From Sven:
quote:
Any takers?
I'm pretty well there already Brother! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Sam ]
How do you free your life from capitalism?
Tue, 2008-03-18 16:34
#52
Tue, 2008-03-18 17:25
#53
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]To that I can only say: Look at economies that are classic examples state-controlled economies (non-capitalist) and give me a long list of useful products they have developed and produced that are used world-wide.[/b]
For starters, the Soviets were by virtue of revolution, civil war and two world wars fought on their doorsteps, behind several advanced western countries technologically during much of the first half of the last century. Initial starting positions were not comparable with advanced industrialism here in the west. Nor were the number of trading countries in the COMECON block comparable with the west. Western capitalists were able to trade with about two-thirds of the world at the height of Soviet influence.
The launch of Sputnik caught the west somewhat off guard. We shifted emphasis of our math and science curriculums in public education from theoretical to the practical in response. Soviet scientific inventions were classified for the most part and not handed off to private enterprise as was the case in Japan, Germany and the U.S. By the 1980's, the Russians were said to have been behind the U.S.(and all western capitalist nations) by about eight years. And then Yeltsin and bureaucrats witheld investments in Soviet technology and infrastructure which were vital to their industrialized state leading up to the economic crises of the 1970's-80s. The U.S. did invest in science and technology in response to economic-technological challenges from Japan and Germany.
But as for Soviet inventions, there were several. The satellite was one. They shot the first satellite into orbit around the moon. Bolsheviks were supposed to have broadcast political messages wirelessly before Marconi, although that was pre-Soviet. There were adances made in electromagnetic steel ingot production(aluminum beer cans) - nuclear power technology - advanced large pipe welding techniques and which were adopted by western industries - advances in chemistry and physics - radiation-resistant computer chips - a GPS-like navigation system(military), Fedorov eye lens surgury brought to the west etc.
The Soviets worked within constraints of manpower and resources unlike the west, of which economies were constrained by market supply and demand theory. Their's was a much simpler economy especially after the separation of productive labour economy and expanding western world money markets of the 1980's.
Remarkably the Soviet-style "soft budget constraint" was utilized in cold war America through to today in funding DARPA, academic, and other federally funded basic research efforts. Publicly-funded research in the U.S. produced mainly advances in computer technology, computer chips, parallel computing, GUI tech(before Apple), lasers, fiber optics, metallurgical advances, modern oil well drilling techniques(1960's), ARPANet or networked computers TCP/IP and a host of internetworking control protocols etc The U.S. public spends so much more money on basic research every year that it makes Canada appear to be a Chicago School of lazy-faire experiment gone awry considering our widening productivity gap with the U.S since FTA-NAFTA.
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 19:02
#54
Sven
Okay, Fidel.
Name ten products that are widely used in the world today that were developed by the Soviet Union. Just ten.
Tue, 2008-03-18 19:07
#55
Farmpunk wrote:
quote:
"Hey, I work with migrant Mexican workers, too. I'm not entirely sure the men I've worked with are really in favour of dumping capitalism. In fact, they seemed quite pleased the past two years with the increase in the Canadian dollar."
Hey, I missed this until now...
Definitely, the workers I worked with smiled at the increased Canadian dollar. As far as dumping capitalism - they would scoff at such a notion.
At the same time, they work thier butts off for next to nothing and their living conditions are horrible.
I think what the migrant worker program demonstrates is that these workers are desperate to feed their families and own land back home and capitalism has put us in the insane situation whereby we export jobs to poor countries and because we can't export fields, we import Mexican and Jamaican workers to do work Canadians refuse to do for such low pay.
I'm not sure that this in any way makes capitalism fair, reasonable or rational.
In fact this is insane.
Even more of a reason to opt out of this insanity ASAP.
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Sam ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 19:26
#56
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Name ten products that are widely used in the world today that were developed by the Soviet Union. Just ten.
Because it is all about products and consumption, right, Sven?
The truth is we can't escape capitalism. It is pervasive. It is in your blood in the form of toxins and chemicals. It is in the food you eat, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the information you consume.
It is a system of exploitation so successful even the exploited think they are benefiting from it - like slaves glad to be shackled because freedom is such a scary concept.
But capitalism is destructive. Because exploitation and greed are at the core of capitalism, there is no depth too deep nor act too depraved.
Consider the subprime fiasco. There is a huge human cost that isn't being reported at all by the corporate, capitaist media. We have bailed out the elite of the elite of the US social and financial classes to the tune of hundreds of billions. Working people are likely to lose their nest eggs, and in the wake of a huge financial swindle in which capitalism has done what capitalism does best - exploit; how many people have been held accountable? Zero.
How do you hold a system accountable when it is doing what it is intended to do?
There was a new report on Arctic ice today:
quote:
Despite an unusually cold winter, Arctic sea ice is in worse shape than ever, according to the latest satellite observations.Perennial sea ice—thicker ice that remains frozen throughout the summer—is now at an all-time low, researchers announced at a NASA press conference today.
[url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080318-arctic-ice.html]N... Geographic[/url]
Capitalism continue to works its magic. No one from industry, nor government, shall be held accountable for the environmental destruction being unleashed against our earth in the interests of generating capitalist wealth for no purpose other than to further enrich the already perversely rich.
No one, that is, other than your children. But when have capitalists ever cared about anyone's children (except when opposing child labour laws)?
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 19:41
#57
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Name ten products that are widely used in the world today that were developed by the Soviet Union. Just ten.[/b]
10. Chicken Kiev
9. The Lada automobile
8. Rubik's cube
7. Tarkovsky movies
6. Faberge eggs
5. Mayakovsky poetry
4. One Beatles song: Back in the USSR
3. Tatu
2. The Soyuz spacecraft
1. Russian Roulette
Tue, 2008-03-18 19:41
#58
quote:
Really? What does "that about" mean?
I was suggesting that thinking causes you such great displeasure as to make you shudder.
quote:
If your only beverage choices were Coke, Pepsi, or water, I’d grant you your point.But, how many beverage choices do you really have? I would estimate that there are hundreds of beverage choices that you have.
It doesn't really matter if you have a choice of two kinds of crap or two hundred kinds of crap, it doesn't stop it from being crap.
As far as bevereges beyond the carbonated and colourized sugary water drinks and fake juices, ice teas etc. there are endless kinds of crap.
There were and still are plenty of drinks prior to capitalism, i.e. take the juice of an orange or an apple or any kind of fruit, or vegetable and any number of combination, same as innumerable types of tea. Beer, Wine, whiskey all predate capitalism.
What is truly frightening is that the purest and freshest and most life giving of substances clean water will is becoming a scarcity becuase of the pure homicidal idiocy inherent in capitalism. We would turn this refreshing life giver into crap either by adding garbage( sugar and colouring) or by dumping toxic shit into the source. If I had any choice it would be to prevent this ongoing atrocity against this precious resource unfortunately not really a choice because those who think like Sven demand endless supplies of crap.
Tue, 2008-03-18 19:43
#59
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]This isn't a fair statement. Certainly not 'virtually all'. To start with, the Internet in its original form was developed by the US military (the Advanced Researched Projects Agency) though this is still technically public funding. And while a huge amount of work was produced by educational institutions, a very large amount also came from private sector institutions like Bell Labs and PARC.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors in research and development, it doesn't serve anyone to try to diminish the role of one or the other. A lot of cutting-edge research comes from educational institutions, which feeds a private sector ecosystem that is able to attract capital to quickly develop the research into useful products.
The private sector also contributes to university research.
Also consider what was happening during all that time when Sven says the Internet was 'limited and stagnant'. Two things had to happen for the Internet to become a tool usable by the general public: hardware had to become powerful and cheap and standards had to be developed. Standards are very clearly a joint effort between public and private entities.
Hardware development is more a private sector effort, though. In the 1970s it was very expensive to connect to the Internet, which is why only large companies, government agencies, and research institutions did so. Since then computers have become small and cheap, as have communications equipment. The exponential increase in computing power combined with a simultaneous decline in cost is due to profit motives of hardware manufacturers: it is very lucrative to develop and patent a useful new hardware technology, and also very lucrative to find a way to manufacture it at lower cost.[/b]
This is actually a pretty good response. It points out the complexity of the issue.
A couple of quibbles. The US military is not a capitalist organization (although it certainly supports them, both by its spending and by its mission). ARPA was a granting agency, it did no work itself but handed out money for others to do work. The vast majority of that money went to educational institutions.
Tue, 2008-03-18 19:45
#60
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Okay, Fidel.Name ten products that are widely used in the world today that were developed by the Soviet Union. Just ten.[/b]
It's hard to point to consumer products invented by the Soviets and used here in the west because their's was not a consumer-driven economy based on consumption. Their approach and our's differed by chance and tended to orient research and development efforts towards military and defence as was the case in the U.S. with military research, Pentagon, and defence industries receiving the lion's share of annual U.S. government spending. But essentially, the U.S. military pursued computer technology while the Soviets pursued nuclear power technologies.
But to be sure, the U.S. dropped the laissez-faire capitalist approach after 1929 and later spared no resource or economic approach during the cold war. Oftentimes the U.S. resorted to American-style socialism in competing with Soviet socialism as far as military advances and technology was concerned. Much of that military technology in the U.S. was handed off to "the market" or private enterprise for profiteering and now the basis for a large part of the high tech sectors of our economies. But tech inventions can almost always be accredited in part or some manner to European scientists and inventors somewhere along historical lines of developement. Apparently the U.S., maker of the bomb, was actually behind Canada wrt nuclear power physics leading up to the second world war. Somewhere along the line the U.S. catapulted ahead of the Canadians, and it was due to an international effort to create the atomic bomb. And that invention is still with us today unfortunately. But where would computers be without Turing and Von Neumann? I think Canadians were capable of developing personal computers here, or at least there were early efforts to do so in the late 1960's and 70's. Here, markets drive consumer demand, which has always been a secondary consideration in the overall economic plan. What we have for home PC's are not the most reliable or the fastest or most efficient computers. The military and publicly-funded researchers still have more use for highest tech computers than ordinary consumers do.
I think we have to realize that inventions like the airplane and telephone happened in the west during times of relative peace and prosperity, at least within our own borders. Russians were busy fighting wars of conquest for the Romanov's leading up to the revolution. The country was in relative states of chaos right up to blitzkreig from 1942 to 45. Meanwhile, our industrialized states were advancing quite nicely in the absence of revolution and world war.
Tue, 2008-03-18 19:53
#61
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]Because it is all about products and consumption, right, Sven?[/b]
Of course not.
But, what kind of [b][i]personal computer[/b][/i] do you use? It is a "Произведение в дерьмо компьютер"?
What kind of [b][i]camera[/b][/i] do you use? Is it a "Советский бумагу и карандаш"?
Do you listen to [b][i]music[/b][/i] on anything, such as a "Трава Граммофон"?
How about a Два банок и строка [b][i]telephone[/b][/i]?
Tue, 2008-03-18 20:07
#62
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]There were and still are plenty of drinks prior to capitalism, i.e. take the juice of an orange or an apple or any kind of fruit, or vegetable and any number of combination, same as innumerable types of tea. Beer, Wine, whiskey all predate capitalism.[/b]
Am I correct in concluding that you fall into at least one of the following categories?
1. [b][i]You personally make all of the beverages you enjoy.[/b][/i] Like you said, "Beer, Wine, whiskey all predate capitalism" so one need not necessarily participate in capitalism to enjoy any of those beverages...if you make them yourself (and self-produce all of the necessary ingredients and implements to create said tasty beverages).
2. [b][i]You buy the beverages that you enjoy.[/b][/i] In which case you participate in capitalism.
3. [b][i]You don't enjoy any beverages?[/b][/i]
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 20:12
#63
N.Beltov
I suppose Sven's remarks are interesting because he's trying to substantiate the claim that capitalism still has some innovative powers to develop the productive forces of society. In general I think he's right about this. However, it's easy enough to provide innumerable examples of private sector horrors that, were it not for public sector oversight, would have been even worse or would have continued to this day.
It's also true that Sven completely ignores the negative aspects of capitalism; these are the seemingly inherent aspects that contribute to, what is now, a SET of global problems any one of which may well cause one horrific catastrophe or another: Peak oil; Resource depletion in general; mass pollution of the biosphere; Destruction of biodiversity; an endless series of interminable wars that spread defoiliants, chemical and radioactive fallout across the planet, not to mention the death and destruction in the wake of these wars; mass unemployment and impoverishment of billions of people; ever new technologies used, not in the service of people as the selective example of computer technology might suggest, but, in the service of the mighty moloch of profit at the expense of human beings. For example: biotechnology that creates mass starvation by replacing crops for food with crops for fuel so rich white people can drive their SUVs throught McDonald's in perpetuity; transgenic and mutagenic foods and substances whose unknown consequences will work themselves out on the entire population of North America; trillions of dollars spend on brainwashing the population into a gorging on an endless bath of consumer dazzlement and idiocy; trillions spend on weapons of mass destruction whose use would signal the end of life on Earth; military spending in general, as a means of enforcement of the "invisible hand", to obscene levels in a world where zillions do not have enough to eat, clean drinking water, a roof over their head, or a future.
Getting back to claims of capitalistic innovation, what we do see is that although it is possible for everyone on earth to have clean drinking water, enough food to eat, and so on, these simple tasks have not been carried out. They will not be carried out as long as capitalism is the dominant socio-economic system on this planet. Who gives a shit whether I have an I-Pod, as opposed to a turntable for LPs when tens of thousands die of Malaria because the availability of cheap, generic drugs contradicts the profit motive for already obscenely rich corporations? Does innovation in the latest new "revolutionary" Chevrolet product, or hairspray really trump the need for doctors in poor countries so that thousands of people will not lose their sight? Capitalism is immorality personified.
The glories of capitalism have a steep price. It's becoming clear to many people, and not just socialists, that that price is too high. God forgive us, because no one else will, if we do not jettison this system before it kills us all. Amen.
Tue, 2008-03-18 20:20
#64
Sven buddy...these are big bad nasty things. Do you have anything deep to say about 'em?
Tue, 2008-03-18 20:24
#65
Sven, the telephone is a great invention. I'm glad that Bell invented it, and I'm glad he did his post-secondary studies here in Canada. And he learned to speak Mohawk, according to wiki anyway. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
And I'm very glad about owning a PC and just as glad that publicly-funded researchers created the necessary message control protocols which allowed the internet to be conceived in the first place. I don't really think of them as having been federally-employed and funded at the time, or whether markets reduced costs for me to afford the latest consumer model today. If anything, low wages are responsible for people not affording what might have been the very best second-hand military technologies passed on to consumer markets. Maybe it's a quirk of capitalist economics that we have clunky PC's instead of industrial-strength versions, or cars with parts that last two or three times shorter than they could if profit motive wasn't a driving factor.
I just think of them as Americans, some of whom stood on the shoulders of giants who lived before them in creating these wonderful electronic devices and consumer gadgets first as military drawings and prototypes in a federal lab. For the most part, it was people educated by publicly-funded education systems who did the creating moreso than we could praise a stack of money for being the inspiration and source of creativity. It was people, or iow's, living, breathing, analog type human beans who were responsible not rigid, half-baked ideologies.
Tue, 2008-03-18 20:34
#66
Sven
N.Beltov, you, of course, raise a lot of good points regarding many of the negatives regarding capitalism (although, I must note that at least a few of the evils you noted, such as military spending, long pre-dated capitalism and has been practiced by every state-controlled economy in recent times as well).
That all being said, I would like to pose the following:
Let's assume a world were there was no capitalism but only the government to produce all goods and services. Also assume that the government was truly democratic. Do you think that people would [b][i]choose[/b][/i] to forgo the very same types of items that capitalism now provides them with?
If someone has an idea (say for an iPod-like device), the technology exists to produce it, and people know it can be produced. Will people say, "Naw, I'd rather listen to grandpa sawin' on the fiddle and slappin' the spoons"?
People would still vote for the production of things that brought convenience to their lives (washing machines, personal vehicles, etc., etc., etc.) and entertained them (computers, cameras, music players, etc., etc., etc.) and all that would really change is that the products would be crappier and cost a lot more.
As long as things are technologically possible to make, the only way to put a lid on the desires to have those things of convenience and entertainment would be to [b][i]force[/b][/i] those desires into submission by non-democratic fiat.
Tue, 2008-03-18 20:39
#67
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Maybe it's a quirk of capitalist economics that we have...cars with parts that last two or three times shorter than they could if profit motive wasn't a driving factor.[/b]
Fidel, you and I are certainly old enough to know what happened before rigorous capitalist competition came to the automotive industry. You'd be lucky to have a vehicle last 100K miles (or 160K km) before it was a rusted out hunk of junk. The Japanese competition was the best thing that ever happened to the auto industry. Ms. Sven's Toyota has nearly 185,000 miles (about 300,000 km) on it and it still runs beautifully and looks great.
But, then, I'm sure Soviet-made vehicles far surpassed what Toyota has done.
Tue, 2008-03-18 20:47
#68
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Let's assume a world were there was no capitalism but only the government to produce all goods and services. Also assume that the government was truly democratic.[/b]
I once owned a pair of shoes made in communist Poland. They lasted I don't know how many years. They were pig skin with leather soles. I had to throw them away finally because I was embarrassed that my friends kept remarking on how old they were. Same thing with handmade sweaters from England, Czechoslovakia and different countries leading up to the 1980's.
I think there should be more emphasis on making the consumer items we may or may not be able to afford, environmentally speaking, to last as long as possible. Because there are experts saying that we can't afford throw away capitalism as of decades ago, or sometime in the 1950's when U.S. planners and state department officials decided for Americans that their's would be a consumption-based economy, and that no global resources would be spared in order to feed an insatiable lust for marketable consumer products.
I think people around the world would like very much for these decisions to be made democratically by those people chosen to lead not succumb to corporate lobbyists. We, and I mean Americans and Canadians alike, need an electoral system where one person equals one vote, but not this current system where several dollars and meetings behind closed doors equals one vote.
Tue, 2008-03-18 21:02
#69
N.Beltov
quote:
Sven: I must note that at least a few of the evils you noted, such as military spending, long pre-dated capitalism and has been practiced by every state-controlled economy in recent times as well.
I don't think you would dispute that the arms race with the former socialist countries was the doing of the leading capitalist countries. Would you? Furthermore, the kinds of weapons that exist today, WMDs of a wide and horrific variety, have transformed the nature of war, thanks to that wonderful innovation so characteristic of capitalism I might add, so that the use of these weapons pose a threat to life itself. These new weapons require a new way of living, of thinking - a point that Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell made 60 years ago - which is frankly incompatible with the imperialist carving up of the world into rival trading blocks.
Even without the competition of the socialist countries - and there are so modest competitors still around, after all - the intra-capitalist conflicts and wars go on endlessly. The USA is now facing a real decline. Our own currency trumps theirs. In this new era, there is a greater and greater danger of a declining power using force to retain its ill-gotten booty . Shall I go on?
....
Canadians, by and large, live in a very wealthy country. We're blessed with a ridiculous amount of natural wealth, a tiny population, relative safety from invasion by some barbarian neighbor (for now), a huge percentage of the world's fresh water supply, and so on. It makes no sense to use Canada as a benchmark by which to evaluate a world standard of living. Were the whole world to live like us pigs in Canada ... the world's resources would be utterly depleted and we'd be fighting over pools of water like wild animals after a dry summer in the Khalahari. Fuggetaboutit.
quote:
As long as things are technologically possible to make, the only way to put a lid on the desires to have those things of convenience and entertainment would be to [b][i]force[/b][/i] those desires into submission by non-democratic fiat.
I think you're going out on a limb here. Just because we CAN do something, even if it is profitable for someone, doesn't carry a necessity that we MUST do something. Especially when the consequences in all their glory are factored in and not externalized onto someone else. Furthermore, if there really was a global "vote" on anything, we'd find ourselves as a tiny privileged minority having to justify our 20x40 swimming pools while the skeletal desert-dwellers look for water so they can eat. A real democracy, covering social and economic aspects of life, for this whole planet, is something necessary.
Russell and Einstein wrote about the peril of nuclear weapons. We now have, 60 years later, a set of perils, each one of which threatens the planet. These perils must be addressed, and sooner rather than later. If capitalism is unable to address these perils - and we only have to look at the utter bankrupcy of our own government in regard to a single one of these perils (global warming) to get an idea of this inability - then it only makes sense to look elsewhere for solutions to these complicated problems.
[url=http://www.pugwash.org/about/manifesto.htm]The Russell Einstein Manifesto[/url]
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 21:12
#70
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b] The Japanese competition was the best thing that ever happened to the auto industry.[/b]
And the big three are actually competing with Japan not Toyota. I think someone mentioned this before that Japan's unionized auto makers don't have the overhead of expensive health insurance premiums for their workers like GM and Ford do. And more CEO's in the States have come out with similar comments and lobbying the feds for universal(socialized) health care for all Americans. If taxpayer-funded health care is good for Republican senators, congressmen and their families, then it should be good for America too.
quote:
[b]But, then, I'm sure Soviet-made vehicles far surpassed what Toyota has done.[/b]
Soviet roadways were never as good as the Eisenhower highway system. I mean come on! Then again, the Russians have recently extended trans-Siberian railway by thousands of miles eastward and looking to trade with the Koreas and Pacific Rim countries at some point.
And yes, cars are pretty good for personal, individualized travel. I get a kick out of seeing my 50-something neighbour trucking down the road in his Humvee, because he's it and he knows it. It's the culmination of his life's work - to look like a big shot gassing up at the local and winking at all the pretty young things who couldn't care less what he's driving, because he's not a young man anymore. Or at least he doesn't realize it yet. Three years ago he drove a late model Corvette. He's a good guy though, jts. We see in my example here, it's people who my neighbour considers more important than the stuff he owns, no matter how misplaced or out of time his intentions and desires are. The stuff he strives to own is just a means to an introduction to other living, breathing, alive and well people not a union-made hunk of CO-exhausting metal.
Tue, 2008-03-18 21:22
#71
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]I think you're going out on a limb here. Just because we CAN do something, even if it is profitable for someone, doesn't carry a necessity that we MUST do something. Especially when the consequences in all their glory are factored in and not externalized onto someone else. Furthermore, if there really was a global "vote" on anything, we'd find ourselves as a tiny privileged minority having to justify our 20x40 swimming pools while the skeletal desert-dwellers look for water so they can eat. A real democracy, covering social and economic aspects of life, for this whole planet, is something necessary.[/b]
I think you're going out on limb that's a bit longer than mine: One-world government where everyone gets a vote. Hell, it'll take the Europeans a couple of hundred years to fully integrate their economic and political systems into a single system (if they ever will). Yet, that would look like child's play when compared to integrating China, Tibet, Russia, Afghanistan, the USA, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc. into a single, one-vote-per-person system.
But, let's say we could. We wouldn't be talking about free college education, livable wages, MRI availability, unionizing workplaces, and all of the other things that rich countries like Canada or the USA can afford to worry about and debate. Instead, we'd be talking about how to take care of the 2.5 billion people living on $2 (or less) per day. And, frankly, we should be more concerned about those unfortunates anyway, rather than wringing our hands about whether the retirement age should change from 65 to 67 or whether a living wage is $12 and hour or $15 an hour or similar "rich country" angst.
ETA: Compare [url=http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm]the plight of the American poor[/url] with the $2.5 billion poor souls living on $2 a day (or less).
[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Tue, 2008-03-18 21:42
#72
There is a new economy on the horizon according to the experts. It will be based on high tech services in biotech, nanotech, genetic engineering and all those buzzwords we've heard about in different sources. I think this research into future technologies requires the highest risk, highest cost investments. Like cold war era technologies we're finally able to enjoy like surfing the web today, costs for the newest technologies are being borne by taxpayers as usual until the ideas and prototypes are proven to work. At which time the lowest hanging fruit of public R&D will be handed off to that important middling sector of the economy for profit maximization.
It sounds like the Chinese may attempt their own version of public-private partnerships but extending patent rights to public researchers themselves instead of going directly to PPP's as per the U.S.(Bayh-Dole 1980) and Japan. I'm not sure about this though.
Tue, 2008-03-18 21:56
#73
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]I think this research into future technologies requires the highest risk, highest cost investments. Like cold war era technologies we're finally able to enjoy like surfing the web today, costs for the newest technologies are being borne by taxpayers as usual until the ideas and prototypes are proven to work. At which time the lowest hanging fruit of public R&D will be handed off to that important middling sector of the economy for profit maximization.[/b]
Com'on, Fidel. US companies spend about $200 billion per year in R&D. "Proven" products do not come rolling out of universities into the laps of businesses as "low-hanging" fruit. I know from first-hand experience with our company that we will license (unproven) technological concepts from universities and then engage in nearly all of the work to research and develop the technological concept into a product(s) that people are actually interested in buying at a price that will result in a reasonable profit to the company. Our company has about 500 chemists and biologists, from PhDs to engineers to lab techs, doing research and product development for us. This is not unusual.
If, in fact, "proven" products just fall out of universities for us to sell, then I've got a cost-cutting suggestion (elimination of our R&D group) that will save us tens of millions of dollars a year.
Tue, 2008-03-18 22:08
#74
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]And the big three are actually competing with Japan not Toyota. I think someone mentioned this before that Japan's unionized auto makers don't have the overhead of expensive health insurance premiums for their workers like GM and Ford do. And more CEO's in the States have come out with similar comments and lobbying the feds for universal(socialized) health care for all Americans.[/b]
Actual productivity (the number of hours to produce a vehicle--"HPV") at Toyota (29.92 HPV), Nissan (29.97 HPV) and Honda (31.63 HPV) is significantly better than at GM (32.36 HPV), Ford (35.10 HPV) and Chrysler (32.19 HPV)...although, as [url=http://www.iienet2.org/Details.aspx?id=10756]this link[/url] indicates, that gap is slowly narrowing. On top of that, if you read Consumer Reports, the reliability (quality) of Japanese vehicles, particularly Toyota vehicles, is vastly better than the quality of American-company vehicles (although, there, too, the gap is narrowing). Those are key reasons why the Japanese companies continue to out-perform their American rivals.
Tue, 2008-03-18 22:18
#75
Well that's fine with me, Sven. I'm just saying that of all the English-speaking capitalist countries, the U.S. spends more in total, as well as a measure of percentage of GDP, on publicly-funded R&D than anyone else. Nanotech is a world-wide effort right now, but the U.S. outspends everyone else still. By what I've read about previous medical discoveries in the U.S., as an example, is that it's not so clear what amounts of private money were directed toward basic fundamental research into new discoveries as opposed to, for example, clinical trials to prove safety for secondary uses for a patented drug that is decades old and oftentimes a drug that was initially discovered by academic or federal researchers. The few reports I've read from Ralph Nader and others say that the highest risk research into genetic engineering, stem cells and nanotech are being borne largely by taxpaying citizens around the world and with the U.S. being the largest source. Big pharma is coasting on past achievements, like Tylenol version 65.1234xx as an exaggeration, by what I've read.
Tue, 2008-03-18 22:26
#76
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Actual productivity (the number of hours to produce a vehicle--"HPV") at Toyota (29.92 HPV), Nissan (29.97 HPV) and Honda (31.63 HPV) is significantly better than at GM (32.36 HPV), Ford (35.10 HPV) and Chrysler (32.19 HPV)...although, as [url=http://www.iienet2.org/Details.aspx?id=10756]this link[/url] indicates, that gap is slowly narrowing. On top of that, if you read Consumer Reports, the reliability (quality) of Japanese vehicles, particularly Toyota vehicles, is vastly better than the quality of American-company vehicles (although, there, too, the gap is narrowing). Those are key reasons why the Japanese companies continue to out-perform their American rivals.[/b]
Have a good look at an Asian and American car side-by-side some time. You'll notice something right away, and that's that the Asian car tends to be smaller overall. Of course it will take fewer hours to assemble the Asian car.
As far as capitalism is concerned, time is money. And so are excessively high health care premiums said to be tacking on $1500 bucks to the price of an oversized GM truck or minivan, and which fewer of us want to buy because we can't afford to fill the tanks on them anymore. Or maybe we just don't want to fill them as often because we feel so guilty about it.
Wed, 2008-03-19 05:20
#77
N.Beltov
OK, Sven, I'm going to take your reply as indicating that the set of global problems, some of which I've briefly outlined, don't really merit your attention as important criticisms of capitalism. Perhaps you're of the view that ignoring problems will make them go away.
The one thing you've mentioned, the terrible [i]global[/i] disparity of wealth, actually supports my argument since this disparity can be shown to be [i]the result[/i] of normal development under capitalism - what's called "uneven development" and so on.
Wed, 2008-03-19 07:22
#78
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Until I see anything that suggests that these measures will actually reduce poverty and inequality, I'm going to dismiss all of the above as a sterile attempt to obtain points for style.[/b]
Having less stuff is personally beneficial, regardless of the appropriateness of capitalism and regardless of whether one person's having less stuff will reduce another person's poverty or inequality. Moreover, the personal benefits of having less stuff go beyond whatever points for style one might thereby accumulate.
Wed, 2008-03-19 07:36
#79
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]I think this is right. If I wanted to find a used window (say, from a tear-down) to replace a broken window in my house, am I going to spend fifty hours searching for that perfect used window to fit into the space I need it for or am I going to spend five minutes calling “Windows Incorporated” and have one of their people come out and replace my broken window?[/b]
Obviously, some things are way easier to buy second-hand than others. Windows that fit your house are typically hard to get second-hand. Sweaters that fit your body are typically extremely easy to get second-hand.
Things that are easy to get second-hand (if you're in a big city, anyway): clothes (excluding socks, underwear, and footwear),omputers,furniture (try Craig's List),cars,CDs,bicycles, houses (most houses on the market are used).
Wed, 2008-03-19 07:40
#80
N.Beltov
Yabbut some people love that new car smell and are willing to fork over huge sums of money to get it. Having never bought a new car, I'm immune.
Wed, 2008-03-19 10:00
#81
I think if more people could afford fuel efficient cars, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by significant amounts in the here and now. A friend of mine contemplated buying a Toyota or VW, compared prices, and then bought a used older model Cadillac for real cheap. His lower income job demands that he get to work on time but doing so within his means.
We need more choices for travel, and we need cities designed to provide those choices that people are demanding. We can't afford new infrastruture though since the remainder of money creation was handed over to a private banking cabal in the 1990's. We can't afford vital infrastructure and green economy, because debt-driven capitalism and unelected money speculators dictate that we cannot. Or at least we are supposed to believe that elected officials are impotent to do anything within their power toward affecting change that's needed so badly.
Wed, 2008-03-19 10:13
#82
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions doesn't mean more efficient cars in urban areas - it means no private cars, and radically improved urban design (more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, shorter commutes) and adequate public transport.
As for Humvee drivers, they should be shot (there, that was my inner Stalin).
Wed, 2008-03-19 10:45
#83
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]As for Humvee drivers, they should be shot (there, that was my inner Stalin).[/b]
... or volunteered for the nearest blood-for-oil war of conquest?
Thu, 2008-03-20 05:07
#84
N.Beltov
Ever since John Perkins wrote [i]Confessions of an Economic Hit Man[/i], there have been a few books released that might be described as "Everything you wanted to know about how imperialism works". The most recent contribution in this trend, [i]A Game as Old as Empire: The Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption[/i] is reviewed over at Monthly Review [url=http://monthlyreview.org/080201holleman-jonna.php]here.[/url]
There are some serious weaknesses in the book, according to the reviewers: mainly an historical myopia and a rather primitive economic analysis. These weaknesses emerge particularly in regard to the discussion of remedies or counter-strategies to imperialism. Having mentioned the critiques, I should add the reviewers make clear that the book is well worth reading.
quote:
Eduardo Galeano: ... in systems organized upside down, when the economy grows, social injustice grows with it.
There's an astonishingly prescient quotation from Karl Marx that I cannot help but reproduce here.
quote:
Marx: The national debt, i.e. the alienation [by sale] of the state—whether the state is despotic, constitutional or republican—marked the capitalist era with its stamp. The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possession of a modern nation is—the national debt. (Capital, vol. 1, 919)
Private wealth and public debt? Sound familiar?
This guy just keeps looking more brilliant the further away from him we get.
[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Thu, 2008-03-20 08:13
#85
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]
There are some serious weaknesses in the book, according to the reviewers: mainly an historical myopia and a rather primitive economic analysis. These weaknesses emerge particularly in regard to the discussion of remedies or counter-strategies to imperialism. Having mentioned the critiques, I should add the reviewers make clear that the book is well worth reading.
[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ][/b]
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man as well as the sequel - I forget the title - had those same weaknesses, I thought: they're very useful as a description of "things that are happening" but the theoretical presuppositions seem to be weak. He seems to believe that "a nicer capitalism is possible". Good books to read, though, and I plan to read the new one, too.
Thu, 2008-03-20 08:29
#86
N.Beltov
There are some who have criticized Naomi Kline's most recent effort in much the same way. In the past, Chomsky has been the subject of similar criticism.
I have to admit that I prefer theory that is a guide to action rather than theory that is a guide to inaction. It's not always easy to disentangle these two approaches (especially if they exist side by side in the same author) but it's a worthwhile undertaking.
Of course, it's entirely academically respectable to critique a viewpoint while providing zero in the way of a coherent alternative. And where socialists are effectively silenced it's sometimes prudent to take such an approach. I sympathize with US (socialist) academics who must sometimes feel they are surrounded by Nazis who have just heard the word "culture" and have clicked the safety on their Browning. Nevertheless, it's a kind of political failure to stop just short of outlining coherent alternative(s) and failing to really learn from history.
Thu, 2008-03-20 08:37
#87
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Of course, it's entirely academically respectable to critique a viewpoint while providing zero in the way of a coherent alternative.
Irony, right?
Thu, 2008-03-20 10:16
#88
N.Beltov
No, no irony intended. Perhaps I might have typed,
"it's entirely [i]intellectually[/i] respectable to critique a viewpoint while providing zero in the way of a coherent alternative"
... but that didn't feel quite right. Whose respectability, after all? I was thinking to myself, "Now where do such views originate?", as a socialist bear like me is inclined to, and I couldn't come up with anything other than the academic institutions that are charged with, in general, establishing "acceptable" views on complicated questions of social science. It's not just "good science" that leads virtually every single political science department, or economics department, or Xxx department, [b]not to conclude[/b] that capitalism has all these insolvable contradictions and therefore ought to be replaced sooner rather than later.
I think you know that I generally try to defend a viewpoint where a)ideas are a guide to action, and b) I don't support some sort of Chinese Wall between forming social/political conclusions and taking action based on those conclusions. I don't think it's unfair to characterize academia, on the other hand, as having such a Chinese Wall. Hence my remark.
Am I wrong?
Thu, 2008-03-20 10:23
#89
I would certainly take issue with the assertion that any idea must necessarily have been produced at the behest of some other group of people.
Thu, 2008-03-20 10:37
#90
N.Beltov
Fair enough. To me, all ideas have some sort of social origin. And yet I'm even willing to sometimes use the expression "a gift from God" for some ideas that I have no clue of their origin but simply wish to convey my approval of those ideas.
It would be a caricature of my views to suppose that I mean that academics "take orders" or something like that in regards to the conclusions they come to. It's just a question of how the whole thing works, and, importantly, if all ideas have some source, other than in the tranquil minds of some critically thinking critics or as a gift from God, then what is that source?
Karl Marx became Karl Marx in the 1840's by, in part, mercilessly unraveling the critical critics who criticize and elaborating a new view of the origin of ideas (especially ideas about society). You'd understand my view a whole lot better if you held your nose and read some of this. I realize it's very polemical but you've got a thick hide. You're an Economist, after all? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[b]Edited to add:[/b] What am I saying? My hero, Georgi Plekhanov, does an admirable job dealing with at least part of this question in [i]The Monist View of History.[/i]
Georgi outlines how Marx brought coherence to what was incoherent by explaining how, using his new found theoretical viewpoint, society comes to change. Marx faced other thinkers who viewed social change as originating in the ideas of critical thinkers (they had rejected Hegel's view of the Absolute Idea being responsible here) who simply needed to utter their pearls of wisdom and the world would be a better place.
I can't think of the best text off the top of my head but I suppose the search would itself be a useful activity.
[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Thu, 2008-03-20 10:43
#91
I think that the world has operated on a guiding principle that says the most militant states will dominate the rest economically and culturally. I think this is what Margaret Thatcher and "dries" Tories meant by TINA. It's a false dilemma, and there are thousands of alternatives. There have to be, or we're all dead in the long run.
Thu, 2008-03-20 10:49
#92
N.Beltov
Fidel, TINA is a key plank of the ideological battle for those who argue for the [i]permanence of capitalism.[/i] Thatcher was just ahead of her time in that regard.
Needless to say, TINA goes along with helicopter gunships and bombing runs and, in general, the iron fist than is sometimes described as an invisible hand. There is no alternative if every alternative is bombed to smithereens, economically strangled, or politically demonized.
Thu, 2008-03-20 10:52
#93
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]There are some who have criticized Naomi Kline's most recent effort in much the same way. [/b]
I among them. But I also read her book and appreciated many things about it, it as I did Perkin's books.
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]I have to admit that I prefer theory that is a guide to action rather than theory that is a guide to inaction. It's not always easy to disentangle these two approaches (especially if they exist side by side in the same author) but it's a worthwhile undertaking.
[/b]
Yeah. Sometimes I think it's pretty clear, though! I'm tempted to give examples, but I don't think I will. heh. But I think poor theory that is a guide to action is also "a bad thing". I'm stating the obvious, of course, but then people frequently do [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Thu, 2008-03-20 10:54
#94
Indeed; there are lots of alternatives. But pretty much all the ones we know about are worse.
You are invited to have a go at the [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001291]Beer and Pizza problem.[/url]
[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Thu, 2008-03-20 11:08
#95
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b] There is no alternative if every alternative is bombed to smithereens, economically strangled, or politically demonized.[/b]
Yes, it's like, "Never mind the 70 years we tried invading Russia with 25 armies - funded a blitzkrieg - and then recruited resources of two-thirds of the world in waging cold war on a "closed" society trying hard to exist side-by-side with an aggressive nuclear-powered, vicious empire. Because it's implied in this thread even that a much simpler alternative failed all on its own in spite of the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on a cold war.
[url=http://www.comer.org/tut/perroux.htm]William Krehm[/url] had something interesting comments about economic history, from domineering "physiocrats" to casino market grifters today.
quote:
To better understand economics, it is necessary to clarify that it is not some mysterious set of perfect mathematical equations over which we have no control. Today, the Marketplace is often alluded to in almost Godlike terms, as if it were some all-pervasive, self-correcting, immutable Presence. To criticize operations of 'the Marketplace' smacks of blasphemy. But, believe it or not, economic spokespersons do not carry about with them some secretive, inner knowledge of the way in which the world works!A fundamental concept which aids us in bringing economics down-to-earth is the very important notion of dominant revenue economics: from it, we see that dominant interests devise an 'economics' which serves their exclusive monetary and economic interests, rather than the interests of all, or of the Earth.
Thu, 2008-03-20 11:24
#96
N.Beltov
A very simple point about capitalism is that it has a history. It has a beginning.
Now, I realize that many prevailing approaches to the history of capitalism try to convey it as a system which [i]was always present[/i] and, thanks to the removal of some obstacles, it developed into its current "wonderful" state, but, frankly, such primitive metaphysical views of history are better suited for small children. There's much more that can be said here, of course, and I recommend E.M. Wood's [i]The Origin of Capitalism[/i] in this regard, but the point I wish to lead to is this: if capitalism had a beginning then it has an end. Furthermore, becoming more knowledgeable about that beginning helps us to imagine and visualize a post-capitalist world. Then we can imagine non-capitalist trade, freedom from compulsory markets, and so on, rather than imagining pizza and beer problems which will only make us hungry and thirsty for a market solution.
Thu, 2008-03-20 11:34
#97
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]A very simple point about capitalism is that it has a history. It has a beginning.
[/b]
Well, that's the thing about these "thought experiments". They're quintessentially liberal in the sense that they're ahistorical: they take the historically particular for the universal. At least, that's my experience of that tradition (a historical tradition that denies it's a historical tradition).
[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Thu, 2008-03-20 11:42
#98
Beer and pizza problems, for me anyway, are a win-win situation given endless supplies of wheat, flour and hops and barley. Markets are no doubt prolific and effective at distributing goods and services.
But as Krehm points out, there have been pressing issues arise wrt the environment and scarcity of vital resources world-wide since the energy crises of the 1970's. The privatization of the remainder of the money supply was essentially a bailout for not just Canadian banks but all those western countries adhering to monetarism. Our democratically elected governments, and that's an abuse of the term, willingly ceded sovereign control of our money supply to bankers and money speculators who are never elected any country.
As someone pointed out in another thread, they are ill and don't have a regular family doctor there on the East Coast. Krehm states that:
quote:
[i]"The crisis of modern-day economics springs from a quixotic attempt to understand a mixed economy in which profit is no longer the dominant revenue- in terms of a theory based on the assumption that it is."[/i]
Thu, 2008-03-20 11:43
#99
N.Beltov
RosaL: Yea, the other thing is that you can wind up with an inexplicable craving for beer and pizza that can't be controlled. Heheh.
[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Thu, 2008-03-20 11:44
#100
What's the difference between a capitalist and a free-market economy?
When I see someone talk about "freedom of compulsory markets" as an objective for those who don't like capitalism, I realize I'm not current in my definitions.
Thu, 2008-03-20 11:50
#101
quote:
The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word hasbeen banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century -- without exception -- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement -- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.It's as if the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines all failed because the
automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man [sic] shall never fly.
William Blum, [i]Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II[/i]