Hi, Ray, Great to in be contact again! I hope this finds you well and thriving.
Lawry On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Ray Harrell wrote: > Lawry, good to hear from you. Thanks. > > > > REH > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:47 AM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: [Ottawadissenters] Fw: More dismal stuff > > > > Good morning, Ed, > > > > I don't have a lot of time unfortunately for posting today, but I do want to > suggest that maybe you are being overly pessimistic. I see a quite bright > future, one in which intellectual contribution, aesthetic contribution, > innovation, enterprise, experimentation, structural flexibility and adhocracy > are the dominant characteristics. > > > > Yes, as it now positioned, much of our population won't be able to make its > way to this. Too many people today are stodgy, unattracted to eduction, > stasis-oriented, entertainment-seeking, and physically unfit. They would have > a very hard time making it in a world of change, action, and initiative. But > here is the point that I think a lot of the postings here may not appreciate: > that these changes will happen over time and that people -- and populations > -- will adjust to the new problems and opportunities. They won't of course > change in perfect sync with the changing world: all of us tend to be lazy and > somewhat reactive, at best (and there are good reasons for this). So there is > a lag, and it is in that lag that people experience uncertainty and some > experience fear and failure. But by and large, populations adapt to new > realities. And, in my view, those realities will be very friendly to those > who embrace change, action, and initiative. > > > > Of course, these new realities won't happen all at once; indeed, as the > eloquent comments on this list reflect, they started some time ago, and they > will take decades and centuries to become fully evident. > > > > And this brings me to the societal function of death. In the end, a > significant part of the process of change depends on the death of older > people. They take with them old habits, old demands, and old attitudes to the > grave. They clear out space for younger people, younger ideas, and > expectations. Death creates space for innovators, experimentation, and > change. It is also true that death deprives us of a certain amount of often > hard-won wisdom, and, I suppose, we will be ever rediscovering wisdom that > was lost as older people die. To the extent that wisdom is contextual, this > is not bad, but not all wisdom is contextual.... > > > > So, for me, the future does not look at all bleak: it looks exciting, > inviting, freeing, and demanding. Those who don't 'get it' will not see it > this way, and I understand that. > > > > What I hope we don't do is drown ourselves in a swamp of despair, and I see > some of the posts here doing that, or contributing to that. Not only does > this tend to leave people at their worst -- is despair and inaction -- but it > also saps the energy of youngsters when it comes to their addressing their > own futures. It is the opposite of pollyanish thinking, and both are equally > destructive. > > > > Unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning activists have fallen into the trap of > thinking that if they scare people enough, people will change. These > activists thwart with this view the very goals they hold, and in the > thwarting they themselves sink into despair and anger, and so become > themselves useless to the processes of healthy change in society. > > > > I hope these notes are of interest. > > > > Cheers, > > Lawry > > > > > > On Jul 14, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Ed Weick wrote: > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Ed Weick > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:08 AM > > Subject: Re: [Ottawadissenters] Fw: More dismal stuff > > > > > > > > The main trends I see are continuing population growth, continued > urbanization (see Mike Davis's Planet of Slums for example), reduced > employment per unit of output (increasing efficiency in production), a > continuing shift of production to the low wage world, and the increasing > importance of the financial sector as opposed to the goods producing sector > in the advanced world. All of this means an exacerbation of the unemployment > problem we have now. I don't think that the world we're moving into will be > a pretty place. > > > > A little over a decade ago I spent a month in a vast slum of Sao Paulo, then > a city of 20 million people. Many, perhaps most, of the families of that > slum were migrants from the countryside who had lost jobs on plantations > because machinery had replaced them. They were stuck; there was no way that > they could go back to the land and grow their own food. The people I worked > with lived in a third stage favela (slum). Accommodation consisted of very > crowded but solid brick-block buildings. People in second stage favelas > lived in shacks cobbled together out of whatever wood and tin could be found. > First stage favelados slept in cardboard boxes under overpasses. > > > > People did whatever they could to stay alive. Quite a few worked in hotels > downtown, others ran local shops, but many sold drugs and turned to petty or > even major crime. Standoffs and shootings between the police and drug > dealers or criminals were commonplace. > > > > I'm not suggesting that our situation will be like that of Sao Paulo, but > given the kinds of changes now apparent, we will go some distance in that > direction. Our kids won't have the kinds of opportunities we had, and it > will likely be worse for our grandkids. We increasingly hear the word > "deflation", which suggests a prolonged slump and falling prices because > people cannot or will not spend as they did before. Paul Krugman argues that > if people are not spending, the government must, but governments already have > high debts and their powers to tax are diminishing. > > > > Sorry that this posting is a downer, but I'm not an optimist so I might as > well say it how I see it. > > > > Ed > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: balfourarch > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [Ottawadissenters] Fw: More dismal stuff > > > > > > Ed > > That kind of scenario cannot play out; post oil food if not raised locally is > not coming from afar. > > The economy that allows the city state to exist collapses. The dregs cannot > exist if the flotsam above has sunk; the folks will be busy trying out how to > raise a little food inner city wise or moving to the hinterland to take over > the monoculture abandoned fields. Or die. > > As in the latter day urbanization as saviour days are not sustainable. The > inner city has nothing to trade for the food from the hinterland. They have > to get their hands dirty..... > > No room left for the drug culture. > > rb > > > > On 2010.07.12, at 3:14 PM, Ed Weick wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Ed Weick > > To: Keith Hudson > > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:40 PM > > Subject: Re: More dismal stuff > > > > Keith, I understand what you are saying, but I'd still maintain that the > world has changed greatly over the past half century. Production takes place > over a much larger part of the globe, container ships and aircraft move what > is produced around much more rapidly, communications are instant and America > and Europe have lost much of their economic clout. Because production has > become more efficient it needs fewer people per unit of output and yet the > global population continues to grow and its growth is expected to continue. > I see the question of how increasingly urbanized populations will make a > living as a major problem. Increasingly via drugs and crime probably. > > > > Ed > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Keith Hudson > > To: Ed Weick ; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION > > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:45 PM > > Subject: Re: More dismal stuff > > > > Ed, > > At 11:34 12/07/2010 -0400, you wrote: > > > > There's been a lot of discussion, too much in fact, on Keynes and Hayek on > the list recently. I recall reading them, and others like Friedman, a very > very long time ago. They understood the world from the perspective of their > times, but now they're all dead. Well Krugman, essentially a Keynesian, > isn't dead, but the kinds of things he keeps saying in his columns, which > I've characterized as "spend, spend, spend", seems out of place too as > belonging to a past era rather than now. > > What kind of a world do we live in now and how might we think about it? One > of the greatest differences between the worlds of Keynes and Hayek is the > extent of globalization. > > > There was as much, if not more, globalized trade (as between many different > importers and exporters in different countries)(as a percentage of total > world GDP) in the 1870s/80s as now. A very great deal of globalized "trade" > today is the shifting of components and sub-components within and between > large corporations. > > > > Economic decisions and actions that are now made a very long distance from > us can have a huge effect on our well being. When Keynes and Hayek lived, > and thought, unemployment in a particular country was seen as caused by a > fall in effective demand in that country or by market imperfection such as > too much monopolization and too little competition. I don't think that is > the case now. Many Americans for example are unemployed because a large > chunk has been ripped out of their economy and shipped off to China. > > > But it's still the case that most high-value components (with higher profit > margins) are made elsewhere and only assembled in China. Even so, Chinese > wage rates are rising rapidly now -- just as they did in Japan and Korea in > the 1960s and the 1980s respectively -- and will be equivalent to ours in the > not too distant future. Chinese firms will then start to move to the UK and > the US just as the Japanese and the Koreans have done. > > > > Another major difference between the world of Keynes and Hayek and our world > is that of the efficiency of the productive process. Even if production has > or has not been shifted to China and the BRICs, the productive process > employs far fewer people than in would have in Keynes' and Hayek's day. But > because of population growth there are far more people needing work. Even > the production of an increasing proportion of consumers goods in China has > done little to increase the proportion of the Chinese population that is > employed. And globally, while the efficiency of production has increased > greatly, so has the proportion of the global population needing employment. > In 1950, global population was approximately 2.5 billion; by 2000 it had > increased to over 6 billion. And a much larger proportion of global > population lived in cities where they would be less able to fend for > themselves if they did not find jobs. > > Yet another major difference between our world and that of Keynes and Hayek > is the greatly expanded role of the financial sector, which can play a very > large role in global economic illness or health, as the US subprime mortgage > debacle has demonstrated. Yes indeed, as James Galbraith argues, catch the > bastards, incarcerate them, apply tough laws, etc., but will that stop them? > Hardly, given the vast number of hiding places that electronic communications > now provide them. > > So, let us nod respectfully in the directions of Keynes and Hayek and earlier > economic thinkers like Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, etc., > but let’s not forget that we live in a very different world than they did. > > > But the basic nature of economic transactions remains exactly the same as > then -- and probably the same as in 75,000BC when sea-shell necklaces were > traded over long distances. > > > > My greatest fear is that our world of growing population, job shrinkage, > and the growth of nefarious practices could, in a couple of decades, resemble > the world portrayed in Soylent Green, a very classic movie about a world gone > totally out of kilter. > > > All the signs are that when people are in Soylent green scenarios -- as they > surely will be in many regions of the world -- then fertility rates go way > down. There'll also be a huge amount of starvation but, within a generation > or so, the world population should start to sink. I think the basic > technologies will be extremely sophisticated by then so the big issue within > the advanced countries (not necessarily those of today) will be whether they > can educate their children up to a standard to be able to force job sharing > on the adults with interesting. > > Keith > > > > Ed > > > > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England > > > > > > balfourarch > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > __._,_.___ > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic > > Messages in this topic (3) > > RECENT ACTIVITY: > > Visit Your Group > > MARKETPLACE > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get > the Yahoo! Toolbar now. > > > > Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. > > > > Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new > interests. > > > > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > > . > > > > __,_._,___ > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
