To Wim and Platt,
>From Rog
WIM:
Don't just 'strongly endorse studying past progress'; please
describe that study and show the results.
ROG:
Just go to the Heritage Foundation's website on the Index of Economic
Freedom. The most reasonable theory right now to progress is to have a strong
rule of law, solid property rights, good courts, minimal state intervention,
an absence of corruption and over-regulation, good infrastructure, superior
education, free trade, democratic government, well-designed safety nets and
good sources of reliable financing. Countries that follow this path seem to
prosper, and those that deviate tend to go nowhere.
WIM:
I think that globalization IMPLIES investments > employment > wealth
creation > favorable conditions for political involvement of populations in
general and democracy in particular in those places where the conditions for
investments are best (making them even better) and PASSING BY those places
where these conditions are worst (making them even worse).
ROG:
Agreed. So the solution to this viscious spiral is to improve the conditions
for investment and at roughly the same time make deliberate efforts to move
investments this direction. I support global associations that help this
occur, and oppose those that work against this concept (such as the IMF). I
do, however, value the competition of ideas between various world
organizations.
WIM:
Without colonialism and unfair trading
practices (backed by warships) the former colonizing countries would not
have been able to create their present favorable investment climate. The
privileged areas of the world still can't sustain their wealth without less
privileged areas
ROG:
There are plenty of examples of countries that have made great progress
without exploiting others. In fact, many of them ARE former colonies. Korea,
Taiwan, Australia, Hong Kong, Canada, etc. You are right about co-dependence
for success, but it doesn't involve exploiting the less-priveledged areas, it
involves trading, creating, specializing and the well documented benefits of
division of labor. Exploitation surely exists, but I believe its ultimate
costs are destructive long term to both the exploited and the exploiter.
As for "brain drain," it is better that a brain be productive elsewhere than
not productive at all. Clearly the best situation though would be for every
country to offer local opportunities. (See above on how to catalyze this)
WIM:
The
underprivileged areas of the world can't follow the historic paths of social
progress of the privileged areas, because there is no scope any more for
colonialism, unfair trade to profit from and globalization with them as the
core.
ROG:
But they can follow the road to freedom as sketched out above, and it seems
to work. Again though, this theory is just the best to date. If it leads us
astray, or if better strategies prove themselves at a later date, I
wholeheartedly endorse pragmatism over idealism. Bad theories should be
replaced with better theories.
WIM:
Your results seem to be limited to a suggestion to 'find ways to export
modern liberal free enterprise democracy' and doing even better ourselves
(reducing inequality of opportunity, reducing environmental destruction,
taming excesses of technology etc.). It occurs to me that this is exactly
what the Western world has been doing for the past 50 years and that the
results are disappointing if we are still debating whether global society
has on average made progress in that period.
ROG:
Haven't we already agreed that lifespans, infant mortality, education levels,
literacy, democracy levels, racial and gender freedom, caloric intake, health
care, science, technology, productivity and standard of living all improved
more over the past 100 years -- especially the last 50 years in the most
undeveloped nations-- than in any era ever? Furthermore, advanced societies
are showing that nations with high standards of living can co-exist much
better with the environment than less wealthy nations.
I don't suggest that progess was easy, or inevitable, or as consistent as we
would like. In addition, I acknowledge that progress in some areas inevitably
created new problems in other areas (pollution, inequality, religious
fanaticism, global warming). But I believe this is a feature of progress
itself, not a shortfall in our social advancement over the past century.
Furthermore, I see the new problems as solvable too -- at least potentially
solvable.
WIM:
I do see primary social and intellectual progress (even on average) very
clearly (as I stated). What's at issue is secondary social and intellectual
progress, the development of better social and intellectual patterns of
values FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and not for the sake of biological survival.
What's the use of living longer and being more literate if you are -globally
speaking- even more of an outcast and excluded from where the real progress
is going on than before?
ROG:
You are elevating relative social values above life and intellectual values?
I won't follow you there. You seem fixated on social status. To imply that
people are better off dead and dumb than alive and knowledgeable -- but low
in status! -- is really distasteful to me. There is always someone better
off or higher in status, and anyone that can't get over this inevitability is
being childish (I mean those you are concerned for are being childish, not
that you are). The mature and intelligent thing to do if one is concerned so
much with "keeping up with the Joneses" (American slang for social envy) is
to do something to change the situation.
WIM:
I think most countries are either trying to be democratic or are fighting
their citizens who want more democracy. Nearly all countries are competing
for international investment and accept global free enterprise (within
limits, naturally). Only a few progressed beyond being 'developing
countries'.
ROG:
And those that succeeded portray amazing patterns of similarity. And those
that failed portrayed even more consistent patterns of disfunctionality.
WIM:
Most of Africa, Afghanistan and I guess a few other
countries around the world have been moving back for 2 or 3 decades now, the
former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia have been moving back for at least
a decade... all in terms of the statistics you mentioned.
ROG:
And they are atrocious on my recommendations. (See the Heritage
Foundation's score)
WIM:
To the extent that 'more modern liberal free enterprise democracy' and less
'exploitative dictators, communists and theocracies' are correlated with
(primary) social and intellectual progress, the former can just as well be
seen as the outcome of the latter.
ROG:
I agree they are generally co-dependent.
WIM:
In an important case like Russia the
correlation is simply not there unless as an inverse correlation: the
statistics for Russia have gone down since they imported 'modern liberal
free enterprise democracy' in the last decade. If they applied your ideas
wrongly, it was not for lack of advice of Western economists...
ROG:
Russia went from dumb socialism to dumb, undisciplined exploitation.
Gangsters don't fit my model of healthy free enterprise, and turning
factories over to the same bosses that misran them under the socialist era is
not likely to result in anything productive either. (They are "mostly
unfree" per the website -- meaning that they most certainly have not followed
any sound economic advice)
WIM:
I already stated that 'I am not very inclined to take the risk' of
'centrally commanded socialism on a world scale, with a central command
subject to a system of democratic elections', but I don't agree that it
would imply 'confiscation of all [means] of production'. Central command by
a modern state can be much more subtle than that of a peripheral or
semi-peripheral state like China in 1949 or Russia in 1918.
ROG:
Isn't a hundred million dead from the ravages of socialism enough to convince
you that such idealism is ungrounded? Doesn't a batting average of zero tell
us that we need a new swinger at the plate? Doesn't all the work over the
past 20 years on complex adaptive systems show the limitations of knowledge
and communications across a dynamic economy made up of millions of agents
with changing needs and values?
I will try to address the comments and questions that I skipped in a separate
document. No rush though...
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 - 16:02:18 BST