This has been a wonderful conversation. I would like to add my two
cents which is not much different but is some. Esther Dyson on that
URL that I posted earlier, makes a point about value that is very much
in keeping with the mentality of TV and the defense industries. Because
we cannot truly fund creativity, it makes more sense to give it away and
to fund the truly banal activities that everyone believes they need, like
advertising for example or $500 toilet seats on military aircraft. Since the
bidding process makes them undervalue what is truly valuable and necessary
they charge for the common things or hide the charges in those areas. Hence
the Congressional "expose's" that appear from time to time.
Dyson states the theory very neatly as she restates it for the internet and
especially computer software.
The only problem lies in the equation that says that value = financial worth,
and the reverse.
Such an equation elevates the banal and diminishes the truly unique aspects
of humanity. Humanity is not to be found in banking or wall street but in the
great soaring work of the human spirit. But that work is easily enjoyed by all
when accomplished. It is difficult to charge a ticket for its enjoyment and have
its
remuneration equal its cost. Almost anyone can free ride on the public welfare
in these projects. The internet as well as a mediocre product like a TV Sitcom
suffers from this same productivity problem. It is advertisement that is
valuable
while the "drama" is a vehicle and thus less valuable. The Internet is supplied
by
the government but no one wants to admit such a thing and thus claims that it
is paid for by the servers which is nonsense since without the government it
would
collapse or be taken over by the TNCs and made impossible for people like you
and I. All of this chatter is no more in their self interest than free lawyers
for the poor were prior to Reagan's cutback of such. That is why we get this
letter about individual telephone charges for e-mail on a regular basis. We know
that it will happen if they have the power to cut us off.
So if you raise the value of the banal and diminish the value of the truly
valuable
then what you get is an irrelevancy and decadence. Which is what we saw with
the IMF in Yugoslavia and other places and what we are seeing with the singular
dominance of the linear reality of pure cash. Artists made the same mistake
when
they raised the value of the "culture of the rich to themselves" for the purpose
of
funding unprofitable art in the 1880s. That led to a century of elitism and a
collapse
of real artistic creativity.
What we got was Art as the precursor to targeted advertising. The middle and
lower
classes got sitcoms while the rich got symphonies. Both served as advertisement
for something beyond itself and its real value.
Capitalism and Western religion has screwed it up in the last century. We are
now
responsible for the results. I would recommend a read in the Dyson article even
though she is a grazer and advocates such. IMO the issue of value is the core
issue from which all of these problems spring and I don't see economics or any
other
profession having come close to dealing with it.
Regards
REH
Dennis Paull wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think it very important to separate the economic issues from the political
> ones. In my mind, the major down side of the WTO is the abrogation of
> government powers to specifically non-democratic, greed oriented
> international bodies with no recourse to any counterbalancing judicial
> body.
>
> Those who are willing to give up control by the masses for short term
> gain are truly a threat to democracy world-wide.
>
> Granted there are important economic issues too such as have been mentioned.
> But we can work these out in ways that benefit large populations. But when
> we regress back to robber barons and monarchic non-accountability, we are
> truly risking much of the benefits that the western world has obtained over
> the last century.
>
> Dennis Paull
> Silicon Valley, CA
>
> At 11:54 PM 12/3/1999 , you wrote:
> >To comment on just one sentence in Andrew's contribution:
> >
> >>In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
> >>list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
> >>time--perhaps another 20 years?
> >
> >Yes, I agree, but I think the turbulence will last for much longer than 20
> >years--probably at least another two or three generations. It won't really
> >stop until the whole world has arrived at similar standards of living.
> >
> >I follow with my summary of a recent article from The Independent by Hamish
> >McRae. This condensation will be one of many short articles that will
> >appear in a new type of Web site that will start life in the next few weeks.
> >
> ><<<<<
> >3. FIVE NIGGLES ABOUT FREE TRADE
> >
> >Keith Hudson
> >
> >On balance, and over the longer term, free trade is immensely beneficial
> >but, over the short to medium term, there are understandable worries and
> >these must be paid attention to
> >
> >---------
> >
> >The violence of protestors at the meeting of the World Trade Organisation
> >(WTO) at Seattle means that the WTO is not seen as an obviously benign
> >organisation by some of the young.
> >
> >In order to avoid the crippling protective measures and competitive
> >devaluations of many national governments in the 1920s and 1930s, which
> >caused so much unemployment and economic suffering, three new international
> >bodies were planned at Bretton Woods in 1944, even before World War II had
> >come to an end. These were the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
> >and the WTO. The first two were established quickly but the last never got
> >off the ground at the time because nation-state governments continued to
> >quarrel among themselves. An interim body was founded—the General Agreement
> >on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)—and this was able to stagger along and achieve
> >some reforms until WTO was finally launched in 1995.
> >
> >However, there are are at least five real concerns which should not be
> >ignored. They are:
> >
> >1. A freeing up of trade of any particular good will cause temporary
> >unemployment at a particular time and place before the workers concerned
> >find new employment;
> >
> >2. Increased free trade adds to the pressure on world resources, and if
> >every country were to try and live at the present standard of living of
> >North Americans and in their present style, then this would be impossible;
> >
> >3. Some countries have such a lack of resources, and such low standards of
> >education and technological know-how that they cannot get even a modest
> >share of increased trade in the foreseeable future;
> >
> >4. Increasing global trade also involves increasing capital and investment
> >flows but these, given the nature of modern financial systems, can be
> >rapidly withdrawn from particular sectors or countries at the first sign of
> >trouble causing unexpected unemployment;
> >
> >5. The world economy is becoming increasingly dependent on information and
> >this, at present, is unequally available to people in different parts of
> >the world, effectively isolating many people from any immediate share of
> >increased trade.
> >
> >
> >Summarised from "Five reasons to worry about free trade" by Hamish McRae
> >(The Independent, 2 December 1999)
> >>>>>>
> >
> >Many types of reforms are implied in the above article, but competitive
> >protectionism by one country after another is not one of them. If the
> >youthful protestors at Seattle had their way they would certainly bring
> >about a repetition of the 1920/30s in which tens of millions of people
> >would suffer -- that is, additional to those who are already suffering
> >(for quite different reasons than trade) -- and only hurt multinational
> >corporations marginally. (One or two of them might fold up, of course, but
> >then multinationals are being formed and are dying all the time -- it's
> >their natural state of existence.)
> >
> >Keith Hudson
> >
> >
> >
> >At 13:03 03/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
> >>trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
> >>like the US.
> >>
> >>On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
> >>wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do. Making trade
> >>freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
> >>our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
> >>move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc. Of course this is a threat to the
> >>livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions. I think of it as
> >>macro-level union busting.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
> >>bad thing either. How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
> >>built a factory there? People were lining up to work there because jobs
> >>are scarse in such rural areas. The same happens when an American company
> >>moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
> >>because for them, they ARE good jobs. If the jobs paid a relatively awful
> >>wage in that country, there would not be such a demand to become an
> >>employee.
> >>
> >>In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
> >>list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
> >>time--perhaps another 20 years? After which time, the dust will have
> >>cleared, and most jobs will have workers who are paid the rate that
> >>benefits stockholders the most. Whether or not that result is a living
> >>wage capable to sustaining a quality standard of living has yet to be
> >>determined.
> >>
> >>I don't see protests in Seattle as changing this verdict in the least.
> >>It was happening before the WTO, and will continue whether that
> >>organization is abolished or not. As someone who does care about workers
> >>both in core and peripheral countries, I think the best thing is to use
> >>what little nation-state power there remains to increase the diversity of
> >>precisely the stockholding ownership that drives this system.
> >>
> >>Make more people owners. Active owners. Both in core AND in peripheral
> >>countries.
> >>
> >>Any other answers? Concerns?
> >>
> >>Andrew U. D. Straw
> >>Fredericksburg, VA
> >>
> >
> >________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
> >6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> >Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >________________________________________________________________________
