> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:04 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Marxism > > > On 11/05/2006, at 8:02 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of Charlie Bell > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:08 AM > >> To: Killer Bs Discussion > >> Subject: Re: Marxism > >> > >> > >> On 10/05/2006, at 6:12 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Actually, Marx may have envisioned more a bottom-up mutual-interest > >>>> based society. Collective ownership, as in social democracies, is a > >>>> *growing* phenomenon. Just look at the rise of collective > >>>> owneship of > >>>> football clubs, for example. From only a couple 10 years ago in the > >>>> UK to over a hundred mutual trusts. > >>> > >>> Our experience in this is much longer. > >> > >> I doubt it, as I shall now explain: From the formation of the > >> Football League in the 1880s, almost all football clubs used to be > >> "members' clubs". run by and for the members; > > > > OK, I stand corrected. This predates the Packers' example. But, > > my main > > point, that this type of collective ownership has been around for > > almost a > > century need only be changed to being around for over a century. > > My point was not that it's a new mechanism, but that it is growing > (again) as it fosters long-term stability. > > > > > >>> > >>> In addition, there were much more significant economic > >>> organizations that > >>> date back to the early 20th century in the US. Rural co-ops have > >>> existed > >>> here for about 100 years....and are now big businesses....and they > >>> are still > >>> technically co-ops....owned by the producers. > >> > >> They're world-wide too, as are building societies, credit unions. > > > > I thought so, but I didn't want to presume. Labor Unions can also > > be seen > > in this fashion. My point was that this is not really a new > > phenomenon....and I don't think we differ on that. > > No, I'm not arguing. I'm just saying that people are taking a new > view of social responsibility and seeing collective accountability as > a good way to engender that.
I wouldn't argue against that being true for some people, but I've also seen evidence of a fading sense of social responsibility....things like each generation in the US being less likely to vote....which I think you have referred to as a general trend. It seems to me that neither you nor I have set up a template to do more than get a general feel for which trend is stronger. In short, I think we both can make arm waving arguments here...but that's probably about it. > >> > >> Likewise, genetics is a modern concept, but it's key to understanding > >> Darwin. I think we're learning ways now in which Marx's ideas *could* > >> flourish and succeed. He had some great insight for his day (and > >> plenty of terrible ones too), but we're only now starting to develop > >> the tools to really be able to implement some of the good ones. And > >> we're probably nowhere near socially mature enough yet. > > > > I think the historical dialectic and the idea of alienation are > > worthwhile. > > But, having spent a semester studying Marx, his ideas of the end > > state, > > after the dictatorship of the proleatariate > > ...I'll give you another chance to finish that thought... ;) After the dictatorship of the proleatariate, Marx pretty well waves his arms and says the state will fall away....he has no real ideas about how this will happen....sorta like "and then a miracle occurs" in the middle of a cartoon math proof. > Wrong measure of efficiency for my point. It costs more to the end > user, for a reduce level of service, is the lesson learnt from > privitisation of railways, roads and utilities in Europe and > Australia (and probably America too, if the California blackouts are > a good guide). I'm not talking shareholder return or total turnover. In the US, private and public utilities cost about the same. The game that was played in California was a very stupid play of the market....mandating that electricity be bought on the spot market instead of via long term contracts because the spot prices were very low in the mid-90s. Electricity demand went up, the spot prices went through the roof, and companies were placed in a position where some could game the system to make billions while others were losing billions because they sale price to customers was fixed while they had to pay the spot market price. This was an exquisitely horrid mix of government control and market forces. In the US, few roads are owned privately...unless you count quasi-governmental authorities. Public transportation is inferior to Europe, for a couple of reasons. One is that it is subsidized a great deal less. The other is that many US cities, Houston being a prime example, were developed around auto transportation....making mass transit rather impractical. In the US, most public transportation is subsidized. If this subsidy is cut, service gets cut...causing ridership to be cut, causing service to be cut. Where I grew up, the city had to take over the bus service because no company could make a go of it. So, I'd be curious if you know how much of the decrease in serviceability for transportation is due to a cut in subsidies.. > > think one could argue that the market economies do not work as well > > as we > > would like, > > That's my point. Ah, failure connoted crashing with a big cloud of smoke and horrid conditions afterwards to me. > > but the continued productivity growth in the US indicates that > > the fundamentals of the economy are sound...even if Bush's policies > > aren't. > > If you think shareholder returns or GDP are the most important thing. > I don't. I tend to think of two different aspects of an economy: the functionality and the justice in the economy. The functionality of an economy is measured by GDP growth and productivity growth. One could envision an unjust economy, in which the overwhelming majority of people work for subsistence wages, even though the per capita GDP is fairly high. Then there is the other side of the coin: where attempts to provide everyone with economic security results in a tremendous drag on the system. The French system comes to mind here. With a minimal taste for risk, and expectation of guaranteed lifetime employment, young people in France are facing a situation where employers are loath to hire anyone....because that would entail taking on decades of expense. Personally, I think there is something sad when the highest aspirations of young people are to become a government bureaucrat. > I'm not arguing for the abolition of the market, just for some public > services that are effectively everybody's right - water, light, > transport - to be collectively accountable. In what sense do you mean this? That there be highly subsidized cheap water light, and mass transit? Water and light, since they are natural monopolies, are fundamentally hard to open up to markets. So, they are highly regulated...which makes sense to me. Transportation, in the US, is considered a personal decision. While high gasoline taxes might be a very good way to cut energy consumption, it just won't fly here. > No, there's a mass of people not voting full stop. Don't care which > way they vote, just get out and vote... You seem to be arguing for voting as part of one's civic duty. That's quite reasonable, I'll be happy to go along with that. > > No, I think we're just going to keep on muddling through, but that it > could be so much better. Again, I think you used failure in a weaker sense than I understood when I read your post. Yes, we could make things better, and should work towards that end. > > IIRC, this dates back to the '30s. They speak of customer/owners, > > which is > > what you are suggesting. So, they've been around a long time and > > have not > > seemed to be radically different from other companies providing > > electricity. > > Apart from direct accountability. Can't talk about the level of > service, I don't live there. Fair enough. I've paid bills to and obtained services from electrical coops and private electric companies. I have seen little difference between them, even though the coops, on paper, are more accountable. > > > > If we could repeal Weber's law (a bureaucrat will work for his own > > interests, not the interests for which his job was created), that > > would be > > nice...but no one has solved that problem yet. > > Not bureaucrats. Employees. Same as any other company. Only > difference is the Board of Directors and the Chairman are elected. > CEO and everyone else are appointed. That's about it. But it makes > for significantly improved accountability. (I'm actually talking > about MORE democracy...) As a practical matter, most folks here have no feel for which slate of directors would provide better services. I admit, when I received information about candidates for the credit union board of directors, I didn't know one from the other. Whoever was voted in, they seemed to do OK...so I didn't worry. > > > > I think that continuing to tinker with the public/private/coop > > balance is > > worthwhile. But, I don't think there is something radically new here. > > It's not. It's just an attempt to make greater accountability. That's not a bad goal at all. One other way I thought of is for the government to encourage the spread of wealth into many people's retirement accounts. That's one reason that I don't like the repeal of the estate tax. Its fine to want to give your kids a head start, but a 10 million head start should be enough. :-) > > There is room for improvement...which is good because the US is > > expected to spend 20% of GDP on health in a decade or so. > > Which is an investment. A healthy population is more productive by far. In some cases, the ROI is there. Heart bypass surgery is a good example. At other times, it extends the lives of very ill people. IIRC, the per capita cost of medical care is going up at around 10% per year here....there will be some point where we just can't afford to use extraordinary care for most people. > I think we're not actually too far apart on this. We do seem to be debating the nuances of the problem, so I think you are right there. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
