Hey Trip!
(T:)
.....However, I do believe that world population, resourse use and abuse,
and environmental problems will occur faster than the market will allow.
What appears
to me to be the greatest problem isn't the functioning of the marketplace,
but the
measurements we use to define the health of our economy. The GNP is a lousy
measeurment.
(R:)
OK, I agree that it is an INCOMPLETE measure. It (using GNP as a measure)
doesn't necessarily lead to any of these, but it won't lead you away from
them either. (Interesting correlations exist between where capitalism runs
amok and where evolution runs amok. But I am getting off topic) I guess what
I am getting at is that it seems you are suggesting the GNP is some type of
feedback mechanism that controls the economy. I see it more as a mismeasure.
Big, REALLY BIG, difference. (I am frequently wrong though, as anyone on
this forum will attest.)
T:
It is both. It mismeasures, but anytime you set what the goal is, in this
case
the limited measurements of economic growth, the government and industry will
strive to meet that goal. If it is profit at the expense of peoples jobs and
livihoods, so be it. S, yes, I believe it guides the economy.
R:
The major "agents" in free enterprise (businesses individuals, attorneys,
unions, environmentalists, religios groups, etc) do not strive for GNP. It is
an emergent number not reflected in the underlying goals of the key interests
leading to it. If the economy was centralized and commanded by bureaucratic
planners, then I agree it could be guided by this number.
Thanks for the history of the measure. I agree that it is imperfect and that
it measures economic value imperfectly. As for broader social quality and
environmental quality, it doesn't get to these at all. In summary, it isn't a
very good holistic measure of quality. It is an imperfect measure of
economic quality, which itself is but a subset of social which is a subset
of..... If the nation really measures itself only on this number, then the
nation is silly.
Trip:
Isn't this too hard with the mega-industries we have, and their enormous
political power through campaign finace practices?
R:
In response to the statement "Life is hard." Voltaire is fabled to have
replied "Compared to what?" The same question applies to your comment. I
believe the best answer to it was given by Madison. Rather than forcing a
common vision or limiting freedom, Madison opted to build a system of
competing interests. His was a solution of interconnected competing and
cooperating fragmentation.
Yes GM and Ford may support Bush. But the corporations representing the
foriegn importers may choose Gore. The media, unions, attorneys,
environmentalists, etc can line up where they want on issues too. The point
is that our system, unlike many, was built upon competing checks and
balances. It is imperfect, but better than any alternative.
Trip:
Yes, while corporate stockholders, all want the company to profit, they also
want
clean air and water, and more time for their family and etc. The corporation
doesn't take this into account. AND as it is presently constructed, corporate
CEO's can't because then they are using business dollars for non-profit.
R:
Thanks, I agree we should build a distributed control process that
establishes value and measures of progress for these qualities.
(R)
Our freedom allows massive wealth production
and allows us to easily
Trip:
(define this, because it seems as if more people are working ever harder to do
that task, and are not doing it very well if you look at global hunger and
malnutrituion statistics)
ROG:
Huh?
Lifespans improved from 30 to 67 over the course of the 20th century
Per the UN, we reduced poverty more in the past 50 years than the prior 500
In 1970, 35% of the world was starving, that has dropped to 18% in '96 and
the UN projects it will drop to 12% in 2010
Developing country calorie intake has gone up 38% since 1961 on a vastly
growing base.
The UN predicts that there will be more food per person available through
2030 worldwide, with only Africa lagging (due to social problems)
What are you talking about?
Trip:
I don't think we have equality of opportunity. But also, why do you consider
equality of outcome as childish? Im not talking about everyone having the
same
thing, just the essentials as our amazing productivity can now provide.
R:
I was just refering to a vague recollection of something I read about the
concept of equality maturing as children mature. I do basically agree that
both are important, that neither is as good as it could be, and that
excessive imbalance leads to the potential of exploitation and bad mojo.
They are complementary.
(T):
We, due to the pressure to grow our economy, commit horrendous human rights
abuses
worldwide, not to mention the destabilizing effect our CIA has had on thrid
world
development.
(R):
You need to support this argument. I don't buy it, but will keep an open
mind if you can prove abuses and destabilization are caused by "pressure to
grow our economy".
Trip: Corporate interests need to increase profits to grow the economy. They
do
this, among many ways, by laying off high wage american union employees and
subcontracting the labor to third world countries that have little or no labor
protection or minimum wage laws.
ROG:
This isn't the issue I meant, by while here let me add that it is odd how
globalism has led to unprecedented -- no unimaginable -- employment in the US
considering your theory. And as an economist, you know that minimum wage laws
act as a tax on employment. Also, I trust you know that the last thing these
workers need is help from rich western industrial unions on setting their
wages. The real goal (or at least likely outcome) isn't solidarity, it is
exclusion. You aren't teaching this stuff to our kids are you?
T:
In the global battle of the Cold war, we used the CIA to destabilize leftist
regimes. Including the PDF in Afghanistan in 1978, one of the major reasons
the
Soviets invaded in the first place. look at the history of South America, and
the middle east (Iran is a prime example)
Is that enough of a link?
R:
No. I will leave the arguments on the cold war to Platt and Marco. The
point I wanted you to prove wasn't that we sinned, it was that we sinned
because of "pressure to grow our economy." I don't think you have even
touched this one yet.
Trip:
... When planning how to spend 20-30 years,. 40 hours a
week, of our lives, we often choose what will provide the most resources as
opposed to where our intrinsic interests lie. Thus, people become so
dissatisfied with their lives in America that we are 80% of the international
drug trade - and no the really heavy druge are available by prescription.
People
do have ANY choice, but often they don't recognize and society doesn't
validate
those that aren't renumerative. SEE high school teacher - hehe
ROG:
:^)
I am all for choosing wisely and living comfortably with the pros and cons of
our choices.
Trip:
How can any interest compete with the impact that global capitalism has on
people
and how they live their lives. Capitalism is no longer about filling a need.
It
has become, CREATE a need, thru advertising, then fill it is socially
destructive. "Anti-social behavior, in pursuit of a profit, is a good thing."
(Affluenza, PBS) This is a direct quote from a video of a marketing
conference.
ROG:
"America is the Great satan!" This is directly from a video of those trying
to destroy capitalism. Let's not try to defend stupidity. I suspect that
capitalism does lead to excesses. Again, our challenge though is to build a
better system that cures these weaknesses while building upon the strengths.
T:
Try the www.rprogress.org website
R:
Will do, though interestingly enough, I think I visited it last week
(seriously)
Later dude,
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST