Keith,
I said, and you replied: HP: Your divisions are interesting for discussion but are useless in an analysis of production. KH: . . . I agree. And so is yours. On the contrary, every human production activity on the planet can be broken down into natural resources, human exertion, and man-made products used in production. Nothing has changed since George analyzed and rigorously made the division. The three returns are the same - Rent, Wages, and Interest. Then we come to your questions. I'll answer them as George might have. How is the job structure changing? HP: This is an interesting sociological question - but however it 'changes', production will still be a result of Land, Labor, and Capital. What will be the next energy technology that can replace the burning of fossil fuels? HP: Whatever it is, it will still consist of Land, Labor, and Capital. How should children and young people be given equal opportunities? HP: Too vague to answer. However, the whole thrust of George's Political Economy is toward the ending of privilege. His question at the beginning of Progress & Poverty is 'why, in spite of the constantly increasing power to produce, is it so hard to make a living'. What is the continuing role of the Internet? HP: Another interesting sociological question. Inasmuch as it increases the power to produce it has its place as Capital. How do present individual wealth disparities compare with those of the past? HP: George would no doubt change this to " Why are there such wealth disparities?" Do national aggregations (e.g. a country's GDP) mean anything any longer? HP: Good question. Perhaps they never did mean anything (except to governments and academics). What actually motivates consumers beyond simplistic notions of "greed" or "envy"? HP: Always food, clothing, and shelter. George simply used the basic assumption that "Man's desires are unlimited." After survival, he didn't attempt to pursue the desires for they can rapidly surge into the thousands. What they are is less important than confirming the assumption. Does evolutionary biology have anything to contribute to economics? HP: Probably, but it will still fall into the basic three functions. What role will genetics play in future business? HP: Another sociological question unless it is tied to production. What will be the effect of continuing job specializations? HP: No doubt, higher Wages for the successful specialists. Why has the financial sector become so large in recent decades? HP: A mixture of reasons, including inadequate education leading to misplaced trust along with the entertainment/news industry which, failing to understand basic economics, has stressed such things as the stock market and land-value bubbles, while endlessly analyzing them as if they were important. It's rather like hurricanes and Global Warming. Now TV picks up an incipient hurricane of the coast of Africa and lovingly follows it west. In fact, 3 of the 4 Category 5 hurricanes to beset the US occurred earlier in the 20th century (before the Global Warming hypothesis). The fourth - Hurricane Andrew which happened in 1992 wasn't covered until after its destruction hit the US. Then the news people "discovered" it! Now, every tropical depression becomes important. In similar fashion, every move of the Dow-Jones is publicized as if it is important. Political Economy would have stressed that when thousands of banks are protected by collateral consisting of volatile land-values there is an accident waiting to happen. Does the declining birth rate in advanced countries mean ultimate extinction? HP: Mark Steyn seems to think so. But this is another sociological question. Is money a valuable good in its own right or is it a piece of paper? HP: It is a promise to pay - only as good as the promisor. If the promisor is trustworthy, then the money has value. (Value and Wealth are not the same.) What consumer products, presently enjoyed by the rich, await mass production? HP: Yachts, private jet planes, Lincoln Town Cars. But much of humanity would be satisfied with three squares a day. When we know how to divide ourselves into two species who will be motivated to do so? As a species can interbreed, becoming a new species is a problem unless sufficient nubile partners are available. I doubt that this would be a choice if it were to happen. Will there be an economic benefit in becoming two or more separate species? HP: Can't see one, but it's an interesting intellectual exercise. How do we put an economic value on the ecosystem? HP: By restricting its use to a few - also a good way to reduce Wealth. Harry ******************************** Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 9104 818 352-4141 ******************************** From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:50 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION; Harry Pollard Subject: [Futurework] From now onwards Harry, I'm starting a new thread because, where you wrote: <<<< Your divisions are interesting for discussion but are useless in an analysis of production. >>>> . . . I agree. And so is yours. They're both the sorts of things one reads in text books by way of retrospective summaries. They're "stop" statements rather than "step" ones. Our argument was a bit of fun -- in my case at Henry George's expense -- but it doesn't take us forward. Instead, there are many other questions that need to be discussed, such as: How is the job structure changing? What will be the next energy technology that can replace the burning of fossil fuels? How should children and young people be given equal opportunities? What is the continuing role of the Internet? How do present individual wealth disparities compare with those of the past? Do national aggregations (e.g. a country's GDP) mean anything any longer? What actually motivates consumers beyond simplistic notions of "greed" or "envy"? Does evolutionary biology have anything to contribute to economics? What role will genetics play in future business? What will be the effect of continuing job specializations? Why has the financial sector become so large in recent decades? Does the declining birth rate in advanced countries mean ultimate extinction? Is money a valuable good in its own right or is it a piece of paper? What consumer products, presently enjoyed by the rich, await mass production? When we know how to divide ourselves into two species who will be motivated to do so? Will there be an economic benefit in becoming two or more separate species? How do we put an economic value on the ecosystem? All of these are important modern questions which classical economists could not even have asked, never mind answered. Keith Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
