Cheap Products vs. High Wages... Americans Want BOTH!

Fantastic, really! You managed to completely dodge my questions, and then at the end, zip, a quick "Interventionism is a temporary strategy".

Wow, so you didn't challenge or manage to prove your assumptions at all. Really fantastic, just like a true faith based ideologue would behave.

Evolve? If you haven't noticed yet, mixed economies ARE the evolutions. All of Asia is doing it, and all those countries are getting out of 3rd world status and soon economic superpowers.

Evolution takes decades, if not centuries. No, it's time to catch up.
 
Renegen,

I did not say it was a flaw to fix a unfair system - but I'm trying to explain that it is fundamentally flawed to think that you fix all problems by intervening. Ultimately it leads to a dead end.

I also think that you can agree that emerging economies gaining clout and power is just a reflection on what the fundamental values of the world is... unless you think that USA stands for almost a third of the world's resources, social capital and worth.

Things are just balancing themselves out now, reacting to old deficiencies. That is really obvious to me at least.

Evolutionary change of a system, society or nation does not take decades or centuries. It depends on what scale we are observing evolution. Take the examples of Russia, Brazil, markets, technology, biochemistry, industry, financial trading systems/exchanges, navigation, computer networks or international trade negotiations - they are all evolving increasingly faster as more input and collaboration is added - standing on the shoulders of giants...
 
All I want to see is an enforcement of laws.
The reason why we write contracts is that people are tempted to break their promises.

Some countries simply do not respect the trade laws or their spirit, which is free trade.

It is simply about catching up and playing on a level playing field.

As for the fundamental value of the world, what bs is this? Are you talking about tree spirits? Tell that to Africa.

This has nothing to do with your "interventionism" which frankly is a stupid statement now that I think about it.
What IS interventionism? Any problem, ANY, first gets resolved by tackling it as well as you can. Any system first gets improved or changed by first trying to tweak it. You really don't make much sense.
It is obvious you love theories and your long held beliefs instead of a true intellectual curiosity.
 
In fact I remember seeing a video about Nigeria's problems and the man said that Nigeria did have everything a prosperous country has, yes even your mighty secret sauce "social capital" (which btw you completely misuse, social capital is the friendship I share with someone, it has nothing to do with HUMAN capital, which you might be alluding to, which is the talents of an individual, so this doesn't make you look very good)

Anyway. He said Nigeria (one of the poorest countries in the world, big oil producer etc) had everything, except leadership. Well well well, guess what, all I ask for the US is leadership indeed. With leadership smart people (and I doubt you'll get the call) will get to work and slowly "intervene" and right whatever situation. But you must have wise leadership, that can get things done, that get set priorities, that can rally people etc All we have is a criminal leadership and a bunch of literally clueless masses all living in their own chaotic bubbles.
 
Renegen,

Nigeria has natural resources, and could be a successful nation with a booming economy. Unfortunately, they have corruption and not an open democracy - they lack education, health services and infrastructure.

I think of social capital as the value of social structures. I mention "systems theory" and "complex adaptive systems" elsewhere in similarly themed posts I make, and think I have a good grasp of what it is.

The economic worth of any part of the world is a reflection of the resources - commodities, production, social, monetary... all the capital, potential etc.



You talk about enforcement, legislation, contracts, legalese and punitive reactions...

That is the fundamental flaw of the interventionism you are touting. You support the encumbering of society, by making it more complex - simply just adding interventionist "quick-fixes" to plug loopholes as they emerge, then dash out punishment when someone breaks the rules - adding more complexity with contracts so that regulations can be held and managed.


My approach and philosophy is fundamentally different from yours. I study the system and try to figure out how one can avoid the problems, leave out the deficiencies from the design and thus make life more free, society less encumbered and save on expenses - making a system more efficient, improving production.

That is why I think that taking into consideration these systemic failures and solving these, instead of just fixing the latest flaw into oblivion is the fundamentally correct approach - to everything.

I think my approach is fundamentally more geared towards longevity, strength, balance, fairness and ultimately - success.
:p
 
Here is a link to "systems thinking".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking




And some pros/cons - similar fringe thinking/convictions...
Ammo for critiques of some what I am touting, if you can spin it right...
:p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-progressivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-utopianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_studies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuration_theory

I am a supporter of transhumanism, through stem-cell research etc, but I'm not particularly in favour of genetically modified foodstuffs, however I think that "telomere" has great potential. I don't think I hold any extremist views though, as I adhere to reason first and foremost. I do think a mixed economy is the correct reflection of modern society and the necessary future, but do not think economic intervention is the right thing - I am a supporter of Laissez-faire.
:)

I worked professionally some years building mathematical models for e.g energy spot-market prices and various prediction models using neural network, genetic algorithms etc. I also did some for my currency futures trading to model tape-reading signals and orderbook changes. I'm a programmer mostly, nowadays my interest mainly lie in modelling knowledge and being able to structure knowledge information effectively.
 
Quote from romanus:

Productivity and saturation as economic concepts hold very little value in real world unless defined in more narrow terms. When defined in more narrow terms both lose their status of economic concept.

The value of productivity as economic concept in real world (even without it being defined in more narrow terms) resides in its being a major underlying cause of increasing unemployment in the long run (provided smooth functioning economy). The same holds true for saturation, where a saturated market can be simply defined even in technical terms as a market without any additional absorption capacity.


E.g., saturation - the music market is pretty saturated - TV, Radio, CD's etc.
Then why Ipod's were selling like hot cakes?

In order for a product to be sold, you need a market and its absorption capacity. Apart from the possibility for the music market being a growing one (you can not grow forever anyway), Ipod’s were selling only because they could take away the market share of other manufacturers, causing them to cut their workforce.

Productivity - everybody and their uncle were buying industrial robots in the 80's hoping to cut the labor costs, until they became captives of robotic systems OEMs ( how would you like to pay 10K for a tiny electronic board that operates the cruise control in your 15K Chevy);

I’m not sure, I got your message here. Taken into account the simple fact, that all costs finally consist only of labor costs (downstream)+ profit, robotic systems could not be productive without their positive (i.e.increasing) effect on the unemployment.

PS: I’m talking about macro here.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top