Re: FW: / BI: Harry Pollard and Philosophy
Robert, At 18:41 17/04/00 -0400, you wrote: Keith, in commenting on my response to Harry Pollard, wrote: "This is a crude way of interpreting history." I was not interpreting history. I was criticizing the idea of the use of philosophy as a methodology of solving very immediate and practical problems. It is true that certain philosophic ideas have had an enormous effect over the centuries, but, in terms of our present situation - or the situation that has accelerated since the Industrial Revolution - they are of no use in solving any aspect of our current predicament. I would agree if we confine ourselves to traditional linguistic philosophy which, like music, art and poetry has already flowered and reached the end of its intrinsic potentialies. Such philosophic ideas -- from, let us say, Socrates or Lao Tze through to Wittgenstein -- are still magnificent achievements of humankind and, like the other art forms, deserve to be treasured and practised. However, they no longer engage the best minds. What we have instead (and this is where I disagree with you), is philosophy which was kicked off by quantum physics in the early part of the last century. This has given rise to a quite new form of thinking, otherwise known as cosmology or futurology as elaborated by Wheeler, Freeman Dyson, and a handful of others. Despite the fact that their language is mathematics-based rather than words, they are still involved in the most important question of all which will have a very real impact on the activities of mankind. This is the matter of significance. Do we have significance? Do we have a future? We have a sense of curiosity far beyond anything that our species needed for mere survival vis-à-vis other life forms on earth. These matters of significance have always been at the core of man's religious/philosophical impulses and practices. A sense of this significance needs to be maintained. Otherwise, we will not survive. We will simply give up and be overwhelmed by the immense problems that are all around us -- ecological devastation, starvation, AIDs, possible nuclear disasters and so forth. Mankind has to have a philosophy of survival at a very deep level, far beyond matters of everyday existence. cut to . . Further on you say, "Basic Income should more exactly be called "Indiscriminate Income For All." .This is not so. As the litertaure shows, there are many variatons on the idea of a basic income. Whether or not it should be the same for all, how the income is determined, etc. are all quetsons to be discussed. Finally, you say that Basic Income will never get off the ground "because tax payers will not stomach it." One comment on that: Persons in need will certainly welcome it, as will those whose income is marginal. And if a Basic Income became a reality, I am sure that those who opposed its passage on principle will not turn down their share because it goes against their principles. You're right -- I don't know the many variations of Basic Income. But I don't need to know because its statutory imposition in any form would be unfair and immoral in principle. Even if I as an individual were forced to share some of my (fairly ordinary) income with others (some of whom may need it, some of whom are free-loaders) by means of increasing my personal taxation then the situation would be: (a) unfair because a proportion of rich people get away with paying very little tax at all. At present levels of taxation this situation is just about sustainable at the present time. Any further increase in taxation of ordinary incomes (and it would have to be a sizeable increase) would cause even more tax avoidance and evasion by the better-off. Taxpayers wouldn't stand for it any longer. It's no use saying that better legislation must be devised. This is tried every year by all western governments, but the rich can always buy better brains than politicians' and civil servants' and new ways of avoiding tax are always discovered -- often within days of new legislation; (b) immoral because people who talk of basic incomes for all are not prepared to spread the benefit around the world. When I consider the plight of many people in the Third World, I would rather be taxed for their benefit than I would for several (highly intelligent) free-loaders (whom I know well) in my city who have no intention of working at any time because they can survive comfortably on all the different government benefits that they already receive. To be taxed further so they could continue to laze about would really stick in my craw. - Basic Income would really only extend the notion and powers of nationalistic governments in Western countries. Yet (as I've already suggested) they have now reached the end of their period of usefulness (if, indeed, historians will grant them that). Nation-statism is plainly no longer working in the advanced countries. We are moving into a totally different world. I haven't got the answers to the
Re: Sweatshops
Mike, the difference between us may be that I see the glass as half empty. The industrial revolution required a tremendous build up of capital but also a tremendous build up of labour. Because it was so heavily involved in the new processes of production, and because of the fluidity of society compared with, say, feudal society, labour was able to move into a position to demand a larger share of the rapidly growing product. I would argue that in Canada, the US and western Europe, it was able to get this share because, ultimately, its demands did not diminish the wealth of the capitalists. Everyone's wealth grew. Various trade-offs and saw-offs occurred. Workers recognized that they had an interest in keeping the machine going and bought into the system. It became a system of common, not opposed, interests. The political process became liberal and democratized, able to smooth out such rough spots as continued to exist, etc. You mention Taiwan, South Korea and China. I would see Taiwan and South Korea as already part of the rich world and China as getting there. They appear to have undergone radical transformations, but I'm not sure they were all that radical. The seeds for what they were able to accomplish were probably already there, much like they were in 18th Century England and 19th Century Germany. The same is probably true of other parts of Asia; for example, the "Tigers" which have lost some of their teeth, but which are now growing them back. However, I don't much possibility of the same kinds of things happening in much of the rest of Asia or in Sub-Saharan Africa. The conditions are simply not there or, if they are, the politics are simply too repressive or too chaotic to permit them to flourish. As I mentioned in a previous posting, India strikes me as being too rigid. There is simply not enough wealth to go around, so those who have it cling to it tenaciously, using ancient and venerable systems of caste and inter-ethnic and inter-religious rivalries to buttress their positions. It is a system so tied in knots that any mobility is virtually impossible. Sub-Saharan Africa is simply too poor, too chaotic and too violent. One can blame much of this on European colonialism, but whether it was that or something indigenous doesn't really matter when we are dealing with peoples chances of having better lives in the world of today. I don't really see the prospect of tremendous technological change forcing tremendous social and economic change. Unlike the technological change that took place 200 years ago, technological change today is essentially labour eliminating. It means that one person and a computer can now do the work of six people a few decades ago. Participation in the use of such technology requires a much higher level of education than was needed for machines that produced textiles or even automobiles. If the poor world were to use such technology as a basis for growth, a much higher investment in education would be needed, and this would not likely be affordable even if it were seen as politically desirable by the governing elites. Peace, order and good government would also be needed, and this is something that is not abundant in much of the world. So, I'm pessimistic, but supported by some evidence that the rich are getting richer and the poor are falling behind. Ed Ed, The more you describe what you believe to have been the situation historically in Europe, the more I see parallels in contemporay East Asia, India and Latin America. Tremendous technological change forcing tremendous economic and social change, and, instead of the philosophes the Modern people in their own countries and what they see of the West on the TV screens. And political elites going with the flow - see the coup in Asia, the political changes in South Korea and Taiwan and, of course, the Deng Zaoping reforms in China.
Battle of Washington
The following is from today's Globe and Mail. Ed Weick Global justice? Don't make me laugh ANDREW MILLS Tuesday, April 18, 2000 The movements of my parents' generation were straightforward: civil rights, Ban the Bomb, anti-Vietnam war. I am a 19-year-old history student; my generation's brand of activism is a complex mix of issues as diverse as free trade, sea turtles, poverty, sexual diversity, sweatshops, and undue corporate influence over the media. Many of these movements have gathered under an umbrella term known as "the Mobilization for Global Justice." Its organizers brought on December's megaprotest at the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. They attempted to recreate that event last weekend and this week at the annual spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington. The movement gains momentum with each protest, and the protesters refuse to be ignored. But we need to take a closer look at how much insight the people in the Washington streets are actually offering. Last Saturday, I took a seat on one of the four Canadian Auto Workers' subsidized buses full of communists and churchgoers, Luddites and lesbians bound for Washington to join the protests. Near me sat Ethan, a navy blue-haired student from Trent University, who explained his involvement: "All of these organizations [the WTO, IMF and World Bank] give power to those that have it and take power away from those who don't. I am one of those that don't [have power] and I feel that I should stand with my comrades. . . . Wait, no, don't write 'comrades,' write 'friends.' " Across the aisle his friend Anna took a break from studying for her Spanish exam to tell me that she was going to Washington to "keep up the momentum of Seattle" -- to what end was unclear. When we arrived Washington, it seemed like a war zone -- as people jogged and walked their dogs, helicopters hovered overhead and armoured cars parallel-parked behind Volvos. There were rumours of police in full riot gear lining up for lattes at Starbucks before going to guard the "no-protest" zones around the IMF and World Bank Buildings. I soon realized there were two main groups of protesters: the older, more laid-back group, equipped with legal permits to protest, who assembled behind the White House, and the unofficial "direct-action" groups, whose goal was to shut down the IMF and World Bank meetings even if it meant risking arrest. Many of these "direct-action" protesters were students -- people such as Sarah, a film-and-sociology major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. On Sunday, she was sitting with her arms linked to other protesters in a circle to block off an intersection leading to the bank. She had swimming goggles on her head and a vinegar-soaked bandana around her neck, to protect herself in case of a tear gas attack. She told me, "Martin Luther King got arrested, Thoreau got arrested, Ghandi got arrested, I can handle it." There was an element of nostalgia at work, too. At one of the many human chains, Sue, a Washington suburbanite, was taking proud photographs of her daughter who was linked arm-in-arm as part of the chain. Between photographs Sue remarked, "I'm glad that she's out here protesting today. I think that we parents have done a good job." Nearby, protesters flooded the streets with papier-mâché puppets of President Bill Clinton and the leaders of the World Bank and IMF, chanting: "There ain't no power like the power of the people and the power of the people won't stop." The reason at least some of these protesters had come to Washington was not to to champion the causes of the Mobilization for Global Justice movement. Many simply wanted to bring a city to its knees, and they nearly succeeded. High school and college students, they'd never had power over others, and Washington was their chance. It was rare to find a protester who could directly connect the workings of the World Bank and IMF to the issues raised by the global justice movement. Their knowledge of the World Bank and IMF seemed vague and superficial. They'd been told that these bureaucracies caused global problems, and they accepted it: Okay, let's go protest. On Sunday morning, I watched a standoff between an army of riot police and a throng of people who had removed one of the fences erected to assist with crowd control. The protesters charged nearly 30 riot police with this fence and hurled stones and bottles. The police, on foot and motorcycle, used their batons to beat them back, but the provocation continued. Mistaking me and a companion for movement sympathizers, one officer chased us down the street with his baton raised. He retreated when he realized we were taking notes while running and were probably journalists. Then the police deployed tear gas (it made me nauseous) and the violence ended. Now, what does provoking the police and causing a riot have to do with global
Re: Sweatshops
small but important (I think)point. Ed, Arthur has also commented that the kinds of criticisms which I leveled at the Washington protesters were also leveled at the kids who were protesting the Vietnam War. I think there's a difference. The Vietnam protesters were opposing something specific which could be stopped - a particular war in a particular place being waged by their government. The current round of protesters are opposing "globalization" and God only knows what that is. Arthur It was very difficult for those who protested the Vietnam war. Depending on which US city it took place the very act of marching and protesting was seen to be next to treason for US citizens. Crowds of angry people often shouted and physically threatened the protestors. Pictures of marchers were routinely taken by police and other security agencies. Protesting globalization does not bring out counterdemonstrators. It barely brings out the TV cameras.
Fw: L.A. Times column, 4/17/00
- Original Message - From: Gary Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 12:17 PM Subject: L.A. Times column, 4/17/00 Friends, Below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, Monday, April 17, 2000. As always, please feel free to pass this on, but please retain the copyright notice. Not much news to report here. The weather is beautiful, school is winding down, tonight we're going to see Bruce Springsteen (my 18th Springsteen concert -- I know, I know, I have a problem!). The column below was written before last week's "Black Friday" meltdown of the stock market, but it seems more relevant given that tremor. Although I didn't much care for the Times' headline, over which I have no control. Hope everyone is doing well and enjoying a marvelous spring, like we are here in Austin. Best, -- Gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- If you have received this from me, Gary Chapman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you are subscribed to the listserv that sends out copies of my column in The Los Angeles Times and other published articles. If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from this listserv, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], leave the subject line blank, and put "Unsubscribe Chapman" in the first line of the message. If you received this message from a source other than me and would like to subscribe to the listserv, the instructions for subscribing are at the end of the message. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE -- the listserv is set up to reject replies to the sending address. You must use the command address, [EMAIL PROTECTED], to either subscribe or unsubscribe, or use the address [EMAIL PROTECTED] to send back comments. -- DIGITAL NATION Monday, April 17, 2000 "Dot-Com" Energy May Be Doomed to Fizzle Into Midlife Stagnation By Gary Chapman Copyright 2000, The Los Angeles Times, All Rights Reserved In this election year, many Americans seem to be teetering between the contentment of prosperity and anxiety due to a turbulent and uncertain economy. Last week, the stock market was "groping for the bottom," as one analyst put it, rattling the nerves of shareholders, while at the same time an industry report predicted that more than a million and a half jobs would be created in information technology fields this year and that half of those would go unfilled. Most of my friends are now middle-aged, like me, and their careers started well before the current Internet craze. They're watching the "new economy" unfold with very mixed emotions. Some of them have found or crafted interesting and stimulating careers, while others are disappointed by where they find themselves now. A few of my friends' stories are good examples. The people below have asked that their real names not be used, so I'm using pseudonyms. Angie has a doctorate in English and has worked for a couple of decades as a journalist, author and magazine editor. Several years ago it became apparent that the number of publications that would publish her serious, probing articles were dwindling, and her income was following suit. So she took a breather from the stresses of freelancing by joining a small information services company as an editor and writer. It was her first 9-to-5 job in a long time. "It started out as a nice place to work," she said, "with a real family feeling. But then it was bought by a much larger company, and things changed very quickly. "When the company was bought, the new parent company sent these two guys down to our office for a pep talk -- they were like cheerleaders, they had this dog-and-pony show. They were very slick, but they didn't have a clue what we did or how their new acquisitions fit together." She added, "Those two guys later got fired." The working environment went downhill from there, Angie said. The parent company was clueless, she said, and the result was a series of stern memos from the remote home office about new employee requirements, new bosses and a new computer system that robbed the editors and writers of their creative input and turned them into data entry clerks. "Only the computer guys seemed to know what was going on," Angie said. While the computer technicians fiddled with their database program, the office's desktop computers crashed several times a day. Morale started to sink and eventually layoffs and departures set in. Angie quit before things got worse. She looks back on the experience as an example of what it must be like to work for an information company, and she doesn't want to be part of that world again. Bob is an exploration geologist for a large oil company, with advanced degrees from Stanford and 18 years in the business. His personal horrors are the serial management fads that sweep through his company, which has been sagging in stock market value, market share and employee morale. "The
RE: Battle of Washington
Yup. The word you are looking for is, I believe, parody. A word that defines much of what is going on these days. Question is what will authentic reaction and rebellion look like? -- From: Edward R Weick To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Battle of Washington Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 7:37AM The following is from today's Globe and Mail. Ed Weick _ Global justice? Don't make me laugh ANDREW MILLS Tuesday, April 18, 2000 The movements of my parents' generation were straightforward: civil rights, Ban the Bomb, anti-Vietnam war. I am a 19-year-old history student; my generation's brand of activism is a complex mix of issues as diverse as free trade, sea turtles, poverty, sexual diversity, sweatshops, and undue corporate influence over the media. Many of these movements have gathered under an umbrella term known as "the Mobilization for Global Justice." Its organizers brought on December's megaprotest at the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. They attempted to recreate that event last weekend and this week at the annual spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington. The movement gains momentum with each protest, and the protesters refuse to be ignored. But we need to take a closer look at how much insight the people in the Washington streets are actually offering. Last Saturday, I took a seat on one of the four Canadian Auto Workers' subsidized buses full of communists and churchgoers, Luddites and lesbians bound for Washington to join the protests. Near me sat Ethan, a navy blue-haired student from Trent University, who explained his involvement: "All of these organizations [the WTO, IMF and World Bank] give power to those that have it and take power away from those who don't. I am one of those that don't [have power] and I feel that I should stand with my comrades. . . . Wait, no, don't write 'comrades,' write 'friends.' " Across the aisle his friend Anna took a break from studying for her Spanish exam to tell me that she was going to Washington to "keep up the momentum of Seattle" -- to what end was unclear. When we arrived Washington, it seemed like a war zone -- as people jogged and walked their dogs, helicopters hovered overhead and armoured cars parallel-parked behind Volvos. There were rumours of police in full riot gear lining up for lattes at Starbucks before going to guard the "no-protest" zones around the IMF and World Bank Buildings. I soon realized there were two main groups of protesters: the older, more laid-back group, equipped with legal permits to protest, who assembled behind the White House, and the unofficial "direct-action" groups, whose goal was to shut down the IMF and World Bank meetings even if it meant risking arrest. Many of these "direct-action" protesters were students -- people such as Sarah, a film-and-sociology major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. On Sunday, she was sitting with her arms linked to other protesters in a circle to block off an intersection leading to the bank. She had swimming goggles on her head and a vinegar-soaked bandana around her neck, to protect herself in case of a tear gas attack. She told me, "Martin Luther King got arrested, Thoreau got arrested, Ghandi got arrested, I can handle it." There was an element of nostalgia at work, too. At one of the many human chains, Sue, a Washington suburbanite, was taking proud photographs of her daughter who was linked arm-in-arm as part of the chain. Between photographs Sue remarked, "I'm glad that she's out here protesting today. I think that we parents have done a good job." Nearby, protesters flooded the streets with papier-mâché puppets of President Bill Clinton and the leaders of the World Bank and IMF, chanting: "There ain't no power like the power of the people and the power of the people won't stop." The reason at least some of these protesters had come to Washington was not to to champion the causes of the Mobilization for Global Justice movement. Many simply wanted to bring a city to its knees, and they nearly succeeded. High school and college students, they'd never had power over others, and Washington was their chance. It was rare to find a protester who could directly connect the workings of the World Bank and IMF to the issues raised by the global justice movement. Their knowledge of the World Bank and IMF seemed vague and superficial. They'd been told that these bureaucracies caused global problems, and they accepted it: Okay, let's go protest. On Sunday morning, I watched a standoff between an army of riot police and a throng of people who had removed one of the fences erected to assist with crowd control. The protesters charged nearly 30 riot police with this fence and hurled stones and bottles. The police, on foot and motorcycle, used their batons to beat them back, but the provocation continued. Mistaking me and a companion for movement sympathizers, one officer chased us down the street with his
Re: Sweatshops
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 9:59 AM Subject: Re: Sweatshops small but important (I think)point. Arthur It was very difficult for those who protested the Vietnam war. Depending on which US city it took place the very act of marching and protesting was seen to be next to treason for US citizens. Crowds of angry people often shouted and physically threatened the protestors. Pictures of marchers were routinely taken by police and other security agencies. Protesting globalization does not bring out counterdemonstrators. It barely brings out the TV cameras. If they do come out, it's because of the scuffles and head bashings. More for entertainment than anything else. The Vietnam war was very real. Globalization is far too abstract. It doesn't produce napalmed kids or young men coming home in bodybags, at least not visibly. Ed
RE: Battle of Washington
ANDREW MILLS wrote in the Globe and Mail Last Saturday, I took a seat on one of the four Canadian Auto Workers' subsidized buses full of communists and churchgoers, Luddites and lesbians bound for Washington to join the protests. - snip - It was rare to find a protester who could directly connect the workings of the World Bank and IMF to the issues raised by the global justice movement. Their knowledge of the World Bank and IMF seemed vague and superficial. They'd been told that these bureaucracies caused global problems, and they accepted it: Okay, let's go protest. The rarity of finding an articulate protester could easily be an artifact of the insincerity of the search. Mr. Mills could have gotten an answer from Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank, but that wouldn't have fit in Mills' derisive agenda. I too have had a recent experience of difficulty finding clear answers. In my case the respondents have been Canadian government officials, who seem to operate in a culture of insincerity -- give an answer that evades the question and begs the issue but qualifies as a sufficient reply. My respondent from the Ministry of Human Resources Development presenting me with a three page letter containing facts that I don't dispute and omitting references to context that dwarfs those facts. My respondent from Canada Customs and Revenue lied. When I replied seeking further information about the "facts" he presented me with, I received a "clarification" from another official in the ministry that in effect admitted the first response was baseless. I won't go into the specifics of the case mentioned above because it is a situation familiar to anyone who has to deal with government and is not crowned with an aura of patronage. It is also familiar to anyone who watches the squirming, weaseling and spinning of govt. spokespeople dealing with exposed scandals such as the HRDC audit revealed. Joseph Stiglitz tells us that the IMF officials play by the same rule of say what you can get away with. Tom Walker
The Tory World View
To: Citizen's Income Online at URL http://citiinco01.uuhost.uk.uu.net/discussion/index.shtml and friends on several mail lists Good day folks, Mr. Douglas P. Wilson's forceful presentation of the Tory world view, which is known to us colonials as the Conservative world view, seems to have brought the Citizen's Income Discussion to a full stop and rendered the archives inaccessible. That is regrettable, because the Tory world view is morally wrong, technically indefensible, and politically unsustainable. Its only foundation is a baseless fear of the masses and a reluctance to trust the public with a technically valid model capable of explaining why our industrial economies operate with 4-10% unemployment, 2-3%/year inflation, and a 5% of GDP deficiency of purchasing power in the lower end of the workforce. But let's see if we can bring the Citizen's Income discussion back to life by means of the topic for April, which is: -- -- How can IT (a Citizen's Income, I presume) assist social regeneration? For example, can IT assist in the creation of social and economic capital in disadvantaged areas? -- -- The very existence of "disadvantaged areas" in modern societies is the direct consequence of public policies based on the Tory world view and the social degeneration which follows when such policies are continued over time. But we cannot resolve this dispute until we separate the Citizens Income (equal amounts to each citizen, without regard to other income) into its three basic components using costs from my post Which Way To CI/BI? 01/23/2000, which are: Life cycle elements, (cost as percentage of GNP). 1) birth to 17 years =4.6% of GNP 2-3) 17 to 65 years = 13.0% of GNP 4) 65 years to average 76 years = 3.0% of GNP. Item 4 is established in most industrial nations and I am very thankful to be enjoying the benefits of it. I have never advocated Item 3 in any of my writings and as a conservative/tory/yankee I share Mr. Wilson's concern that "there is a lot of people who would use it to support a life of idleness and public nuisance." So we have only the absence of an adequate item 1 to explain the "disadvantaged areas" in our modern societies. The idea and significance of "adequacy" with regard to item 1 is suggested by a sigmoid curve describing the transition of a society, from one level of well-being to a higher level, as the amount of item 1 is increased from the existing value of income tax exemptions and other tax breaks for dependents in the US, up to that amount at which no further increase of well-being is observed. Or, to put it more concisely, up to that amount which will give the parenting household the same discretionary purchasing power as a single, gay, lesbian, or celibate household of equal income. No words of mine, nor of any other author that I have read to date, can describe the basic mechanism of this question as well as the input-output diagram Figure 8, The US Systemic Defect Of Omission, of the global model at URL http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html Figure 8 is also available at URL http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/european-social-policy/1999-04/0019.html together with some of my unpersuasive words. In deference to folks who see the charging of interest as the prime cause of what ails us, it helps to put some real numbers on debt service in the US. Again, from the FEDERAL RESERVE BULLETIN, the US debt aggregate of $13,408.0 Billion in July 1995 consisted, as it always does, of two components: First, Federal Debt, July 1995, . $3,614.4 billion. At the prime rate of 8.8%, federal debt service = $318.1 Billion/year, or 4.5% of the US GDP in July 1995. Notice that Figure 8 of the global model should be updated to show that the above 4.5% of the US GDP federal debt service is presently part of the total tax burden. And since Figure 8 is drawn to show only earned income along line (0-a), it is also necessary to show the 4.5% of GDP federal debt service received as unearned income above earned income line (0-a). Second, Nonfederal Debt, July 1995, $9,794.2 billion. At 8.8% interest, Nonfederal debt service = $861.9 Billion/year, or 12.3% of the US GDP in July 1995. Notice that Figure 8 of the global model should also be updated to show the above 12.3% of GDP nonfederal debt service added below the 30% total tax rate line (0-b) to properly locate the break-even points for each parenting family, according to the number of dependents in the family. And since Figure 8 is drawn to show only earned income along line (0-a), it is also necessary to show the 12.3% of GDP nonfederal debt service received as unearned income above the earned income line (0-a). As other
Re: Sweatshops
Hi Mike, Let me try to restate my argument. Economic growth requires certain basic conditions. I would not pretend to know what all of these are, but stability and the possibility of upward mobility would, I suspect, be among them. I would also include the existence of capital; not only capital itself, but the financial infrastructure through which capital can be mobilized. You mention three other possibles in your comparison between England and Korea, namely improvements in agricultural technology, a warming climate and a perfectionist ideology. The presence of "outgroups" such as the Jews or Chinese may or may not be a factor. These factors were not lacking in China, Korea and Taiwan. These were well organized and, in some important respects, progressive, societies before Europeans came with their gunboats. What I believe was historically unique about western Europe was both an insatiable curiosity and an overwhelming greed. It is highly probable that the Chinese navigated the west coast of the Americas well before Europeans found the east coast. But that is all the Chinese did, navigate. They did not set up colonies and plunder the lands they found. They didn't feel they had to. China was complete in itself. Colonizing and plundering the "New World" was left to the Europeans, and the Chinese, the Koreans and many other "complete in themselves" peoples ultimately paid dearly for it. In finding the New World, Europeans found treasure, which is how the Mercantilist thinkers of the time saw it. The prosperity of Europe prior to the industrial revolution and in the early phases of industrialization was largely based on plunder. Plunder abroad plus plunder at home, such as the enclosures, generated the resources for industrialization. Once the industrial revolution took off, it generated its own capital, and the colonies, their products and their markets were then less needed. The colonial powers of Europe relaxed their grip. What you have now is a non-European world which consists of countries which have lost much of what they had, in which people are fighting for the few scraps which are left (Africa), and countries which were able to retain much of what they had, and to adopt some of Europe's capability for plunder and accumulation (China, Korea, Southeast Asia). Is it possible to have another era of explosive growth such as took place in Europe and North America during the past five hundred years? Perhaps in the rich world, but not likely in the poor. In the poor world there are far too many people and far too few resources. There is far too little wealth, and those who have it want to hold onto it, investing it in safe havens outside of the country. I spent a month in Jamaica recently, a country which gained independence with the highest of hopes in 1962 and which, by global standards, is still relatively well off. But now you can almost feel it grinding down. Roads, hospitals, schools and public institutions in general are deteriorating, and there is not much that can be done to repair them. Anyone with an education wants to leave, and even the uneducated want to do so. Why? With nearly three million people living on a mountainous island the size of Prince Edward Island there is simply not enough for people to do. Many people have found a role in the drug trade. Jamaica has become a major transshipment point for drugs for drugs moving from South America to the US. Others make a living as hold-up men and petty criminals. There simply are no alternatives. By now you must be wondering if I see any possibilities at all. I am thinking about it. I tend to reject grand scale solutions such as mass education. For much of the world it is not affordable even if it were acceptable. Pouring concrete across rivers, as the World Bank has done or trying to bail out corrupt and leaky regimes such as the IMF has, does not seem to have worked very well either. However, what I have seen in a few rather grim and grimy places is the ability of people to look after themselves as long as their circumstances don't become totally desperate. A little seed money, strategically placed, can make a big difference, as can building a community center around which people can organize activities for themselves and their children. Sorry about being so long winded, and best regards. Ed PS. I hope I'm still not being too much of a moving target or too post hoc ergo propter hoc in my arguments. I know that I tend to stretch things a little, hoping people won't notice. I'm putting this on the list so that others can beat me about the head and shoulders if they feel like it. Hi Ed, We seem to have a moving target here. I entered this discussion on your statement that English conditions that produced trade unionism were unique. You gave reasons how other areas of the world differed in ways that made it unlikely for trade unions to emerge. I replied that the conditions you described in the other
Re: Sweatshops
Hi Ed, I agree with the role of plunder and greed in the English Industrial Revolution. They played a role. But it has not been true of all industrial revolutions. There was no plundering and greed in the medieval European industrial revolution. The driving actors were a religious order (the Cistercians) and a group of religous fanatics who thought that only the afterlife was real (the Cathars or Albigensians). I am not aware of greed and plunder in the medieval Chinese industrial revolution either. The Neoconfucianists had lot in common with the Cathars - a pretty austere lot, like the nonconformist protestants who drove the English Industrial Revolution of the 18th century. So, I return to my point - industrial revolutions have occurred in widely differing cultures and societies which did not share all of the characteristics of England in the 18th century, except the ones I mentioned - warmer climate, agricultural revolution, ideology of perfection. Mike Hi Mike, Let me try to restate my argument. Economic growth requires certain basic conditions. I would not pretend to know what all of these are, but stability and the possibility of upward mobility would, I suspect, be among them. I would also include the existence of capital; not only capital itself, but the financial infrastructure through which capital can be mobilized. You mention three other possibles in your comparison between England and Korea, namely improvements in agricultural technology, a warming climate and a perfectionist ideology. The presence of "outgroups" such as the Jews or Chinese may or may not be a factor. These factors were not lacking in China, Korea and Taiwan. These were well organized and, in some important respects, progressive, societies before Europeans came with their gunboats. What I believe was historically unique about western Europe was both an insatiable curiosity and an overwhelming greed. It is highly probable that the Chinese navigated the west coast of the Americas well before Europeans found the east coast. But that is all the Chinese did, navigate. They did not set up colonies and plunder the lands they found. They didn't feel they had to. China was complete in itself. Colonizing and plundering the "New World" was left to the Europeans, and the Chinese, the Koreans and many other "complete in themselves" peoples ultimately paid dearly for it. In finding the New World, Europeans found treasure, which is how the Mercantilist thinkers of the time saw it. The prosperity of Europe prior to the industrial revolution and in the early phases of industrialization was largely based on plunder. Plunder abroad plus plunder at home, such as the enclosures, generated the resources for industrialization. Once the industrial revolution took off, it generated its own capital, and the colonies, their products and their markets were then less needed. The colonial powers of Europe relaxed their grip. What you have now is a non-European world which consists of countries which have lost much of what they had, in which people are fighting for the few scraps which are left (Africa), and countries which were able to retain much of what they had, and to adopt some of Europe's capability for plunder and accumulation (China, Korea, Southeast Asia). Is it possible to have another era of explosive growth such as took place in Europe and North America during the past five hundred years? Perhaps in the rich world, but not likely in the poor. In the poor world there are far too many people and far too few resources. There is far too little wealth, and those who have it want to hold onto it, investing it in safe havens outside of the country. I spent a month in Jamaica recently, a country which gained independence with the highest of hopes in 1962 and which, by global standards, is still relatively well off. But now you can almost feel it grinding down. Roads, hospitals, schools and public institutions in general are deteriorating, and there is not much that can be done to repair them. Anyone with an education wants to leave, and even the uneducated want to do so. Why? With nearly three million people living on a mountainous island the size of Prince Edward Island there is simply not enough for people to do. Many people have found a role in the drug trade. Jamaica has become a major transshipment point for drugs for drugs moving from South America to the US. Others make a living as hold-up men and petty criminals. There simply are no alternatives. By now you must be wondering if I see any possibilities at all. I am thinking about it. I tend to reject grand scale solutions such as mass education. For much of the world it is not affordable even if it were acceptable. Pouring concrete across rivers, as the World Bank has done or trying to bail out corrupt and leaky regimes such as the IMF has, does not seem to have worked very well either. However, what I have seen in a few rather grim and grimy places is
