1D, "stronger - weaker". How about a policy of "use it or lose it?"
Non-invariant is not the same as arbitrary.
I won't write a treatIse on the incompatibility of utilitarianism and categorical imperative if you don't try to tell me utilitarianism is obviously the only basis for ethics.
Sorry for posting to an old thread.
Interesting that I mentioned attempts at social engineering by the sword and you went strait for communism. Read a little history. The communists didn't invent the field.
You lost credibility at "organization of human societies can be completely arbitrary." if there's one thing humanity has learned from the political experiments of the last hundred years it is that humanity is not infinitely mutable. No matter how many you kill.
"Happiness is the only value" . . . I won't try to dissuade you of that. I likely won't get anywhere. But that is a perversion of an absolutist utilitarianism that is as mind bogglingly false to me as I'm sure it is self evident to you. Ethics is not so easy as you think.
Last night I was sitting on the couch watching an old 24 while using my iPad to run some quick calculations on my laptop through vnc and monitoring batch jobs on two servers with iSSH. Tonight I'm laying in bed reading the news and will soon drift off to sleep with an interesting lecture from iTunes u. I am seriously impressed with this device. Sometimes I objectively wonder why I'm as impressed as I am, but then the part of my brain that in childhood said "look puppy!" notices the iPad and I'm distracted again.
I'm not trying to push my value system on anyone. I'm just a lowly scientist trying to get by on a modest salary in silicon valley, land of the ludicrously rich, no mean feat. I do think corporations do offer third worlders a significant improvement, and a possibility for even more. Do I think my style of life is better than theirs? I certainly do! Three quick reasons:
.'" Capitalism is an ideal and a philosophy, it does not do anything in itself. Of course labor made these things happen. I only say that labor within a capitalist system is more productive than under any other system. Yes it takes an organized system (within which the people labor) for this. Or do you favor science via the mob mentality?
." Those aren't our two choices. See the above discussion of the operation of capitalism in the third world.
1) I didn't dye in childbirth. Neither did my mother, in spite of a horribly complicated pregnancy and a very premature birth.
2) I have all my teeth.
3) I really like McDonald's.
Look at the benefits of moving from agricultural to industrial civilization. In an industrial (or postindustrial) society, technology vastly increases the productivity of farms. I'll quote a little of P.J.O'Rourke's _All the Trouble in the World_(sorry, I hate html, so no block quotes or italics in my messages):
"Only 2.7 percent of the U.S. labor force is employed in agriculture, versus 60 percent in China and 43 percent in Russia. Yet the United States exports forty thousand metric tons of wheat a year, enough to supply China and Russia with all the wheat those two countries need to import despite their hordes of farm workers. Nor is this just a matter of America being a big, lush country. Cramped, industrialized Japan produces as much rice as Burma, which is twice Japan's size and utterly rural. And dumpy little France grows more wheat than Argentina and Australia combined."
He goes on to relate remarkable statistics concerning the bushels/acre from the early 1900s to the 1990s.
Why is it good to increase farm productivity? If only 2.7 percent of the population is farming, the rest are free to be doctors, engineers, builders, and all the other professionals that make life so much easier. I think this vastly increases the quality of life, no matter what your metric.
I think that if you go ask some poor people in the third world you find that they really want to industrialize their countries. This is indeed greed, pure and simple. They want to survive. They want their children to survive. They want to eat Big Macs, and they definitely do not want their children to loose all their teeth while spending their lives tending rice patties.
In fact, I have to say "How dare you?" How dare you try to deny them this. Are you so much better than they that you deserve all the bounty of civilization, while they watch their neighbors crapping their own guts out from a bout of dysentery? I'm not really asking you this question. I know you don't like this and want to stop it. That was more to all the loonies out there that think primitive cultures should be preserved as they are. Like animals in a wilderness preserve.
Now you may say that if your ideals of anarcho-communism were in practice, this wouldn't be happening. Everyone would live a wonderful life without the inequalities inherent in the hierarchical structures of capitalism.
So let's talk about globalization and the wonders of capitalism. This is a brief sketch using Americans as the example of rich G7 type people.
Americans have lots of things they want to make and business ideas to try. Unfortunately, labor is very expensive here. We are too well educated and demand quit a bit. Poor countries have very few educated people and no good business opportunities to offer their people. The US exports its corporations to the poor countries. The poor get paid significantly more than they could earn otherwise (otherwise they wouldn't take the jobs.) This money flows into their economy and creates a bit of prosperity. They build schools so their children can get ahead in life. The children get better jobs. The economy grows. This iterates. In time they buy modern farm and industrial equipment so everyone can work in the good jobs. Things really begin to grow exponentially now.
You may well ask who will provide the labor when fewer and fewer people want to be laborers. Well, as the people become better educated, they contribute to the advancement of technology. There are fewer crapy labor positions, and even those positions are pretty good as farming now requires mostly running machinery (see the U.S. statistics on % of farmers in the population here.)
Basically, capitalism, and its extension into globalization, is all about the most efficient allocation of resources. You are correct in stating that the resources of the world are finite. However, prosperity increases if they are optimally distributed. Once we get near the maximum in efficiency, technology will be the driver of prosperity even more than it is now.
I do not say "'well, yes this is true, but so what? We're all just animals anyway, who cares that happens to people elsewhere. I don't know them. They don't know me. It's the expense we have to pay for our prosperity.'" I see capitalism as the best way to optimize resource allocation that is realistically achievable. (I wish I could wave a magic wand to bring the third world into postindustrial society, but I can't. Capitalism is an optimizer, but as it is extended to the third world it is reacting to an uneven situation. You have to expect some sort of impulse response before you get an even distribution.)
Please realize that while we are all equal as humans in that we have equal rights, we are definitely not equal in ability. The labor of some is more valuable than the labor of others. An economy just can not be based on a grading system where A's are given for effort. Frankly, I think that kind of system is pure evil, but I won't go into that unless you ask.
In response to one of your above statements, I don't worry about the morals of my neighbors. I believe that everyone has a right to do whatever they want, unless it harms another. Believe what you wish. Do what you want. If you try to punch me in the face, censor my newspaper, or slash my tires, I'll have to take steps.
Your statement about the two party system reminds me of a great episode of The Simpsons where the aliens were running for president on both tickets. ("Go ahead, throw your vote away!") Nothing is perfect. The world is full of choices among greater and lesser evils. I certainly don't claim America's implementation of some pretty good ideals is perfect, or anywhere near it (and getting further away by the day.)
"'are these advances . .
"We have two choices. .
I've looked at infoshop. It seems to be a hierarchical system of informational documents structured around the organizational philosophy of http and using its standard structural elements. On a finer and more abstract level, letters are arranged into words. Words into sentences. Sentences into paragraphs. These paragraphs contain greater or less amounts of meaning and coherent thought as expressed through the system of language.
I'm not going to post a big reply to this because it makes me feel a bit sad and ashamed of what my country has done.
I pointed out that there are really two debates here:
1) US vs. USSR
2) capitalism vs. communism
I support both the US and capitalism, but I think capitalism is an ideal while the US is an imperfect implimentation of certain ideals (one of which is capitalism.)
You have some real points here. The US has done some dreadful things in the third world. Much of this was done in competition with the USSR. We were trying to save the world from some very evil things. This doesn't make it right, and the good guys don't always win. Oppenheimer said something relevant. "I am not an evil man, but I have done evil things." Please don't take my quote of Oppenheimer as implying an sort of support for his socialist ideals.
In spite of all this, I disagree with much of what you say. I'm not saying that the poor of the world need US companies to survive. I'm saying that jobs in the factories of US companies offer better wages than those offered by the local economy.
Of course they weren't third world before the capitalist countries developed. They weren't poor untill the global standard was raised. They then fell behind. The psychological impact of this then defined some of the common threads of third world culture. Societies suffer terrible psychological stress when they come into contact with more advanced societies.
This all comes down to globalization. The best value for the dollar will always win. If pencils from Taiwan are cheaper in the US than US made pencils, Taiwan wins the pencil market. The most value for the monetary unit in managment skill, intellectual capital, and investment capital is available from the G7. The best value for the monetary unit in labor comes from the third world. This means that the US exports its corporations, and the thirld world "exports" its labor.
No one is required to work for the US corporations. These countries' natural resources (the reason the civilizations are there in the first place) are still there. If the people of these countries want to go back to the economy that existed before US factories, they can. The one undeniable fact is that the factories built by the corporations from industrialized nations offer a better lifestyle than otherwise availiable. Otherewise, no one would work for them.
Don't complain too much about the upper class. They pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. I don't remember the exact number, but I believe that the total federal tax per capita is around $22k. I'm sure not paying that much. I assume some wealthy industrialist is paying a good portion of my share to build the roads etc. The commoners, such as you and I, also benefit from globalization. Our standard of living is raised as the economy grows, and the rich pay most of the taxes. The standard of living also increases in the third world as US companies invest in those economies. (In fact, the US federal gov't could cease taxing the middle to lower classes and barely feel the budget crunch. No wonder tax cuts seem to go predomanently to the rich. They pay for everything.)
I'm also very worried about the direction the world (and the US) are heading. I fear big brother (see the English system of survailence cammeras recetly featured in a TLC (or some variant) special and the rantings of Janet Reno.) I think the difference between our concerns is that I see the liberals as the great threat to freedom and happiness, and you think it is the corporations. We will be in the greatest peril if the corporations ally with the liberals, socialism. Hitler managed it, but I really hope that doesn't happen in my neighborhood.
Re: last paragraph. Stop that. You are a real intellectual I hope to talk to. Stop using catch phrases and empty rhetoric.
A few notes.
Yes, I did say "only" in reference to the TVs, didn't I? My mistake. See the above message.
It is interesting that the Russians, having been told that they are now capitalists, are behaving exactly as the Soviet propaganda machine had told them for years capitalists did behave. The worst nightmare of capitalism is realized in Russia, at least in part, as a consequence of Soviet propaganda. Perhaps I'm wrong. I welcome alternative analyses. (NB: I only said "in part")
I think it's a bit unfair to blame the US for all the poverty in the world. The US is not in the business of governing all of humanity (despite the many stupidities of the last ten years.)
You might ask yourself: "Why are those Vietnamese women (men/Mexican, etc.) working for so low a
wage? Why do people in the third world line up for blocks to work at the nasty American plants?" Is it perhaps because the evil American capitalists came along and offered a higher wage then they could earn otherwise? Is it perhaps because the jobs offered by the local economies were actually significantly inferior? Why, wouldn't that make the American capitalists the good guys?!
By the numbers:
1) I addressed this in a message later down the chain that was focused on my liberties in translation. In
short: I knew a great wise man when I was in high school who taught me a little Russian. I was
informed, and I believe him, that Soviet has a strong connotation of "teacher" and that I was rather more
than less correct in my definition as it was used in reference to the state. Additionally, I must add that I
don't feel that local government was an innovation of the communists. Village councils and local
bureaucracies existed long before Marx and his completely erroneous political philosophy.
As an aside: An interesting and well known story in sociology.
Marx was at an English cocktail party during a time that his theories were all the rage of Europe. He
apparently go so fed up with hearing the standard theory of Marxism that he actually yelled out "I am not
a Marxist!"
2) I don't in any way say that there was only one "brand" (such a capitalist term) of television. I only
stated that in Moscow the single most common brand tended to explode and was the primary (a
plurality) cause of accidental fire in that city.
Also, Japanese televisions were sold below cost in America to take over the market. Despite much
complaining, this was ignored by the US authorities in a broader effort to promote Japanese industry.
They wanted to promote Japanese industry so that Japan would be a force for capitalism in Asia. Read
your history. There's an interesting book that is reviewed in the July/August Foreign Affairs that goes
into this type of thing.
Quality was not the major issue in the decimation of the US consumer electronics industry of the time.
3) Yes, the Soviet space program was very good for a while, though many of their great missions were
flubs and at least one of their World Records was a scam. I wish I could tell the stories in more detail,
but I'm visiting CA on a short term job and don't have many of my books here. Please read _Korolev_
and then talk about the Soviet space program. I'm afraid I don't remember the author, but I do have an
autographed edition. I have to say here that I think the Soviets did great, stupendous things in the
beginning of their space program. However, you do have to take into account that they got over 90% of
the engineers working at Penamunde (unsure of spelling) on the German V-x project. They squeezed
their brains until they could learn nothing more, then sent them to prison camps or killed them (more
human tragedy from the Soviets.) You should also know that I have a B.S. in Aeronautical and
Astronautical Engineering, so I really know the history of space flight.
RK surgery was indeed pioneered by a doctor from the old USSR. I didn't say they didn't do anything
in science and technology. I just said that they did much, much less than the Americans and copied a
great deal.
4) The stock market isn't perfect, but I do stand by what I said. In general it does a good job that
promotes competition and prosperity. I see gambling as an entertaining way to throw money away. If it
makes the gamblers happy, well--ok. I hope you understand that I don't think everything about the US
system is perfect. Instead I think that almost everything about the US system is much better than the
communist system, to the point of making communism look foolish. I believe in ideals, and I think those
ideals are as close to perfect as I can make them. Their implementation in real systems is a difficult
matter and can only approach perfection. See Zeno.
5) First of all, I think you had really better check your list. No I don't think you've said enough. Bring
up something a bit more specific, and I'll bet the good is libertarian and the bad is socialist or communist.
Also, you have to check the implementation. Democracy is only a good thing if the rule of law is
imposed. Please don't bring up "free markets" and then use examples that exclusively include
governments that can't enforce the laws. Using Africa and Mexico as examples of free markets is
laughable.
6) Perhaps no homeless, but how were the poorest housed? Perhaps they just lived in prison camps.
7) "The average probably wasn't that different." Whoa! Grasp some reality. Those in the US that live
under the poverty line comprise the group that is the most overweight on average. Tell me about poverty
in the US. You have to try really hard to starve here.
8) I have avoided neither copyright nor advertising. I have avoided a detailed discussion of economic
theory. That would be completely inappropriate on shashdot. Please read the previous post. I don't
think I have to say anymore. Don't forget this is an intelligent audience.
9) There is a certain word that must be used with the utmost caution in an intelligent discussion. I'm
afraid I must use it here. You are a liar. There were very, very few people in the USSR that really
believed in the good of the many, despite what they may have said for the benefit of KGB informants.
The desperate are rarely altruistic.
10) Pardon me, but you were only 16 (if I remember correctly) when the government self destructed. I
believe the statistics I've seen from reputable sources much more than an innocent, sheltered adolescent
who got most of his information from the state news sources.
I already apologized for the imperfection of that translation. I have been told by an ex USSR comrade
that I was more right than wrong.
Last paragraph) I doubt that. Check your statistics and site your references then post again.
Your mostly right. Soviet more properly means "advisor."
When I was in high school, I lived near a small university and was a friend of one of the Professors there who taught Russian. He was a Soviet citizen until just after WWII. He was in a German prison camp and has great stories to tell about both situations. A bit like the opposite of the movie "Apt Pupil."
I was informed by him, many years ago, that Soviet had a strong conotation of "teacher," not just advisor. Keep in mind that he was trying to explain the word so that someone who only knew English and latin. He tells me that I was rather more than less correct about the way I used the word in the above message.
I can only assume you lived a very privaliged and innocent life when you lived in the USSR.
General Comments:
a) The US is not simply a capitalist country. It is at least 15% socialist. In my oppinion, most of America's problems come from that 15%. Logical analysis supports the opinion.
b) The USSR was not a communist state by any stretch of the imagination. Firstly, the capitalist black market accounted for 50% of the economy. Secondly, Russia never really had a bourgoise class to revolt against, a precondition for communism. Thirdly, the Soviet state was really just a totalitarian state. The "teachers" taught little more than that the state should be feared. (For those who are unfamiliar with the Russian language and Soviet history: Soviet means "teacher," and the Soviet governmet was only intended to exist untill the people were properly educated in what communism demanded of them.)
c) If you wish to have a real discussion on either of the following two separate topics I'd be glad to. Just don't mix them.
i. USA vs. USSR
ii. Capitalism vs. Communism, or more properly: right-Libertarianism vs. Communism.
Let me address one paragraph at a time. The following discussion mixes topics one and two above rather badly.
0) The only thing I have to say to this is that I disagree.
1) In a competitive marketplace, people need to know about the products that are available. This is the good and wholly necessary side of advertising. The advertising increases the profit from the product, a big plus for the corporation. And the consumer has more information to make a more optimal purchasing decision. This information increases the effeciency of spending of the consumer and is thus good for him too. You may see the manipulation involved in advertising as a negative, but in reality the marketers are here adding great value to the product. They are saying "This product will make you feel important." (or some variation on that) And it does. This is a product that every human wants, and will pay for (happiness.)
I really don't think you can say the Russian economy "worked fine." The single brand of TV set available in Moscow was so poorly made that they were the single greatest cause of accidental fires in that city. Many people died because Soviet electronics were so piss poor. A market economy won't allow that condition for long.
About the homeless situation, this is indeed a failure of the system in the US. I can only say that I don't think this would happen if this were truely a capitalist state. Most Americans do nothing for the homeless because they don't feel that it is their responsibility. Indeed, they are justified in this belief. The government has taken that responsibility upon itself. This is an effect of the socialism in the US.
If no one was homeless in Russia (not entirely true), the obvious question is "How good were the homes?"
2) And how many good inventions did the Soviets come up with? Even in the military, the vast majority of Soviet "inovations" were curiously similar to American inovations and, even more curiously, almost always came out just under a year after their American counterparts.
Technology can only hope to crawl along in a world that provides little to no incentive for it.
3) When using phrases like "'everyone for himself,'" it is important to understand the concept of enlightened self-interest. This could be a really long discussion, so let's just avoid it. The curious thing is that when everyone acts to maximize their personal utility, they not only achieve their goal, but they also also end up maximizing global utility. This is another very, very long discussion with lots of economic theory, so let's avoid this too.
I feel like such a cop out for avoiding those arguements. They are really central to the discussion, but are very long. In short, just look at the US and USSR. Which had the highest standard of living. (Yes, note the word "standard.")
You can not always get ahead by screwing others. Have you ever played Prisoner's Delima or heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? It certainly seems that the USSR was more in the grips of this. No one could loose their job for slacking, and each person thought to himself "If I'm the only one who slacks off, I win big time." Predictably, there were quite a few slackers, and consequently the economy could barely produce enough toilet paper to wipe the butts of the masses.
Damn, you wrote a lot in this paragraph.
"The common good was always the first consideration" is such a bold untruth that I don't even know where to begin. The rest of this paragraph is just as bad. No crime? Come on! The mafia-like black market (a criminal market) made up half the economy. It was the only way to actually get anything. And don't even get me started on the Goulags (just try to imagine a prison the size of a US state with living conditions horribly similar to a Nazi death camp.) No poverty? The whole damn country was poor! No unemployment? Yeah, well that's true.
Sure Russia is floundering under capitalism. How do you expect things to be under the world's most currupt government. As an example of this corruption: the US teams working in Chernobyl (spelling varies) actually have to get Western Union to deliver US currency to the work site so that the Americans can personally distribute it to the Russian workers. They tryed to give the money to the appropriate government agency, but they found that as the money was handed down the chain of command it mysteriously disappeared.
4) I already addressed this when I talked about advertising.
5) The stock market is interesting. Those slips of paper that people are buying actually do have significant worth. They represent partial ownership of the company. Most investors are not day traders. That is, they buy the stock in the belief that that fraction of the company they hold will increase in value over time. They are getting a return on their money (of value to the buyer) in return for the use of their money (of value to the company.) Overall, this makes it easier for companies to raise money and thus stimulates both prosperity (for everyone as the standard of living increases) and competition within the market.
Those who speculate (day traders) are just gambling with their money. It makes them happy, so I guess it's worth the money they will loose. People are free to risk their money. They are also free to loose it.
6) Oh, give it a rest. Take one solid look at the differences in the quality of life (as represented in the standard of living) between the USSR and the US of that time. Think about this as you sit in your quality easy chair, watching the television that isn't exploding or typing on the computer made from microelectronics of capitalist invention.
Don't waste your time quibbling about definitions.
A supreme court justice (I wish I could remember his name) said "My right to swing my fist stops where your nose begins." This is really the essence of what libertarians believe. Government's only job is to protect the rights of its citizens.
While democracy is certainly a part of libertarianism, it is only tacked on to this central idea because it is the best way known to make sure the government is accountable to the people. In contrast, corporations are not in the business of government and only need to be accountable to their owners. They appear totalitarian if you are looking at the their relationship to thier employees; however the employees are only tied to the corporation through contractual obligations. They have no right to a voice in corporate decisions except insofar as their contract stipulates.
And many aren't. I work at a DOE lab, and we definitely do not buy enough SGIs to make their consumer business insignificant by comparison. Also keep in mind that the NSA has their own chip fab facilities, and those fables acres of underground computers are probably not made by SGI.
I agree with the person who said SGI should extend into the consumer graphics hardware business. I can only imagine how fast Diamond Mm et al. would fall to the might of SGI hardware.