Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:27pm PT
|
"There is not so much difference between the ideologies of capitalism and communism, you know. The difference is simple. Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, and communism is the reverse."
– John Gardner, The Man from Barbarossa
Other apposite comments at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Communism
Randism is like all the other isms. There is probably some truth to it, but it's not the complete truth. All preachers are trying to sell you something, usually something that doesn't correspond with the world as it is.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
 H.L. Mencken
And yes, Ayn Rand was an appallingly bad writer. As was Karl Marx.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:41pm PT
|
"We do need a certain amount of government regulation in some areas to keep it in check.
Very true, but we also need to regulate the "moochers" and welfare cases who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves like the rest of us do. "
It's nice to have boogymen but a realistic look at society shows that corporations are far bigger mooches on taxpayers and society than some underclass than needs welfare.
You don't even need to cite the trillion dollar plus bailout moneys to get there. Wars, infrastructure and tax breaks so that companies like Microsoft don't pay income tax.
If there are any great moochers in society, it's the CEOs that Rand glorifies that make 1000x their employees pay, while running their companies into the ground and squirreling their bonus money away in offshore trusts. Nobody is worth 1000x somebody else and these big businesses owe their success to the employees whose sweat and tears make the product as much as to the idiot who decides they should build a 12 mile per gallon SUV.
Truth on all sides but the demonization of society and glorification of rich business follks in Atlas Shrugged doesn't match what we really see, which is that Genius Start-up Mavericks are shut down by the 800 pound gorillas of established business and the bias that their bought and paid for government has already bought for them.
PEace
Karl
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 04:50pm PT
|
"It's nice to have boogymen but a realistic look at society shows that corporations are far bigger mooches on taxpayers and society than some underclass than needs welfare."
Karl, you're seeing too much of what you want to see from my statement. I DID say "very true" to the conclusion that reasonable regulation of the economy and business was GOOD, but also that the lazier, unproductive could be better regulated also.
And it's not just from a tax/money standpoint that I pick on the "underclass". Unproductive/lazy people burden our society in other ways. Also, I do realize that there is a segment of the welfare class that is truly unable to be productive, but that number is very small IMO.
|
|
ontos
Boulder climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:06pm PT
|
Let me take you through an analysis of the problems with capitalism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
I'll begin with an aside. Rand has a small stylistic problem which prevents her from getting any serious consideration in philosophy circles, namely, her writing lacks rigor. To present a philosophy through a novel is not new and has been done to great effect by some very notably philosophers (particularly the existentialists), though in the case of our French coffee drinking novelist, the fiction which illustrated and made accessible the philosophy, was underwritten by rigorous philosophical books and essays. While Rand did publish some such works, they have been roundly criticized as sophomoric by the academy.
Stylistic quibbles aside, there are some serious problems with Rand's philosophy in general. To begin thinking about political philosophy it is necessary to think about why it is we have societies. If we subscribe to social contract theory as an explanation for the organic creation of societies, we have societies because cooperation is more survivable and comfortable than life in isolation (e.g. division of labor is efficient, groups can more effectively minimize the risk of predators or invaders, group life allows us to spread out the risk of "acts of god" so sickness or a house fire isn’t a death sentence). Another way to put this is that life in a society allows for the mitigation of risk for the individual in much the same way your car insurance company does with the risk of an auto accident. Similarly, societies mitigate the risks to future generations of members by agreeing to care for those born unable to care for themselves (e.g. orphans, the disabled etc.). From this perspective, those things that laissez faire rail against as “income redistribution” appear to be merely a different way of distributing resources.
A thought experiment: Imagine a primitive world where the largest social unit is the nuclear family. Families hunt for their own, farm for their own and are responsible for their own defense. Some humans in this world are physically strong and these strong humans go around killing and/or enslaving their neighbors and taking their stuff.
Very well, no doubt the laissez faire-set will say that it is the proper place of the government to protect people in their property against physical threats and that it would be fine for some of these weak families to band together to mitigate the risks posed by the strong and violent humans. Interestingly, in this case the strong human doesn’t feel this way, he feels like these people are weaklings and lower creatures that simply don’t work hard enough to maintain the security of their property and families and that the government has not business whatsoever taking the property he stole from these lay-a-bouts fair and square. The laissez faire-set will now likely respond that this isn’t the same, I work very hard to make my money and I do so fairly.
Very well, lets say that, instead of physically strong, our protagonist is mentally clever, a fast talker who prays on the mentally weak, sells them tonics for what ales them, though these products are not effective and he knows it, he’s now our medicine man. Surely the laissez faire-set agree that it is fair for the society to collect some monies from the constituent members to police such fraud and to protect the mentally weak among them. But again our strong man feels this is wrong, he has, through hard work and ability lifted his money off of the weak and lesser members of society who clearly deserve not whatever wealth they manage to put together. The laissez faire-set will now likely respond that this isn’t the same, I work very hard to make my money and I do so fairly.
Very well, what if our strong friend was a smart and resourceful man, who bought himself a mine and set-up a company store where his workers subsisted and slowly fell into debt until their bodies couldn’t work anymore at which point they had neither the ability to work nor the funds with which to support themselves. Surely, it would be okay for the society to impose a tax on these employees while they worked and on their bosses to ensure that when they were no longer able to work they’d have a government stipend on which to subsist. But the mine owner would scream and howl, “you cannot tax my employees, then I’ll have to pay them more and they’ll spend less and the company store, my profits are mine and the government has no business interfering; le the poor bastards die when they can no longer work.” The laissez faire-set will now likely respond that this isn’t the same, I work very hard to make my money and I do so fairly.
Or what if our strong friend was a securities broker, manufacturing and vigorously marketing credit backed derivatives getting rich selling junk paper to the less informed or uncurious?
The thing is, resources must get distributed some way and they are, to a large degree, not distributed in accordance with how valuable a person is to the society. Teachers make crap money compared to the derivatives hawking securities trader. The salesman at the car dealership often is better paid then the mechanic; and none of this is really fair. The lazy often profit off the work of their ancestors by making wise decisions and collecting passive income. None of this has anything to do with who deserves or doesn’t deserve money. In the absence of any regulation, the strong man wins, with minimal regulations the fraudster wins, with a little more regulation it’s the mine owner, and with still more regulation it’s the securities trader and the salesman and all of this is arbitrary and much to do with luck, which brings us to Rawls and his veil of ignorance which asks us to consider making decisions about how our societies ought operate from a perspective in which we don’t know if we’ll be the strong man or the weak man, or if we’ll be the fool or the con-man, or if we’ll be the mine worker or the mine owner, or if we’ll be the genius or the idiot. His contention is that from this perspective we are better able to see the degree to which the society is operating fairly and further that we’ll be inclined make decisions that maximize the possibility that all live with some degree of comfort and security.
I think many conservative anti-regulation, anti-taxation, anti-“income redistribution” advocates actually quite like regulations that protect them and the things that taxes allow the government to buy (defense, infrastructure etc) that they use and actually like some instances of income redistribution (or perhaps there are loads of conservatives who won’t let their kids accept government education or grants). Rolling back all of the taxes or regulations doesn’t make for a fair world, which isn’t to say the current structure is fair, but this is a criticism of specific regulations and tax policies and not a criticism of taxes and regulations in general.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:12pm PT
|
Well Rand's writing lacked rigor!
Woohoo!
Your logic lacks rigor, but thanks for the explanation.
Maybe you could just read a little economics when you discuss value. You can't find that in political science, and you clearly do not understand that prices for goods and services in a free market are agreed to by two willing parties.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:15pm PT
|
What about Psychedelic Anarchism? It always worked for me.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:23pm PT
|
Adam Smith - if you actually read the Wealth of Nations - had some quite pointed things to say about human behaviour. Despite his adoption as the patron saint of capitalism, he had some pungent things to say about the subject, to the effect that no one - individuals, enterprises, governments - was to be trusted.
Plus Smith is more fun to read than Marx, Rand, and most other religious and political writing.
Which makes it grimly ironic that the corporate pitch for the last 40 years has been "Don't trust governments. Trust us." Corporations, particularly large corporations, are clearly no more, or less, trustworthy than anyone else, and certain to act in their selfish interests when they can. It's even more ironic that their sales representatives are those who claim to favour smaller government.
Ideologies of all types, religious or not, are to be distrusted. None of them has "the" complete right answer.
A lot of this is abstract in any case. The US has increasingly been a mixed economy since at least the civil war. With surges of government spending and/or regulation under Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Nixon/Reagan/Bushes. That is, the proportion of GNP devoted to government spending has steadily increased, and in total (all governments) varies between 30 and 40%, maybe a bit more in times of real crisis. And regulation has become more complex if not more effective in parallel with economic growth and complexity, and the consensus a century ago that corporations could not be trusted.
For all the noise and rhetoric, that isn't going to change.
Likewise there's no point in pretending that the U.S. isn't an imperial power. It has been in philosophy since Manifest Destiny and the subjugation of the Indians. It has been in doctrine since Monroe/Adams. And it has been militarily since the invasion of Mexico in 1846. Granted, the US empire is generally preferable to other versions - at least in theory and sometimes in reality it actually supports true democracy, human rights, and economic freedom. And it's sometimes more of an economic and cultural empire than a political/military one. But it's still an empire, and sometimes clumsy.
Obama has substantial problems bequeathed to him, not just economic and military, but also of a nation that seems unable to honestly appraise itself. He seems to be a uniter, which should help, and I hope that in his speech next week he clearly identifies the problems and his proposed solutions. Especially for the next 12 - 18 months he has considerable freedom of action. Let's hope he doesn't squander it, as did Bush.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 05:48pm PT
|
Skip is largely right on this one - electronic technology and services have generally gotten cheaper and improved over the last decade. Which is why we're debating it on this forum - barely imaginable a decade ago.
The industry is undoubtedly in a state of ferment, given the rapidity of change, and there are some pretty sharp practices. Starting with Microsoft. But for all the corporate predation, there has been a lot of innovation.
Although much can in turn be traced to government support for the military and aerospace industries in the 1950s and 1960s, which gave a huge boost to innovation.
If nothing else, I'd guess Obama will stress education, research, and innovation next week.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 06:42pm PT
|
This thread was a lot more interesting when it stayed on topic and hadn't devolved into flaming and derisive comments.
Thanks to those who contribute(d) in a thoughtful articulate manner.
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 06:54pm PT
|
My bad. I did not intend to de-rail the discussion. I have deleted my posts. Sorry about that.
Edit: Since Skip won't leave it alone I guess I will let him goad me into a response.
A. I never claimed that companies would be FORCED to bundle technologies into a package. I said companies claimed they would OFFER these bundles and that they would be included with the SERVICE. This was of the MANY ARGUMENTS telecomm companies made in getting the 1996 Act passed.
B. Skip You are nitpicking T-1, I don't know why but you are. I assume your T-1 line is for business. My focus was more on the GENERAL PUBLIC END USER, and not the path to him/her. This was/is the technology that should be cheaper. Competiton can't change the price of a T-1 line all that much because it is a HARDWARE that can't advance much more than it already has. But the services "piped" in through that T-1 line, the device(s) used to connect to the line, and the software used to manipulate the data that is transfered via the T-1 line can be advanced by competition, research, and developement.
C. With the ACT competition was also going to be created through T-1 VS. Coaxial VS. Satellite/Wireless. As we already know these three mediums are not created equal so there was a hang up. But for the sake of argument let's say they are. That was another arena of competition that was supposed to open up. Driving SERVICE providers to offer more options to entice customers. Again back to MORE competition.
I have no interest in getting into a technology pissing match with you over ISP, T-1, who shares with who and how much they pay. My focus is on the false notion that de-regulating an industry plants the seeed for competition. The "expected" technology at the "expected" price has not come to pass.
So my final point Skip is that we as a consumer were promised better/more technology at a cheaper price. Has that happened? Sure it has to a degree, companies wouldn't survive if they could not meet consumer demand. But IMO much of the competition that was to drive this technology boom has been negated by mergers and take overs and we should be seeing higher quality services and better products. Getting excited that I can post this with no interuptions is like being happy my car starts when I turn the key. It's supposed to happen that way, I SHOULD take it for granted just like I should take uninterrupted internet service for granted. That is what I pay for so that is what I should get. I think it's a sad statement that we are surprised and happy when something works the way it's supposed to.
And yes if this is news to you I think should go back to school and read over the technology articles that were being written back in the mid-90's. I think you will find that what was being sold was a vitrual electronic Utopia all stemming from the passage of this Act. I can realize that working in the industry at the time you didn't have time for far fetched notions and theory. You were probably focused on the day to day as you are now because that was and is your job. But while you were pounding the keyboard representatives of the industry were selling this to Congress, and it was being taught that this was the way of the future.
Maybe you feel that this is a personal attack on you since you are part of the industry. That I am claiming you failed at your job, or that what you have been doing for much of your life has been fruitless. Know that I am not. Technology has advanced at a super-sonic rate in the last 10 years I am sure you are one of the many that deserve credit for helping it along the way.
That being said I am standing by my statement that the intent of the Communications Act of 1996 did not produce the level of competition promised, and that if technology companies had focused more dollars on R&D, Marketing, and Promotion rather than Mergers and Acquisitions we would have advanced our current technology at far less cost to the consumer.
I know I'm banging my head into a wall but there it is.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 07:05pm PT
|
Problem is that for Objectivism or Anarchy to work well, everyone needs to start with a level playing field and have equal opportunities. This is clearly not the case, so big problem. Would GW Bush have gotten into Harvard MBA if he was poor, black, and from Detroit? It can be done obviously (see Obama), but it's alot easier if you're wealthy or have connections.
If everyone should be treated equally according to their ability and desire, what do we do about about the slacker children of the rich? Does Paris Hilton deserve what she gets?
As for good political/economic writing, Engels is better than Marx. Try Hannah Arendt "Totalitarianism". Or Thorstein Veblen "Theory of the Leisure Class". Rand is crap, self-absorbed writing, whatever one thinks about the philosophy.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 07:44pm PT
|
First of all, that was a fine post Ontos. Thanks for taking the time. It certain illustrates the danger of too much "free market"
Second, the real bottom line in how healthy a society is depends not on the system but on the heart/soul/intelligence sum of it's parts. If we were all 30% smarter, more compassionate and wise, it would hardly matter what system we had. If we were 30% stupider and more violent, the world wouldn't last long.
Peace
Karl
|
|
ontos
Boulder climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 07:46pm PT
|
Trad is good: you're clearly an f*-in genius. Wonderful response. Your mental powers are impressive. What makes you think I'm a political scientist and/or that I'm not an economist?
|
|
ontos
Boulder climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 10:47pm PT
|
Skip, my intention wasn't to discount Rand's ideas for stylistic reasons but to acknowledge that her ideas have trouble being taken seriously in philosophical circles for stylistic reasons. This wasn't intended as a judgment about their correctness but merely as an observation.
Concerning the creation of "value" by two willing persons (trad is good), I recognize that this is true, however there is a problem when there is a disparity in the level of knowledge between buyer and seller. In the example I provided the seller of the elixir knows that it's useless while the purchaser does not. This is an inefficiency which is guarded against in the U.S. through government intervention (e.g. the FDA evaluates the claims of drug companies vis-a-vis their drugs and the CPSC evaluates the claims of producers of consumer durables). If you can remedy all knowledge inequities between seller and purchaser, I'll concede the efficiency of your free market system.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 11:24pm PT
|
"If you can remedy all knowledge inequities between seller and purchaser, I'll concede the efficiency of your free market system."
I take further exception. The example I like to point out is this, Let's say there is trade where I have something you need. If I'm pointing a gun at you and I'm the sheriff, the "value" is more about your life and family than a fair price for anything. Same could be said for monopoly power. If big money can squeeze out competitors and legislate barriers to entry for others, it's no longer a free market.
and nearly every free market gravitates toward monopoly without regulation.
Certainly there is much to complain about in the wisdom of certain regulations, just as we can complain about greedy rich people, lazy welfare bums, and sport climbers. It's more human nature than any system which fails us.
Peace
Karl
Peace
Karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2009 - 11:53pm PT
|
I haven't waded through all of this, but the discussion of "free market" with respect to the internet boarders on high comedy.
The First Cause of the internet was the US Gov. essentially ARPA (Advanced Research Programs Agency) which constructed parts of this through the old Federal Telecommunication System (FTS) and various and sundry other communication lines, all copper at the time.
Even into the early 90s the USG didn't have an idea of how the internet was being paid for, and how it was constructed. There were no line items in the budget for the growing infrastructure, it was pre-commercial, and yet the universities, national laboratories, etc, where being stitched together in some way, paid for through individual grants. Not so much per grant.
There were communication companies pulling T-1 lines into these organizations, laying the back bone for the Energy Science Network (ESnet) which linked (still links) the labs from one end of the country to the other.
It was only later that the commercial application of the internet started to dominate the infrastructure expansion, not too long ago.
And all this from public funds... so to argue that the "free market" somehow sprung from whole clothe is to misunderstand the essential role of the government support for the initial innovation, an innovation responding to the need of researchers to conduct their research in a transcontinental manner. The World Wide Web was created by particle physicists, I suspect the sum of all dollars spent on all high energy research world wide is smaller than the yearly revenue of commerce on the WWW...
...those of you who decry that the government is stealing from you should do well to think more carefully about where a lot of the "free market" was created. In the US, those markets are often heavily subsidized by the USG in response to its needs (e.g. the entire electronics industry).
If you want to live as an individual outside of society you are welcome, and free, to wander off and do just that.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:11am PT
|
I am saying that the internet, as you know it, came into being as a result of research sponsored by the USG who had no idea how it was going to be used. In some sense, the USG didn't even know it was creating the internet.
At the time, the justification for doing it was pretty damn slim, and any small independent business man could have rightfully complained of wasted tax dollars and government incompetence.
And yet, here we sit, arguing over this thing... exchanging ideas, doing business, communicating, spamming & phishing, etc, etc...
Inefficient? Misguided? Irrelevant? the fact is that it has happened and has created a new market. In some sense, that is the role of government... the commercial sector pretty much missed the whole thing until well after it was established.
Not 5 years ago people were still scratching their heads about how to make money on the internet...
A NeXT Computer was used by Tim Berners-Lee (who pioneered the use of hypertext for sharing information) as the world's first Web server, and also an early Web browser, WorldWideWeb in 1990. Berners-Lee introduced it to colleagues at CERN in March 1991. Since then the development of Web browsers has been inseparably intertwined with the development of the Web itself.
that wasn't too long ago... how many of you thought that Mosaic was the shizzle back in the day? what magic, a graphical browser... Navigator was released in 1994, 15 years ago....
I'm just saying that from October 29, 1969 when the first message went out on the ARPANET to the early 90s, all of the development of this wonderful technology was driven by the USG...
and they didn't have a clue.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:12am PT
|
skipt... back in 1958 it was named ARPA, (it was in DoD)... it was renamed DARPA in 1972
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:12am PT
|
OK, I did not look this up, Ed. But pretty sure that it was DARPA first, and its funding came from the defense budget. And yup, the "Web" came from particle physics.
ontos - perfect information is an ideal to be sure. But you have FOIA, research is public, etc. Perfect information does not imply that it is all correct, simply that all market participants have nearly equal access to it.
The argument was logically flawed. You attacked the form of the thesis, rather than the thesis.
Anyway, I am wondering how many folks on this thread have actually read Atlas Shrugged, not the Cliff Notes or wikipedia.
Full Disclosure here: I have read Atlas Shrugged, We The Living, The Fountainhead, and the biography "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Brandon. Yeah, her... :-) LOL.
Carry on...
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:18am PT
|
Hmm. Just saw Ed's post..
Ed, Dartmouth invented time sharing after 1963. There may have been an ARPA before then, but the first real computer networking that was real was put together by Dartmouth College.
See John Kemeny, Thomas Kurtz, etc.
They linked up all the schools in the northeast. The guy next door to me went to Dartmouth and turned down MIT because it had better undergraduate access to computing (1971)!
http://www.truebasic.com/ (1964).
EDIT: I could have sworn Ed's post said 1963 and not 1958. But maybe it is just about the start of the agency....?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!