I originally posted this on the 'is FOSS ethical thread' but this
probably deserves a seperate thread.
Kaz Kylheu wrote:
> Mark has a good point regarding the subsidies.
Right; perhaps we need to campaign to change the funding model as it
exists. I think this model is out of date. Perhaps we should see
software as needing to be funded in the same way that we used to fund
the public utilities in the UK. We all use FOSS and rely on it like we
rely on piped water. Government depts are saving a bundle by using
it, so why not treat it like piped water?
Right now much of the development money is ticketed for universities.
If you're not in that system you don't get a chance to enter the
race. Grant money is doled out in closed sessions by some of the very
people who apply for it and I can tell you that the system is anything
but fair. The hidden presumption is that universities and only
universities are the engines of innovation and development and a lot
of FOSS is proof that that is not true. So maybe we should campaign
for the govt to open the coffers and give FOSS developers a chance of
the same subsidies that universities enjoy.
Mark
PS The comparison I made with dumping in the OP was to do with the
economic effects of FOSS - ie. the commercial destruction of a
commercial player, not the intent behind FOSS which might be noble.
(or not - sometimes with fanatical FOSS people the intent is exactly
that - whacking the commercial equivalent).
'Nationalizing' anything, including foss, is a very BAD idea.
Creeping government control of everything is now our biggest problem.
And it's getting worse all by itself - it certainly does not to be
facilitated, it needs to be reversed.
On 6 Mar, 13:55, YANSWBVCG <····@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
> 'Nationalizing' anything, including foss, is a very BAD idea.
> Creeping government control of everything is now our biggest problem.
> And it's getting worse all by itself - it certainly does not to be
> facilitated, it needs to be reversed.
That rather depends on how the money is allocated. Govt money is not
logically equivalent to govt. control.
> This is the big question. I, for example, am very sure that the world
> would look much nastier to programmers without OSS, ...
Would it? Are you so certain? I'm not. I think we've got hooked on
FOSS, so like any junkie we can't imagine life without our fix. No
FOSS means that we pay for programs which means that their creators
get paid too.
> However, since we cannot run another experiment in a different universe, it
> is impossible to decide which view is right, and I am very much in doubt if
> this whole discussion is really useful.
Thats a bit negative. I agree that debating how to shut FOSS down is
not worthwhile, but it is important to consider the bad consequences
of FOSS and ask ourselves how to iron them out. The reason I posted
this thread is because I think that FOSS people have been blindsiding
this issue for too long- focussing on the Evil Empire etc., glorifying
the noble part and ignoring their own dark side. To assume that its a
waste of time is to assume that these problems are beyond human
control.
BTW thats also why I posted it on programming groups - the originators
of FOSS - rather than in some conveniently ignorable corner where
everybody can just ignore the issue.
Of course people can choose to ignore the thread or not to post.
That's their right.
Mark
In comp.lang.lisp Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On 6 Mar, 13:55, YANSWBVCG <····@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
>> 'Nationalizing' anything, including foss, is a very BAD idea.
>> Creeping government control of everything is now our biggest problem.
>> And it's getting worse all by itself - it certainly does not to be
>> facilitated, it needs to be reversed.
>
> That rather depends on how the money is allocated. Govt money is not
> logically equivalent to govt. control.
Government control always comes along after government money.
On 7 Mar, 20:28, YANSWBVCG <····@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
> In comp.lang.lisp Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 6 Mar, 13:55, YANSWBVCG <····@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
> >> 'Nationalizing' anything, including foss, is a very BAD idea.
> >> Creeping government control of everything is now our biggest problem.
> >> And it's getting worse all by itself - it certainly does not to be
> >> facilitated, it needs to be reversed.
>
> > That rather depends on how the money is allocated. Govt money is not
> > logically equivalent to govt. control.
>
> Government control always comes along after government money.
Not invariably; EPSRC money is doled out by senior professors who
write recommendations. I think similar arrangements exist in the
USA. Unless you want to call professors part of govt. Its part of
peer review.
Mark
From: Malcolm McLean
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <od6dnXvJqZNuIk_aRVnyiAA@bt.com>
"Mark Tarver" <··········@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37da3316-4362-4053-a779-
>
>> Government control always comes along after government money.
>
>Not invariably; EPSRC money is doled out by senior professors who
>write recommendations. I think similar arrangements exist in the
>USA. Unless you want to call professors part of govt. Its part of
>peer review.
>
British universities maintained independence for a long time after most
funding was generated by the state. However the relentless expansion of
higher education means that the absolute numbers of people and the sums
involved is so much larger that government control is creeping in,
ironically at the same time as students are being asked to contribute
directly to the cost of their education.
The BBC has done quite a good job of keeping government at arm's length. So
too have the medical profession, though largely in their own interests than
those of their patients.
The BBC model for software might very well work.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:28:28 -0600, YANSWBVCG wrote:
> In comp.lang.lisp Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 6 Mar, 13:55, YANSWBVCG <····@puf2.localhost.comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 'Nationalizing' anything, including foss, is a very BAD idea.
>>> Creeping government control of everything is now our biggest problem.
>>> And it's getting worse all by itself - it certainly does not to be
>>> facilitated, it needs to be reversed.
>>
>> That rather depends on how the money is allocated. Govt money is not
>> logically equivalent to govt. control.
>
> Government control always comes along after government money.
Yes. In theory it need not happen, but in practice it does happen. It's
all for our own good, of course.
It's not just control. Government regulation is so pervasive that it is
simply impossible to avoid breaking the law. So if you offend the wrong
people the means are always available to throw the book at you.
Tim
YANSWBVCG wrote:
> 'Nationalizing' anything, including foss, is a very BAD idea.
> Creeping government control of everything is now our biggest problem.
> And it's getting worse all by itself - it certainly does not to be
> facilitated, it needs to be reversed.
Yes, what we need is more free market economics like the Bear Streans
bail out by the US Federal Reserve Bank.
From: Joost Diepenmaat
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87hcfk88t6.fsf@zeekat.nl>
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> Right now much of the development money is ticketed for universities.
> If you're not in that system you don't get a chance to enter the
> race.
I think I already called you on this twice, but this is just not true at
all. Most FOSS is definitely *not* developed using university money.
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
On 6 Mar, 10:07, Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> wrote:
> Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> > Right now much of the development money is ticketed for universities.
> > If you're not in that system you don't get a chance to enter the
> > race.
>
> I think I already called you on this twice, but this is just not true at
> all. Most FOSS is definitely *not* developed using university money.
>
> --
> Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/
This is precisely what I have been saying above, most FOSS is *not*
developed on university money and universities are the prime recipient
of govt R&D funding. Kenny is not eligible, for example, to the same
sources of funding as his Geogebra university competitor. He
chooses a closed-source model because that is the only way he can hope
to recoup his investment. But he's competing at a very serious
disadvantage if his competitor is bankrolled by the govt and is giving
his stuff away for free.
Mark
From: Joost Diepenmaat
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87d4q886sd.fsf@zeekat.nl>
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> This is precisely what I have been saying above, most FOSS is *not*
> developed on university money and universities are the prime recipient
> of govt R&D funding. Kenny is not eligible, for example, to the same
> sources of funding as his Geogebra university competitor. He
> chooses a closed-source model because that is the only way he can hope
> to recoup his investment. But he's competing at a very serious
> disadvantage if his competitor is bankrolled by the govt and is giving
> his stuff away for free.
True, but for some reason you seem to think that developing FOSS using
any other kind of money is fine. I thought your point was that free
sofware is immoral, but it seems your point is actually that it's
immoral to use public funds to do *anything* that may compete with
privately owned businesses.
I'm just trying to figure out what it is you're objecting to, since I
can't make it out.
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
On 6 Mar, 10:51, Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> wrote:
> Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> > This is precisely what I have been saying above, most FOSS is *not*
> > developed on university money and universities are the prime recipient
> > of govt R&D funding. Kenny is not eligible, for example, to the same
> > sources of funding as his Geogebra university competitor. He
> > chooses a closed-source model because that is the only way he can hope
> > to recoup his investment. But he's competing at a very serious
> > disadvantage if his competitor is bankrolled by the govt and is giving
> > his stuff away for free.
>
> True, but for some reason you seem to think that developing FOSS using
> any other kind of money is fine. I thought your point was that free
> sofware is immoral, but it seems your point is actually that it's
> immoral to use public funds to do *anything* that may compete with
> privately owned businesses.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out what it is you're objecting to, since I
> can't make it out.
>
> --
> Joost Diepenmaat | blog:http://joost.zeekat.nl/| work:http://zeekat.nl/
FOSS is not per se immoral; its how FOSS is introduced in the context
of the market. FOSS introduced into a commercial market which then
bankrupts the commercial players leading to layoffs is arguably not a
good thing. FOSS which leads bright students to abandon programming
because they perceive the cost-benefit as being unfavourable is not a
good thing. FOSS programmers reduced to flogging T-shirts and begging
for donations is not a good thing.
Qi is FOSS but not subject to that argument because the market is
almost totally FOSS anyway. Nobody will lose jobs by what I do.
I think Kent is right in suggesting that FOSS will lead to a
degradation of the programmer's profession. But FOSS cannot be
undone; we cannot prevent FOSS being dumped onto a commercial
market. Even if we could pass legislation against FOSS in the same
way that legislation was brought against predatory dumping, it would
be totally unenforcable.
The question is: is there a model under which we can enjoy the
benefits of FOSS and at the same time give respect, dignity and
gainful employment to programmers? The only model I can see is to
'nationalise' FOSS by placing software production under government
subsidy.
Mark
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> I think Kent is right in suggesting that FOSS will lead to a
> degradation of the programmer's profession.
This is the big question. I, for example, am very sure that the world
would look much nastier to programmers without OSS, and I think this
sentence remains true also if you replace OSS with FOSS (i.e. GPLed
software), because big software companies would have much more power than
they have now.
However, since we cannot run another experiment in a different universe, it
is impossible to decide which view is right, and I am very much in doubt if
this whole discussion is really useful.
Nicolas
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 04:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> The question is: is there a model under which we can enjoy the
> benefits of FOSS and at the same time give respect, dignity and
> gainful employment to programmers?
Certainly there is - I think it is the case that most programmers
are employed producing specialist software for internal use or for
embedding as part of a product rather than producing general purpose
software for independent sale. This work provides respect, dignity and
gainful employment to programmers (at least it has for me for the last
<mumble> decades).
FOSS is often used to support internal use and embedded software
development in the form of development tools and support software (eg. gcc,
apache, mysql etc.). It is not unusual for the employers of programmers
producing internal or embedded software to allow and indeed encourage (by
allocating them paid time for the purpose) the programmers to enhance the
FOSS they use to better serve their needs and contribute those enhancements
to the FOSS. In this way programmers get paid to produce FOSS.
> The only model I can see is to 'nationalise' FOSS by placing software
> production under government subsidy.
Which government ? FOSS is a global phenomenon and we don't have a
global government.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> FOSS is not per se immoral; its how FOSS is introduced in the context
> of the market. FOSS introduced into a commercial market which then
> bankrupts the commercial players leading to layoffs is arguably not a
> good thing. FOSS which leads bright students to abandon programming
> because they perceive the cost-benefit as being unfavourable is not a
> good thing. FOSS programmers reduced to flogging T-shirts and begging
> for donations is not a good thing.
>
> Qi is FOSS but not subject to that argument because the market is
> almost totally FOSS anyway. Nobody will lose jobs by what I do.
>
> I think Kent is right in suggesting that FOSS will lead to a
> degradation of the programmer's profession. But FOSS cannot be
> undone; we cannot prevent FOSS being dumped onto a commercial
> market. Even if we could pass legislation against FOSS in the same
> way that legislation was brought against predatory dumping, it would
> be totally unenforcable.
The reasons why FOSS exists as it exists now are mostly to be found in
the defects of commercial software:
- there are bugs in commercial software,
- even when there is no bug, there are interoperability problems,
- the source is not available, or available at exhorbitant cost,
- minority custommers cannot have these bugs or interoperability
problems corrected,
- the customers don't have any word in the evolution of commercial
software: either they keep using old versions (and soon lose any
'official' support), or they have to updating their own software
at the whim of their commercial vendors.
That's why RMS started his GNU project (first four items), that's why
I try to avoid using any closed source software.
> The question is: is there a model under which we can enjoy the
> benefits of FOSS and at the same time give respect, dignity and
> gainful employment to programmers? The only model I can see is to
> 'nationalise' FOSS by placing software production under government
> subsidy.
Perhaps FOSS should be used only amongst the Tribe
( http://www.amazon.fr/Tribu-Informatique-Philippe-Breton/dp/2864240866 ),
but at the same time this wouldn't make RMS happy, and it's about what
happens anyways: most user still buy MS-Windows stuffed computers and still
use closed source software. Also, they still tend to copy these commercial
software without paying them. So I'm not impressed by those who believe
that's FOSS that prevent commercial vendors to make a living.
The problem is rather with the vendors who sell buggy software, and
users who prefer to buy cheap buggy software than honestly priced
bug-free software.
In the meantime, if you don't mind the Tribe will continue to develop
their own software and share it amongst themselves, and their friends.
The GPL would insure that this libre software stays intra-Tribe.
Remember: to distribute GPL'ed software, you must enter inside the
Tribe!
The BSD License, is OK for software already paid for by tax payers.
There's no other negative impact here on commercial vendor, than the
normal negative impact due to any tax.
What I don't understand, is why somebody would want to distribute
privately founded software under a BSD-like License. But in anycase,
the impact it may have on commercial software is infinitisimal
compared to the users' choices of bad cheap software over good well
paid software.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
guaranteed.
On 6 Mar, 21:54, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> > FOSS is not per se immoral; its how FOSS is introduced in the context
> > of the market. FOSS introduced into a commercial market which then
> > bankrupts the commercial players leading to layoffs is arguably not a
> > good thing. FOSS which leads bright students to abandon programming
> > because they perceive the cost-benefit as being unfavourable is not a
> > good thing. FOSS programmers reduced to flogging T-shirts and begging
> > for donations is not a good thing.
>
> > Qi is FOSS but not subject to that argument because the market is
> > almost totally FOSS anyway. Nobody will lose jobs by what I do.
>
> > I think Kent is right in suggesting that FOSS will lead to a
> > degradation of the programmer's profession. But FOSS cannot be
> > undone; we cannot prevent FOSS being dumped onto a commercial
> > market. Even if we could pass legislation against FOSS in the same
> > way that legislation was brought against predatory dumping, it would
> > be totally unenforcable.
>
> The reasons why FOSS exists as it exists now are mostly to be found in
> the defects of commercial software:
>
> - there are bugs in commercial software,
>
> - even when there is no bug, there are interoperability problems,
>
> - the source is not available, or available at exhorbitant cost,
>
> - minority custommers cannot have these bugs or interoperability
> problems corrected,
>
> - the customers don't have any word in the evolution of commercial
> software: either they keep using old versions (and soon lose any
> 'official' support), or they have to updating their own software
> at the whim of their commercial vendors.
>
> That's why RMS started his GNU project (first four items), that's why
> I try to avoid using any closed source software.
>
> > The question is: is there a model under which we can enjoy the
> > benefits of FOSS and at the same time give respect, dignity and
> > gainful employment to programmers? The only model I can see is to
> > 'nationalise' FOSS by placing software production under government
> > subsidy.
>
> Perhaps FOSS should be used only amongst the Tribe
> (http://www.amazon.fr/Tribu-Informatique-Philippe-Breton/dp/2864240866),
> but at the same time this wouldn't make RMS happy, and it's about what
> happens anyways: most user still buy MS-Windows stuffed computers and still
> use closed source software. Also, they still tend to copy these commercial
> software without paying them. So I'm not impressed by those who believe
> that's FOSS that prevent commercial vendors to make a living.
>
> The problem is rather with the vendors who sell buggy software, and
> users who prefer to buy cheap buggy software than honestly priced
> bug-free software.
>
> In the meantime, if you don't mind the Tribe will continue to develop
> their own software and share it amongst themselves, and their friends.
>
> The GPL would insure that this libre software stays intra-Tribe.
> Remember: to distribute GPL'ed software, you must enter inside the
> Tribe!
>
> The BSD License, is OK for software already paid for by tax payers.
> There's no other negative impact here on commercial vendor, than the
> normal negative impact due to any tax.
>
> What I don't understand, is why somebody would want to distribute
> privately founded software under a BSD-like License. But in anycase,
> the impact it may have on commercial software is infinitisimal
> compared to the users' choices of bad cheap software over good well
> paid software.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
>
> NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
> together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
> and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
> guaranteed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
FOSS works fairly well for systems software; languages and OSs
and such. These are programmer's tools. However when it spreads
into applications then it can be a job killer. Geogebra is a Theory Y
algebra killer and Ken knows it.
Nationalisation really means levelling the field and giving Ken the
same
chance to get money that any uni has. Its really unfair to expect him
to pay tax dollars towards something that puts him out of business.
It means that Qi can have the same financing that Haskell gets which
would solve a lot of headaches for me.
In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
and
protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India. It
stimulates the economy and provides fair recompense for those who
otherwise would have to give their labour for free.
Mark
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87lk4vpja9.fsf@panix.com>
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
> and protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
> It stimulates the economy and provides fair recompense for those who
> otherwise would have to give their labour for free.
Funny how all the libertarian, free market fundamentalists turn
protectionist when it's their jobs on the line.
rsi
From: CBFalconer
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <47D0BA30.45FEAE94@yahoo.com>
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In the longer term it gives programmers some security of
>> livelihood and protects US programmers from the evils of
>> outsourcing to India. It stimulates the economy and provides
>> fair recompense for those who otherwise would have to give
>> their labour for free.
>
> Funny how all the libertarian, free market fundamentalists
> turn protectionist when it's their jobs on the line.
Not quite all.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Some entity, AKA Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> > In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
> > and protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
> > It stimulates the economy and provides fair recompense for those who
> > otherwise would have to give their labour for free.
>
> Funny how all the libertarian, free market fundamentalists turn
> protectionist when it's their jobs on the line.
Nah, it's merely pathetic.
Cor
--
SPAM DELENDA EST http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
Alle schraifvauden zijn opsettelick, teneynde ieder lafaart de cans te
gevuh over spelingk te mekkuh instede de inhaut
On 6 Mar, 23:05, Cor <····@clsnet.nl> wrote:
> Some entity, AKA Rajappa Iyer <····@panix.com>,
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
> > > In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
> > > and protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
> > > It stimulates the economy and provides fair recompense for those who
> > > otherwise would have to give their labour for free.
>
> > Funny how all the libertarian, free market fundamentalists turn
> > protectionist when it's their jobs on the line.
>
> Nah, it's merely pathetic.
>
> Cor
>
> --
> SPAM DELENDA EST http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
> (defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
> Alle schraifvauden zijn opsettelick, teneynde ieder lafaart de cans te
> gevuh over spelingk te mekkuh instede de inhaut
Perhaps you need to bone up on your history. Unregulated capitalism
of the free market variety strode the land in the 1840s in Britain.
Take a gander at the social pictures of the day. The present mixed
model was evolved out of the libertarian reforms of the C19 which
involved govt. interference with the free market. No sensible
person wants a free market of that kind. The only question is the
degree to which govt. interferes with the market. As soon as you
address that question you're going to get beyond one word answers.
'Pathetic' is best applied to one word posts like this.
I'm *not* going to post back to you on this issue because I have
better to do. I'll leave you to get on with your reading.
ciao
Mark
From: Rajappa Iyer
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87iqzylrdx.fsf@panix.com>
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> Perhaps you need to bone up on your history. Unregulated capitalism
> of the free market variety strode the land in the 1840s in Britain.
> Take a gander at the social pictures of the day.
Actually it was not unregulated capitalism... it was unfettered
mercentalism. Or, put differently, your ancestors were busy raping the
planet around that time.
Now that the colonies actually dare to rise again and beat you at your
own game... you put up all your protectionist barriers. Pardon me if I
have little sympathy.
rsi
On 7 mar, 12:12, Rajappa Iyer <····@panix.com> wrote:
> Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> > Perhaps you need to bone up on your history. Unregulated capitalism
> > of the free market variety strode the land in the 1840s in Britain.
> > Take a gander at the social pictures of the day.
>
> Actually it was not unregulated capitalism... it was unfettered
> mercentalism. Or, put differently, your ancestors were busy raping the
> planet around that time.
>
> Now that the colonies actually dare to rise again and beat you at your
> own game... you put up all your protectionist barriers. Pardon me if I
> have little sympathy.
>
> rsi
Hi all,
" Now that the colonies actually dare to rise again and beat you at
your
own game... you put up all your protectionist barriers. Pardon me if
I
have little sympathy. "
Without European/USA/Japan and recently Corean and China Technology,
without European/USA/Japan Help, without European/USA/Japan Medicine
and so one ... ; how many survive ... ? Just in India, how many
people depends of help of European/USA/Japan ?
Zero Sympathy, India just exploit India to follow European/USA/Japan,
it's not the alone example
Best regards
So, History does repeat itself, the players merely change
names and/or roles.
Cor
--
SPAM DELENDA EST http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
Alle schraifvauden zijn opsettelick, teneynde ieder lafaart de cans te
gevuh over spelingk te mekkuh instede de inhaut
Christophe wrote:
> On 7 mar, 12:12, Rajappa Iyer <····@panix.com> wrote:
>> Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>> > Perhaps you need to bone up on your history. �Unregulated
>> > capitalism of the free market variety strode the land in the 1840s
>> > in Britain. Take a gander at the social pictures of the day.
>>
>> Actually it was not unregulated capitalism... it was unfettered
>> mercentalism. �Or, put differently, your ancestors were busy raping
>> the planet around that time.
>>
>> Now that the colonies actually dare to rise again and beat you at
>> your own game... you put up all your protectionist barriers. �Pardon
>> me if I have little sympathy.
> Hi all,
>
> Without European/USA/Japan and recently Corean and China Technology,
> without European/USA/Japan Help, without European/USA/Japan Medicine
> and so one ... ; how many survive ... ? Just in India, how many
> people depends of help of European/USA/Japan ?
We survived for all of our history without European/USA/Japan help.
What's more, we even flourished at several points in our history.
And so did all civilisations. The west isn't some sort of "saviour of
humanity" that it often likes to imagine itself to be.
:-)
> Zero Sympathy, India just exploit India to follow European/USA/Japan,
> it's not the alone example
I agree here. Too many "developing" nations are modelling too much of
their of lives after the west, without appreciable independent thought.
A rather sad situation, but inevitable I suppose.
santosh <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> Christophe wrote:
>
>> On 7 mar, 12:12, Rajappa Iyer <····@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>>> > Perhaps you need to bone up on your history. �Unregulated
>>> > capitalism of the free market variety strode the land in the 1840s
>>> > in Britain. Take a gander at the social pictures of the day.
>>>
>>> Actually it was not unregulated capitalism... it was unfettered
>>> mercentalism. �Or, put differently, your ancestors were busy raping
>>> the planet around that time.
>>>
>>> Now that the colonies actually dare to rise again and beat you at
>>> your own game... you put up all your protectionist barriers. �Pardon
>>> me if I have little sympathy.
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Without European/USA/Japan and recently Corean and China Technology,
>> without European/USA/Japan Help, without European/USA/Japan Medicine
>> and so one ... ; how many survive ... ? Just in India, how many
>> people depends of help of European/USA/Japan ?
>
> We survived for all of our history without European/USA/Japan help.
> What's more, we even flourished at several points in our history.
Only your survivors survived!
Count all your people dead of illness and famine.
> And so did all civilisations. The west isn't some sort of "saviour of
> humanity" that it often likes to imagine itself to be.
Matter of fact it is. World population was less than 1e9 before the
industrial revolution, with the progress of science, technology and
medecine, and this was purely an occidental phenomenon.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
NEW GRAND UNIFIED THEORY DISCLAIMER: The manufacturer may
technically be entitled to claim that this product is
ten-dimensional. However, the consumer is reminded that this
confers no legal rights above and beyond those applicable to
three-dimensional objects, since the seven new dimensions are
"rolled up" into such a small "area" that they cannot be
detected.
Mark Tarver wrote:
> FOSS works fairly well for systems software; languages and OSs
> and such. These are programmer's tools. However when it spreads
> into applications then it can be a job killer.
>
Why should programmers tools be FOSS? Randomly supported tools
based on in some cases decades old technology just doesn't seem to
me to be a starting point for cutting edge application development.
w..
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:43:57 -0500, Walter Banks wrote:
> Mark Tarver wrote:
>
>> FOSS works fairly well for systems software; languages and OSs and
>> such. These are programmer's tools. However when it spreads into
>> applications then it can be a job killer.
>>
>>
> Why should programmers tools be FOSS? Randomly supported tools based on
> in some cases decades old technology just doesn't seem to me to be a
> starting point for cutting edge application development.
I'm curious. Which programmers tools *aren't* based on decades-old
technology? It's all shine on top of old. The well-worn shine is not
practically worse than the newly painted, IMO.
--
Andrew
Andrew Reilly wrote:
> I'm curious. Which programmers tools *aren't* based on decades-old
> technology? It's all shine on top of old. The well-worn shine is not
> practically worse than the newly painted, IMO.
You have a good point. I can give individual examples where
the tools are not based on decades old technology. There are
some fundamental problems that haven't been been well
addressed by decades old technology.
Software advances have been slower than silicon advances in
part from ingrained technology. The number of people that
have access to changing how software technology could advance
significantly outnumbers the number of innovative silicon designers.
I would think that they could at least keep up.
There are still very limited support for processors that were
designed for machine generated code. Instructions sets
that cannot be realistically coded by hand.
Multiprocessor and thread machine architectures are
largely not well supported.
There is a lot of fundament research in some of the commercial
compiler companies to address these challenges.
Regards,
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
1 (519) 888-6911
http://www.bytecraft.com
······@bytecraft.com
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:08:43 -0500, Walter Banks wrote:
> Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
>> I'm curious. Which programmers tools *aren't* based on decades-old
>> technology? It's all shine on top of old. The well-worn shine is not
>> practically worse than the newly painted, IMO.
> ...Software advances have been slower than silicon advances in
> part from ingrained technology. The number of people that
> have access to changing how software technology could advance
> significantly outnumbers the number of innovative silicon designers.
> I would think that they could at least keep up.
> Walter Banks
I would argue the reverse actually. The reason a lot of the software
techniques being implemented today are old is that the software
techniques were invented a long time ago, well before the hardware
supported them.
For example, garbage collection algorithms were well understood before
they were affordable. OO technology with dynamic typing was invented a
long time ago but only recently became viable on affordable machines.
One problem for software is that the hardware people keep moving the
goalposts. The performance trade-offs that exist today are very different
from the trade-offs that existed 10 years ago. Think of the relative costs
of multiply versus divide, or access to a register versus access to
memory, or the cost of a branch prediction failure now compared to 10
years ago.
The most recent example is that suddenly we have to split our workload
across multiple CPUs. There are numerous models of multi-CPU hardware and
no-one know which ones will predominate. Will we have shared memory or
partly shared (non-uniform access), or a message passing model? Will it be
SIMD (GPGPU) or MIMD (multi-core) or what? So we don't even know which
multi-processing model we are supposed to support.
And finally, current CPUs are incredibly lame. Software engineers have to
work with pitifully weak hardware. The power of a quad-core CPU is nothing
compared to the processing power of a mammalian brain. It will be decades
before they even get close. Software engineers spent a lot of time working
with and around the limits of current hardware.
So I would argue it is hardware engineers who need to lift their game and
catch up to what evolution delivered millions of years ago.
Tim
From: Joost Diepenmaat
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87zltb4dcr.fsf@zeekat.nl>
Walter Banks <······@bytecraft.com> writes:
> Why should programmers tools be FOSS? Randomly supported tools
> based on in some cases decades old technology just doesn't seem to
> me to be a starting point for cutting edge application development.
So your $devsystem_of_choice will be supported for the next couple of
decennia by some $company that will never go bankrupt or start a new
product line or force you to switch tools (or even languages) when you
least want that?
Great. I'll take the source code and deal with the decades old
technology thanks. (You *do* realize you posted this to comp.lang.lisp,
right?)
Never mind that 99% of software is *not* cutting edge at all.
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> Mark Tarver wrote:
>
>> FOSS works fairly well for systems software; languages and OSs
>> and such. These are programmer's tools. However when it spreads
>> into applications then it can be a job killer.
>>
>
> Why should programmers tools be FOSS?
To avoid vendor lock-in.
> Randomly supported tools
> based on in some cases decades old technology just doesn't seem to
> me to be a starting point for cutting edge application development.
Commercial software if often no better.
santosh wrote:
> > Why should programmers tools be FOSS?
>
> To avoid vendor lock-in.
As a higher priority than the best tool for the application?
> > Randomly supported tools
> > based on in some cases decades old technology just doesn't seem to
> > me to be a starting point for cutting edge application development.
>
> Commercial software if often no better.
In the tool case most benchmarks say otherwise. Product support
and tools that reflect customer feedback are items where
commercial tools do very much better than FOSS.
Regards,
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
1 (519) 888-6911
http://www.bytecraft.com
······@bytecraft.com
On 7 mar, 13:44, Walter Banks <······@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> santosh wrote:
> > > Why should programmers tools be FOSS?
>
> > To avoid vendor lock-in.
>
> As a higher priority than the best tool for the application?
>
> > > Randomly supported tools
> > > based on in some cases decades old technology just doesn't seem to
> > > me to be a starting point for cutting edge application development.
>
> > Commercial software if often no better.
>
> In the tool case most benchmarks say otherwise. Product support
> and tools that reflect customer feedback are items where
> commercial tools do very much better than FOSS.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Walter Banks
> Byte Craft Limited
> 1 (519) 888-6911http://www.bytecraft.com
> ······@bytecraft.com
Hi all,
It's obvious, but some remain blind.
However, we are in Lisp forum, I don't understand why some avoid to
compare SBCL/CMUCL/... , often make with university subsidy, with
commercial products.
Best Regards
Mark Tarver wrote:
> FOSS works fairly well for systems software; languages and OSs
> and such. These are programmer's tools. However when it spreads
> into applications then it can be a job killer. Geogebra is a Theory Y
> algebra killer and Ken knows it.
Thx for your concern, but it does not worry me at all. If a commercial
programmer cannot outdo an academic or hobbyist programmer in my domain
anyway (it presents extraordinary challenges when done right) they
probably will not make a very good product anyway, and even without
competition will fail.
Besides, I am *this* close to making the software free, Flash-based, and
funded by ads. Teenagers! What a demographic!! :)
But! I think some people agree with you. I am pretty sure I have heard
*something* about stuff developed with public money being freely
accessible, I just cannot remember where I heard that. But it made
eminent sense, and no, the GPL would not have been considered freely
accessible.
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
From: Joost Diepenmaat
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87fxv35wqg.fsf@zeekat.nl>
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> However when it spreads
> into applications then it can be a job killer. Geogebra is a Theory Y
> algebra killer and Ken knows it.
Maybe.
> Nationalisation really means levelling the field and giving Ken the
> same
> chance to get money that any uni has. Its really unfair to expect him
> to pay tax dollars towards something that puts him out of business.
> It means that Qi can have the same financing that Haskell gets which
> would solve a lot of headaches for me.
So somehow it's fairer to give Ken my money too? What about me? I write
code for a living too. There isn't any difference between giving
everyone money and giving no-one money.
> In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
> and
> protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
I doubt the Indian programmers see this the same way.
> It
> stimulates the economy
I doubt that.
> and provides fair recompense for those who
> otherwise would have to give their labour for free.
Nobody's forcing them to be programmers. Just because you like to play
the harmonica doesn't mean the government should pay you to do so.
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
> So somehow it's fairer to give Ken my money too? What about me? I write
> code for a living too. There isn't any difference between giving
> everyone money and giving no-one money.
Nobody necessarily gives Ken money under my model. But he does have
an equal shot at getting money just like any govt.-sponsored CS drone
does now. Whether he gets it or not should depend on some form of
peer review - i.e. people like you. And the same applies to you.
>
> > In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
> > and
> > protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
>
> I doubt the Indian programmers see this the same way.
Probably not. But doesn't the US govt. have greater duty of care
towards its own people than the Indians? Besides the Indians can
sponsor their people too.
> > It
> > stimulates the economy
>
> I doubt that.
Read Keynes; the New Deal; the 30s rearmament and the end of the
Depression. Economics and the multiplier effect. Yes it does.
> > and provides fair recompense for those who
> > otherwise would have to give their labour for free.
>
> Nobody's forcing them to be programmers. Just because you like to play
> the harmonica doesn't mean the government should pay you to do so.
Except that FOSS benefits people like clean water benefits us and we
pay for that.
Mark
From: Joost Diepenmaat
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <878x0v5uq8.fsf@zeekat.nl>
Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>> So somehow it's fairer to give Ken my money too? What about me? I write
>> code for a living too. There isn't any difference between giving
>> everyone money and giving no-one money.
>
> Nobody necessarily gives Ken money under my model. But he does have
> an equal shot at getting money just like any govt.-sponsored CS drone
> does now. Whether he gets it or not should depend on some form of
> peer review - i.e. people like you. And the same applies to you.
Well, ok. If you proposing to make all (not just FOSS) publical funds to
software development dependent on peer review, then I can agree that
that's fair. You'll also have to take into account the amount of
overhead implicit in this construct, though. Nobody's going to send in a
20 line patch if it takes a couple of months before you get permission
to do so, for instance.
>> > In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
>> > and
>> > protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
>>
>> I doubt the Indian programmers see this the same way.
>
> Probably not. But doesn't the US govt. have greater duty of care
> towards its own people than the Indians? Besides the Indians can
> sponsor their people too.
And they can send their free software over to the states. Unless you're
willing to block them.
>> > It
>> > stimulates the economy
>>
>> I doubt that.
>
> Read Keynes; the New Deal; the 30s rearmament and the end of the
> Depression. Economics and the multiplier effect. Yes it does.
I'm sorry? You're in a depression? Programmers are walking the streets?
I think the New Deal may have done a lot of good, but the circumstances
aren't remotely comparable.
>> > and provides fair recompense for those who
>> > otherwise would have to give their labour for free.
>>
>> Nobody's forcing them to be programmers. Just because you like to play
>> the harmonica doesn't mean the government should pay you to do so.
>
> Except that FOSS benefits people like clean water benefits us and we
> pay for that.
Yes we do. In principle I am *for* government spending on things that
benefit "the people". That does *not* mean the government should spend
billions providing jobs for programmers just to make the programmers
happy. They should spend money getting the software that's needed and
improves things where private companies won't do it (or won't do it good
enough). And if they do, I do think that software should be open/free,
since "the people" payed for it.
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
> And they can send their free software over to the states. Unless you're
> willing to block them.
Of course.
> I'm sorry? You're in a depression? Programmers are walking the streets?
> I think the New Deal may have done a lot of good, but the circumstances
> aren't remotely comparable.
Wilful obfuscation here I should say. You stated that the model I
suggested would not bring economic benefits. I am suggesting that you
read Keynes and the theory of the multiplier effect and study the
social policies of the 1930s in order to understand how these benefits
work. If you can't understand what I am telling you or don't want to
read about it, I'm certainly not going to hammer on here.
>And if they do, I do think that software should be open/free,
> since "the people" payed (sic) for it.
Sigh. This is becoming silly. The whole thing was predicated on
finding a viable model for FOSS (i.e free, open source) software. You
are banging on an open door.
Enough.
Mark
On 2008-03-06 17:11:19 -0500, Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> said:
>
>> In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
>> and
>> protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
>
> I doubt the Indian programmers see this the same way.
Last time I checked, Indian programmers don't pay US taxes, US citizens
do. Taxes collected from US citizens should be spent so as to benefit
US citizens, not Indian programmers.
On 6 Mar, 22:26, Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-
vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-06 17:11:19 -0500, Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> said:
>
>
>
> >> In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
> >> and
> >> protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
>
> > I doubt the Indian programmers see this the same way.
>
> Last time I checked, Indian programmers don't pay US taxes, US citizens
> do. Taxes collected from US citizens should be spent so as to benefit
> US citizens, not Indian programmers.
Quite right.
Mark
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:35:32 -0800, Mark Tarver wrote:
> On 6 Mar, 22:26, Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-
> vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-03-06 17:11:19 -0500, Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> said:
>>... Taxes collected from US citizens should be spent so as to benefit
>> US citizens, not Indian programmers.
>
> Quite right.
>
> Mark
Does this mean you oppose foreign aid then?
Tim
On 2008-03-07 00:18:19 -0500, tim <····@internet.com> said:
> Does this mean you oppose foreign aid then?
No, it means that the economic policies of any given nation should seek
first to not actively harm the economic interests of its own citizens.
Foreign aid is meant to bring the poorest among us up to a level where
they can productively enter the world economy. It should not be used to
provide subsidies to foreign citizens living and working abroad who
already have their act together enough that they can program computers.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2008-03-06 17:11:19 -0500, Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> said:
>
>>
>>> In the longer term it gives programmers some security of livelihood
>>> and
>>> protects US programmers from the evils of outsourcing to India.
>>
>> I doubt the Indian programmers see this the same way.
>
> Last time I checked, Indian programmers don't pay US taxes, US
> citizens do. Taxes collected from US citizens should be spent so as to
> benefit US citizens, not Indian programmers.
It does. These companies can make more profit by outsourcing and reduce
expenditures, which in turn enables them to pay their staff higher
salaries, thus encouraging more spending. The Govt. too gets the chance
to collect more taxes.
:-)
On 2008-03-07 06:42:12 -0500, santosh <···········@gmail.com> said:
> It does. These companies can make more profit by outsourcing and reduce
> expenditures, which in turn enables them to pay their staff higher
> salaries, thus encouraging more spending. The Govt. too gets the chance
> to collect more taxes.
This is a corporatist view. A government of, by, and for the people
should be concerned with the broadest interests of its citizens, not
the narrow interests of the shareholders of certain corporations.
Exporting gainful employment is favored by the rich minority because it
increases their already disporportionate control of the nation's
wealth. It is opposed by the working majority because they would rather
have full employment than more profits for the already
disporportionately wealthy.
In a democracy where the interests of the majority (rather than the
very wealthy) are truly represented, the government should favor
keeping jobs over increasing profits for the already wealthy.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87od9q4cb5.fsf@geddis.org>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Fri, 7 Mar 2008 :
> Exporting gainful employment is favored by the rich minority because it
> increases their already disporportionate control of the nation's wealth. It
> is opposed by the working majority because they would rather have full
> employment than more profits for the already disporportionately wealthy.
But it's rarely so simple. Free trade does reduce some forms of employment
-- but it expands others. The jobs move, they don't disappear. (It's still
the case that if you had an old job, and it's now gone, you are sad.)
Meanwhile, free trade increases the overall wealth in _both_ countries.
So you're missing that there's a consequence on economic growth. The choice
isn't merely between "full employment" and "more profits for the wealthy".
OF COURSE, with such a choice, the masses of "workers" ought to win.
But the real choice is between more overall economic growth (which includes
more and better-paying jobs for everyone), and less growth while maintaining
some current jobs in the status quo.
Would you really be happier if your children and their children could have
exactly the same job as you, but your country stays static while all your
neighboring countries have annual economic growth?
The tradeoff is not so clear as your overly-simplistic description suggests.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Playing a billion in a row on KRQR, the station that doesn't count too good.
On 2008-03-07 13:30:06 -0500, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
> Meanwhile, free trade increases the overall wealth in _both_ countries.
But *how* does it increase wealth? - if a particular free trade
practice (such as exporting programming jobs) increases wealth by
making the wealthiest 5% of the population even wealthier while
simultaneously costing several million jobs it is a net loss for that
nation. That it brings jobs - usually much lower paying - to some other
nation is irrelevant - a national government's first responsibility is
to its own people.
The problem here comes from thinking that a government is like a
corporation and seeks to maximize some financial statistic (someone
else here seemed to suggest it might be tax revenue). You suggest that
it is wealth.
A democratic government should rather seek to maximize the well being
of its citizens, somthing that is larger and more inclusive than just
financial wealth - including health, education, employment, public
safety, the distribution of wealth, etc.
Increasing the nation's wealth by adding to the riches of the
wealthiest 5% at the expense of growing poverty and unemployment is
precisely the sort of policy that a corporate CEO has a positive
fiduciary responsibility to enact - because his only responsibility is
to shareholders - and precisely the sort of policy that, if clearly
articulated, should cause a candidate for office to be soundly
defeated. Democratic governments should be concerned about jobs for the
majority before additional wealth for the already wealthy.
Free trade was sold to the American worker with the promise that we
would export the stoop labor and sweat shop jobs, and we would gain the
higher paying information worker jobs in their place. Now we're
exporting the information worker jobs. What jobs is it that Americans
are supposed to do again? Oh, that's right, flip burgers - can't do
that from Mumbai - yet.
On 8 Mar, 06:33, Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-
vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-07 13:30:06 -0500, Don Geddis <····@geddis.org> said:
>
> > Meanwhile, free trade increases the overall wealth in _both_ countries.
>
> But *how* does it increase wealth? - if a particular free trade
> practice (such as exporting programming jobs) increases wealth by
> making the wealthiest 5% of the population even wealthier while
> simultaneously costing several million jobs it is a net loss for that
> nation. That it brings jobs - usually much lower paying - to some other
> nation is irrelevant - a national government's first responsibility is
> to its own people.
>
> The problem here comes from thinking that a government is like a
> corporation and seeks to maximize some financial statistic (someone
> else here seemed to suggest it might be tax revenue). You suggest that
> it is wealth.
>
> A democratic government should rather seek to maximize the well being
> of its citizens, somthing that is larger and more inclusive than just
> financial wealth - including health, education, employment, public
> safety, the distribution of wealth, etc.
>
> Increasing the nation's wealth by adding to the riches of the
> wealthiest 5% at the expense of growing poverty and unemployment is
> precisely the sort of policy that a corporate CEO has a positive
> fiduciary responsibility to enact - because his only responsibility is
> to shareholders - and precisely the sort of policy that, if clearly
> articulated, should cause a candidate for office to be soundly
> defeated. Democratic governments should be concerned about jobs for the
> majority before additional wealth for the already wealthy.
>
> Free trade was sold to the American worker with the promise that we
> would export the stoop labor and sweat shop jobs, and we would gain the
> higher paying information worker jobs in their place. Now we're
> exporting the information worker jobs. What jobs is it that Americans
> are supposed to do again? Oh, that's right, flip burgers - can't do
> that from Mumbai - yet.
I'd endorse that; furthermore the economic benefits of the multiplier
effect come from a more equal distribution of wealth rather than the
concentration of wealth in the hands of the tiny minority.
Mark
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87abl8olsp.fsf@geddis.org>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 :
> On 2008-03-07 13:30:06 -0500, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
>> Meanwhile, free trade increases the overall wealth in _both_ countries.
>
> But *how* does it increase wealth? - if a particular free trade practice
> (such as exporting programming jobs) increases wealth by making the
> wealthiest 5% of the population even wealthier while simultaneously costing
> several million jobs it is a net loss for that nation.
Not true.
Even if I accept your hypothetical (which I don't, in reality), the best
option for situation you suggest is to allow the free trade, then tax the
newly wealthy, and redistribute the excess wealth more broadly throughout
the population.
Because the basic fact -- which you aren't paying enough attention to -- is
that the nation as a whole winds up with more wealth after free trade than
they had before.
Wealth is power. Wealth is the ability to do things. One of the things that
wealth could do is re-educate the lower classes. What if preschool and
college were free for all? Free health care? Etc. Wealth enables you to
make more choices, for everyone.
And free trade brings greater wealth.
> That it brings jobs - usually much lower paying - to some other nation is
> irrelevant - a national government's first responsibility is to its own
> people.
The beauty of free trade is that it is win-win. BOTH countries are better
off afterwards.
> The problem here comes from thinking that a government is like a
> corporation and seeks to maximize some financial statistic (someone else
> here seemed to suggest it might be tax revenue). You suggest that it is
> wealth. A democratic government should rather seek to maximize the well
> being of its citizens, somthing that is larger and more inclusive than just
> financial wealth - including health, education, employment, public safety,
> the distribution of wealth, etc.
I agree completely with you that a narrow focus on GDP probably misses the
subtleties of making a "better society". Perhaps you want to maximize
happiness or something -- although then you can get into philosophical
problems about just keeping everybody on drugs all the time (Brave New
World), or lying to them "for their own good". Or taking advantage of
structural flaws in people's happiness functions (they overvalue how happy a
good outcome will make them; undervalue how unhappy a bad outcome will make
them; they suffer from envy, such that they are unhappy if they get more, but
their neighbor gets even more than that; etc.)
In other words: I grant completely that you might want to consider other
measures than just GDP. But this is a complex and subtle topic, and you
haven't begun to approach that level of analysis in your complaints about
free trade and how it "causes" jobs to be "outsourced" and "lost".
> Increasing the nation's wealth by adding to the riches of the wealthiest 5%
> at the expense of growing poverty and unemployment is precisely the sort of
> policy that a corporate CEO has a positive fiduciary responsibility to enact
> - because his only responsibility is to shareholders - and precisely the sort
> of policy that, if clearly articulated, should cause a candidate for office
> to be soundly defeated. Democratic governments should be concerned about jobs
> for the majority before additional wealth for the already wealthy.
Free trade clearly makes the overall nation, on average, better off. It also
is NOTHING like being uniformly bad for lower classes, while only enriching
upper classes. Nonetheless, EVEN IF that were the case, the solution is to
suggest a package of policies, where free trade provides extra national
wealth, and then complementary policies redistribute that wealth as
appropriate to the overall population.
> Free trade was sold to the American worker with the promise that we would
> export the stoop labor and sweat shop jobs, and we would gain the higher
> paying information worker jobs in their place.
There is no guarantee that this is what happens with free trade. If that's
what you think the promise was, then the promise was false. (That may or may
not happen with free trade, but free trade by itself certainly doesn't
promise that.)
Nonetheless, free trade results in greater overall national wealth.
> Now we're exporting the information worker jobs. What jobs is it that
> Americans are supposed to do again? Oh, that's right, flip burgers - can't
> do that from Mumbai - yet.
And this shows that you don't understand the overall issue again.
At the end of the day, two trading nations MUST exchange real goods. The
other nations can't use dollars there, and we can't use yuan or rupees here.
So, whatever we buy from them, they MUST buy SOMETHING back from us.
It's simply absurd to suggest that we're going to hire Indians as information
workers (sending them dollars), and the only jobs left here will be local
service jobs which can't be exported. Americans MUST make SOMETHING that the
Indians want to buy (possibly indirectly, through N-way trade with other
countries).
The fact that you are unaware of what Indians are buying from us, doesn't
mean that the theory of free trade is broken.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
"Bother," said Pooh, as he deleted his root directory.
On 2008-03-08 18:09:26 -0500, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
> Not true.
>
> Even if I accept your hypothetical (which I don't, in reality), the best
> option for situation you suggest is to allow the free trade, then tax the
> newly wealthy, and redistribute the excess wealth more broadly throughout
> the population.
>
> Because the basic fact -- which you aren't paying enough attention to -- is
> that the nation as a whole winds up with more wealth after free trade than
> they had before.
>
> Wealth is power. Wealth is the ability to do things. One of the things that
> wealth could do is re-educate the lower classes. What if preschool and
> college were free for all? Free health care? Etc. Wealth enables you to
> make more choices, for everyone.
In practice the wealthy do not accept the burden of higher taxes, they
do not "re-educate the lower classes," they do not provide free
preschool and college for all, nor free health care. They invest most
of their new wealth wherever it will give them the highest returns, be
that in Euro denominated investments, in China, India, etc., with
little or no regard for the financial health of the US or whether it
increases employment at home.
Yours is a pleasant fantasy but the reality is that this increased
wealth has gone mostly to the very wealthy - 'According to [Fed]
economist Janet Yellen "the growth [in real income] was heavily
concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent.'
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States>
see also: <http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/08/real-income-fai.html>
The very wealthy have not shown any significant disposition to use this
new wealth to improve the life of the rest of the nation. In fact, they
have consistently sought to *reduce* their financial committments to
the rest of the nation by seeking tax breaks for the most wealthy and
by seeking to reduce or eliminate the estate tax.
> At the end of the day, two trading nations MUST exchange real goods. The
> other nations can't use dollars there, and we can't use yuan or rupees here.
> So, whatever we buy from them, they MUST buy SOMETHING back from us.
>
> It's simply absurd to suggest that we're going to hire Indians as information
> workers (sending them dollars), and the only jobs left here will be local
> service jobs which can't be exported. Americans MUST make SOMETHING that the
> Indians want to buy (possibly indirectly, through N-way trade with other
> countries).
What matters is to whom the wealth from sales to India, direct or
indirect, accrues. If, as real income figures strongly suggest, it
predominantly accrues to the already wealthy who show absolutely no
disposition to share it, then sending India our knowledge worker jobs
in exchange for more wealth for the already wealthy is a net loss for
the nation. The majority would be far better off with more jobs and
less wealth for the very rich.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87fxuzslut.fsf@geddis.org>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 :
> On 2008-03-08 18:09:26 -0500, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
>> Wealth is power. Wealth is the ability to do things. One of the things
>> that wealth could do is re-educate the lower classes. What if preschool
>> and college were free for all? Free health care? Etc. Wealth enables
>> you to make more choices, for everyone.
>
> In practice the wealthy do not accept the burden of higher taxes
You've got this exactly backwards.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote
themselves largess out of the public treasury.
-- Alexander Tyler, eighteenth-century Scottish historian
It is in dictatorships (and other pre-democracy forms of government) that the
elite can horde all the products of the nation, by use of force.
The elite have less power in a modern democracy than they ever have before in
the history of the world. The wealthy are powerless to prevent the masses
from stealing their possessions (via taxes). It doesn't matter whether they
"accept" the burden or not. They have the burden, imposed by the majority of
voters.
> They invest most of their new wealth wherever it will give them the highest
> returns, be that in Euro denominated investments, in China, India, etc.,
> with little or no regard for the financial health of the US or whether it
> increases employment at home.
I certainly hope they invest where they can find the highest returns. That's
the only route to long-term economic growth. Anything else would be
short-sighted, both for them and for the US as a whole (in the long term).
> Yours is a pleasant fantasy but the reality is that this increased wealth
> has gone mostly to the very wealthy - 'According to [Fed] economist Janet
> Yellen "the growth [in real income] was heavily concentrated at the very
> tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent.'
Do you somehow think that free trade is the only factor influencing world
economics in the last decade?
You are aware, I hope, that there are a multitude of factors, and even
accounting for all of them, economics is not perfectly predictable.
For you to conclude that "free trade" has "caused" increased US income
disparity is just ignorant and stupid.
> The very wealthy have not shown any significant disposition to use this new
> wealth to improve the life of the rest of the nation. In fact, they have
> consistently sought to *reduce* their financial committments to the rest of
> the nation by seeking tax breaks for the most wealthy and by seeking to
> reduce or eliminate the estate tax.
You mean, they are mostly selfish -- just like every other human being on the
planet.
I didn't say that they would VOLUNTEER to give up their wealth. I said that
a politician who was trying to do the best for the US, ought to recommend
BOTH a free trade policy AND redistributive taxes. As opposed to your silly
suggestion that any politician who cared about the overall US ought to oppose
free trade.
Where in there did you get the idea that the wealthy would just happily give
it all to charity?
> What matters is to whom the wealth from sales to India, direct or indirect,
> accrues. If, as real income figures strongly suggest, it predominantly
> accrues to the already wealthy
...says the guy who somehow thinks that free trade is the only economic
factor at play...
> who show absolutely no disposition to share it, then sending India our
> knowledge worker jobs in exchange for more wealth for the already wealthy
> is a net loss for the nation. The majority would be far better off with
> more jobs and less wealth for the very rich.
So, tax the wealthy. Don't roll back free trade, one of the very few pure
good things known in all of economics.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Judge talent at its best and character at its worst. -- Lord Acton
On 2008-03-09 16:06:50 -0400, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
> So, tax the wealthy. Don't roll back free trade, one of the very few pure
> good things known in all of economics.
Only a "pure good" in theory when the wealthy are actually taxed.
I think Paul Wallich hit the nail on the head. Free trade only works
with a quid pro quo where the wealthy are in fact taxed in exchange for
allowing them to become more wealthy by allowing free trade. When that
social contract is broken as it has been consistently by the wealthy in
the US over the last couple of decades then free trade becomes a one
way benefit for the wealthy at the expense of the working majority.
This will by my last post to this thread as I think we've both heard
and understood eachother's position (claims of my clulessness
notwithstanding).
I will leave you with this thought:
Lottery winners aside, the very wealthy became the very wealthy in the
first place by being inordinately acquisitve. After a quarter century
we must at last admit that trickle-down cannot work for the quite
predictable reason that overwhelmingly, the acquisitive rich will not
consent to their great wealth being used in part to improve the lot of
the working majority, but will rather use their wealth to influence the
political process in order to keep as much of that wealth as possible.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <874pbei469.fsf@geddis.org>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 :
> Lottery winners aside, the very wealthy became the very wealthy in the first
> place by being inordinately acquisitve.
I'm not even sure what you mean by that (what are the practical actions taken
by someone who becomes rich by "being inordinately acquisitive"?)
But, guessing at a meaning, I suspect I disagree. Some (non-trivial)
fraction of current the US rich got that way through inheritance. But most
did it through creating _new_ wealth. The country as a whole gained far more
from their actions than they personally gained in their net worth.
Don't think of lottery winners. Think of the Google guys. Or Gordon Moore
and Intel. All those guys got very rich. But the US as a whole got FAR
richer (because of their actions).
> After a quarter century we must at last admit that trickle-down cannot work
> for the quite predictable reason that overwhelmingly, the acquisitive rich
> will not consent to their great wealth being used in part to improve the
> lot of the working majority, but will rather use their wealth to influence
> the political process in order to keep as much of that wealth as possible.
Yet, despite their selfish desires, they still wind up paying for the
majority of government services, which benefit the population as a whole.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Chu P'ing-man spent a thousand in gold and three years learning dragon killing
from Hunchback Yi only to learn there was no place for him to practice his art.
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:06:50 -0700, Don Geddis wrote:
> I didn't say that they would VOLUNTEER to give up their wealth. I said that
> a politician who was trying to do the best for the US, ought to recommend
> BOTH a free trade policy AND redistributive taxes. As opposed to your silly
> suggestion that any politician who cared about the overall US ought to oppose
> free trade.
This assumes a functioning democracy. Given the huge sums of money needed
to run an election campaign these days, to pay for TV ads mainly, we are
in a world where he who pays the piper picks the tune.
Personally I agree with free trade because it is allowing the world's
poor nations to improve their standards of living. But my impression that
unskilled workers in the richer countries are big losers as a result. IN
time skilled workers will also feel the impact.
Simple textbook economic arguments also ignore factors like the fact that
allowing countries like China to become rich and powerful is a huge
strategic threat to the US in particular, which stands to lose access to
raw materials like oil.
Tim
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87zlt6gpd1.fsf@geddis.org>
tim <····@internet.com> wrote on Mon, 10 Mar 2008:
> Personally I agree with free trade because it is allowing the world's
> poor nations to improve their standards of living.
You're still viewing it as a transfer of wealth from the rich countries to
the poor ones. It's true that the poor countries become wealthier via free
trade. What you miss is that the rich countries do ALSO.
> But my impression that unskilled workers in the richer countries are big
> losers as a result. IN time skilled workers will also feel the impact.
Free trade doesn't cause jobs to disappear. It causes them to move. Both
countries specialize, and rather than making a little bit of everything, they
each concentrate on making more of one thing, and less of another.
Your imagination that ALL workers will lose their jobs is simply false.
Transitions may be quite difficult for any given individual. But for the
nation as a whole, jobs are not "lost" due to free trade; they are moved.
> Simple textbook economic arguments also ignore factors like the fact that
> allowing countries like China to become rich and powerful is a huge
> strategic threat to the US in particular, which stands to lose access to
> raw materials like oil.
Peak Oil is a huge coming problem for the US, no question. But China is
going to modernize no matter what the US does. And Peak Oil will be a
problem no matter what China does.
The idea that free trade vs. trade barriers can make an impact on this
problem is silly.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait. Not me, you.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:56:26 -0700, Don Geddis wrote:
> Peak Oil is a huge coming problem for the US, no question. But China is
> going to modernize no matter what the US does. And Peak Oil will be a
> problem no matter what China does.
>
> The idea that free trade vs. trade barriers can make an impact on this
> problem is silly.
>
> -- Don
I was thinking more about the longer term perspective. It has been
pointed out many times that opening trade barriers does more good to poor
countries than foreign aid ever will. It would have been a far slower and
more difficult modernization process for countries like China had trade
not been liberalized.
Undoubtedly there are some individuals who have lost and will lose from
free trade. There are, I think, large groups of people who lose, at least
in the short term. And as a famous economist once said, in the long run
we are all dead. Talking about "countries" or averages does not get around
that fact. If one person is better off and another is worse off it is very
difficult to say whether "people overall" are better off.
This problem (the measurement of "welfare" as economists put it) seems to
be intractable. Commonly people use money as a substitute measure but it is
not a very good measure. For example, if you assume that people have
declining marginal utilities for money, and that people all have the same
utility curves, then an increasingly lopsided distribution of income
reduces total welfare (at least in terms of first-order effects).
There is a lot of good stuff in Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek etc but
there are limits to how far you can take it.
Tim Josling
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <fr1dg4$4gj$1@reader2.panix.com>
Don Geddis wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Sat, 8 Mar 2008 :
>> On 2008-03-07 13:30:06 -0500, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
>>> Meanwhile, free trade increases the overall wealth in _both_ countries.
>> But *how* does it increase wealth? - if a particular free trade practice
>> (such as exporting programming jobs) increases wealth by making the
>> wealthiest 5% of the population even wealthier while simultaneously costing
>> several million jobs it is a net loss for that nation.
>
> Not true.
>
> Even if I accept your hypothetical (which I don't, in reality), the best
> option for situation you suggest is to allow the free trade, then tax the
> newly wealthy, and redistribute the excess wealth more broadly throughout
> the population.
Except that the US has a tax system that doesn't do anything of the
sort, and is getting less redistributional all the time. Saying that one
should have free trade (in some labor and some products) and wait for
some unspecified future date to redistributed the gains is like the old
joke about the mathematician in a burning hotel room: one proclaims that
a solution exists and then goes right back to sleep.
paul
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <fr6781$a5o$1@reader2.panix.com>
Don Geddis wrote:
> Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> wrote on Sun, 09 Mar 2008:
>> Don Geddis wrote:
>>> the best option for situation you suggest is to allow the free trade, then
>>> tax the newly wealthy, and redistribute the excess wealth more broadly
>>> throughout the population.
>> Except that the US has a tax system that doesn't do anything of the sort
>
> That's just simply false. There's no question that the US wealthy pay the
> vast majority of US taxes. From here:
> http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/progressivity-of-income-tax.html
> we see that the richest 1% of US taxpayers pay almost 40% of all US income
> taxes. The richest 5% pay 60% of all taxes.
Except that Mankiw leaves off the 13% of income that comes right off the
top in terms of payroll taxes for wage-earners paid less than $80K a
year, leaves out sales taxes, and leaves out property taxes, all of
which disproportionately strike the non-rich. And he neglects to mention
the percentage of income that those groups take home. Just saying what
proportion of taxes a group pays is deliberately misleading unless you
say what proportion of national income it corresponds to.
One more meaningless statistic before I stop with this off-topic
discussion: the top 400 households in the US, as released in aggregate
by the IRS, had adjusted gross incomes totalling $83 billion in 2005, on
which the tax paid averaged 18.6%. That's barely above the percentage
paid by the bottom bracket, even before payroll tax.
paul
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <8763vtnrt5.fsf@geddis.org>
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> wrote on Tue, 11 Mar 2008:
> Don Geddis wrote:
>> http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/progressivity-of-income-tax.html
>
> Except that Mankiw leaves off the 13% of income that comes right off the
> top in terms of payroll taxes for wage-earners paid less than $80K a year,
> leaves out sales taxes, and leaves out property taxes, all of which
> disproportionately strike the non-rich.
Property taxes strike the non-rich? Really? :-)
In any case, yes, you're finally trying to look at some data. And of course
the link I sent is just a rough first cut about what is going on.
If you actually bother to do all the work that you're hypothetically
suggesting here, you'll find that it doesn't change the conclusion. The US
rich pay the vast bulk of all US taxes. The US tax system, despite your
original claims, is a clear (major!) redistribution from the rich to the
poor.
> the top 400 households in the US, as released in aggregate by the IRS, had
> adjusted gross incomes totalling $83 billion in 2005, on which the tax paid
> averaged 18.6%. That's barely above the percentage paid by the bottom
> bracket, even before payroll tax.
That's because the US doesn't have a flat tax, or simple streamlined
proportional tax. The US tax system, in addition to raising revenue for
government redistribution, is ALSO used to directly affect policies, by means
of tax breaks for certain activities but not for others.
At some level, there isn't that much difference between the government
collecting that money (via taxes) and then spending it on particular
government programs (like ethanol); vs. just giving the investors a tax break
for doing that exact same investment themselves.
Nonetheless, your claims that the US tax system does not redistribute wealth
from the rich to the poor, and that it is getting less redistributional over
time, are simply false.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
I hope that after I die, people will say of me: "That guy sure owed me a lot of
money." -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <u63vvoare.fsf@nhplace.com>
[ comp.lang.lisp only; http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html ]
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> > But *how* does it increase wealth? - if a particular free trade practice
> > (such as exporting programming jobs) increases wealth by making the
> > wealthiest 5% of the population even wealthier while simultaneously costing
> > several million jobs it is a net loss for that nation.
>
> Not true.
>
> Even if I accept your hypothetical (which I don't, in reality), the best
> option for situation you suggest is to allow the free trade, then tax the
> newly wealthy, and redistribute the excess wealth more broadly throughout
> the population.
>
> Because the basic fact -- which you aren't paying enough attention to -- is
> that the nation as a whole winds up with more wealth after free trade than
> they had before.
I think you meant to say that there are possible situations in which
this is true. That is, you meant to refute the claim that because
someone gets rich, it implies others get poorer. I would agree that
the implication, on its face, is false.
You might even be wanting to make the stronger claim that we are in
such a situation. This claim is tricky because it's tough, in
general, to measure. Certainly it already involves suppositions about
whether it is ever acceptable to speak in terms of averages, when the
positions of individuals are at variance with the average.
But I don't think you are capable of defending the claim that all
nations in all such circumstances will always end up in a better
situation. It would probably be possible to trivially show there are
situations where this cannot be true. There may also be
long-run/short-run and averaging issues that are in play such that
it's not even terminologically meaningful.
In the modern economy, by the way, employees are the commodity, and
the wages the are paid is the cost of the commodity. It is presently
seeking a minimum, and the losers are the country that was paying the
premium rate. This would all we be well and good if every employee of
every country had knowingly entered this game, but when most employees
had no idea that this was the stakes, you can see how they'd be
perhaps just a little distressed by it all. In effect, there are
people who own the assets and are controlling the motion of these
commodities (people), and no surprise the people whose value is being
traded on the modern market are not feeling as empowered as the people
doing the training.
For example: You can be hired by some US-only company, signing an
almost ubiquitously required non-compete agreement, then have it
bought by a foreign company, the technology transfered, you can be
forced to train your replacement (or told that if you don't want to,
you'll lose your job sooner), and then find yourself out of work with
the US government enforcing that non-compete agreement against you,
preventing your ability to use your training to build a competing
product, and all the while not offering you decent unemployment
benefits or retraining... And denying that there's any problem.
So while it's POSSIBLE for everyone to benefit, there is nothing
structural in place REQUIRING companies to make sure people do
benefit. Some are benefiting quickly while others are losing quickly,
and not for reasons that relate to their personal effort--often for
reasons of what rules have been allowed for the people at the top to
make mountains of money in a quick shuffle. The lack of safeguards in
the "free trade" agreements means this all occurs more swiftly than
necessary and without check on the infrastructure consequences.
Just as an example, I don't think you can even make the claim that we
in the US are unambiguously richer than we used to be. We took on a
trillion or two or three of debt in the US in the last few years. [I'm
alarmed to see people actually using these multipliers uncertainly as
if the margin of error on the tally might be a trillion or two
dollars!] It's hard for me to see that as a net benefit, or to
understand what we got in terms of compensating benefit. What are you
using as your measure? (Note that I'm not discounting the possibility
of other metrics, I just can't see what you're using.)
> [...]
> And this shows that you don't understand the overall issue again.
Being dismissive in this way does not become you. We all come from
different backgrounds and all see this "overall issue" differently.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87ve3ugo42.fsf@geddis.org>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote on 09 Mar 2008 17:2:
> Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
>> Because the basic fact -- which you aren't paying enough attention to --
>> is that the nation as a whole winds up with more wealth after free trade
>> than they had before.
>
> I think you meant to say that there are possible situations in which this
> is true.
That's not what I meant to say. I meant what I wrote.
> That is, you meant to refute the claim that because someone gets rich, it
> implies others get poorer.
That is true, and an interesting point. But free trade is EVEN MORE
interesting than that.
> But I don't think you are capable of defending the claim that all nations
> in all such circumstances will always end up in a better situation.
Well, "all nations" and "all circumstances" is quite a broad claim.
I suppose there might be perverse exceptions. I'm not familiar enough with
economic theory to show that there could NEVER be an exception.
But in the sense of "almost always", "99% of the time", etc., then: yes.
Free trade always results in both nations being better off. If there is an
exception, it's a perverse one, not a typical one.
It's the theory of Comparative Advantage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
sometimes described as possibly the only theory in all of economics that
is both non-obvious and also true.
The entire academic economic community is basically united in agreement on
this theory. There is no controversy in economics. This is sort of like
creationism vs. evolution: it's certainly controversial in politics, but
within the academic specialty there is overwhelming consensus.
> There may also be long-run/short-run and averaging issues that are in play
> such that it's not even terminologically meaningful.
That criticism is definitely true. Free trade causes changes in the two
economies, and any transition has dislocation costs. In this case, we're
talking about workers losing their jobs, and perhaps needing to be retrained
to a different kind of job. That's a clear short-term cost.
It's in the long run, after the restructuring, that both nations are better
off.
> In the modern economy, by the way, employees are the commodity, and the
> wages the are paid is the cost of the commodity. It is presently seeking a
> minimum, and the losers are the country that was paying the premium rate.
You're confusing absolute highs and lows with relative ones. It is not the
case that free trade only benefits the low-cost supplier. Go read up on
Comparative Advantage (at Wikipedia, or any introductory macroeconomics
textbook).
> In effect, there are people who own the assets and are controlling the
> motion of these commodities (people), and no surprise the people whose
> value is being traded on the modern market are not feeling as empowered as
> the people doing the [trading].
Well, sure, I agree with that. Nobody likes to feel like a pawn.
> For example: You can be hired by some US-only company, signing an almost
> ubiquitously required non-compete agreement, then have it bought by a
> foreign company, the technology transfered, you can be forced to train your
> replacement (or told that if you don't want to, you'll lose your job
> sooner), and then find yourself out of work with the US government
> enforcing that non-compete agreement against you, preventing your ability
> to use your training to build a competing product, and all the while not
> offering you decent unemployment benefits or retraining... And denying
> that there's any problem.
Non-competes are not legal (i.e., enforceable) in California.
If you wanted to rally against non-compete agreements, I'm on your side.
That's an improvement worth making in the US, to benefit workers.
Do that, instead of misplacing your anger on free trade.
> So while it's POSSIBLE for everyone to benefit, there is nothing structural
> in place REQUIRING companies to make sure people do benefit.
Free trade only "guarantees" that both nations will be better off as a whole,
on average. Of course it's the case that particular individuals may be worse
off. That's why I would be happy to support retraining programs, unemployment
insurance, educational grants and loans, etc. Economic restructuring has real
transition costs, and I don't minimize those at all.
But don't shut off the free trade, and make everyone (in BOTH countries!)
poorer.
> What are you using as your measure? (Note that I'm not discounting the
> possibility of other metrics, I just can't see what you're using.)
Well, basically, GDP: the total annual production of the entire economy.
What stuff of value got made? After free trade, more wealth is created each
year than before free trade.
>> And this shows that you don't understand the overall issue again.
>
> Being dismissive in this way does not become you. We all come from
> different backgrounds and all see this "overall issue" differently.
You imagine that this is all a matter of opinion, and one person's opinion
deserves just as much respect as anyone else's.
But this is creationism vs. evolution. This is people, with no experience or
training or education or facts -- yet with very loud opinions -- professing
claims for which they have strong feelings, but no objective backing. And
meanwhile, those who actually DO spend a long time wondering about the
question, have a united consensus about its resolution.
I simply think that your analogy (that, as with some other subjects,
differing opinions may result from different backgrounds, and all are equally
valid and worthy of respect) doesn't apply in this case.
This isn't quite creationism vs. evolution, because in THAT debate, one side
is often deliberately deceiving, using known tricks of rhetoric to mislead
and persuade. In this discussion, I think everyone is being sincere, and
putting forth their honest opinion.
They just don't realize that this isn't a matter of opinion, that they are
actually ignorant, that there are others (not me) who have spent a long time
investigating this topic, and that there's actually a correct answer.
So: I don't mean to be insulting. Nonetheless, I believe those arguing
against free trade are ignorant (albeit not malicious).
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Mr. Banks: Just a moment, Mary Poppins. What is the meaning of this outrage?
Mary Poppins: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Banks: Will you be good enough to explain all this?
Mary Poppins: First of all I would like to make one thing perfectly clear.
Mr. Banks: Yes?
Mary Poppins: I never explain anything.
On 2008-03-10 19:23:25 -0400, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
> You imagine that this is all a matter of opinion, and one person's opinion
> deserves just as much respect as anyone else's.
>
> But this is creationism vs. evolution. This is people, with no experience or
> training or education or facts -- yet with very loud opinions -- professing
> claims for which they have strong feelings, but no objective backing. And
> meanwhile, those who actually DO spend a long time wondering about the
> question, have a united consensus about its resolution.
<sigh>
I wasn't going to post again, but the facts need to be set straight here.
The supposed "99 percent of the time" benefits of free trade *are*
being questioned by academic economists. Respected economists at major
universities are callling the doctrine itself untested and hence
unscientific theoretical dogma enforced by academic ostracism:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/education/11economics.html>
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <871w6hnraz.fsf@geddis.org>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Tue, 11 Mar 2008:
> On 2008-03-10 19:23:25 -0400, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
>> But this is creationism vs. evolution. This is people, with no experience
>> or training or education or facts -- yet with very loud opinions --
>> professing claims for which they have strong feelings, but no objective
>> backing. And meanwhile, those who actually DO spend a long time wondering
>> about the question, have a united consensus about its resolution.
>
> <sigh>
> I wasn't going to post again, but the facts need to be set straight here.
> The supposed "99 percent of the time" benefits of free trade *are* being
> questioned by academic economists. Respected economists at major
> universities are callling the doctrine itself untested and hence
> unscientific theoretical dogma enforced by academic ostracism:
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/education/11economics.html>
And there are plenty of specific critics of the details in evolutionary
theory also, within the broad structure that is the consensus view. Is most
of the DNA junk? Is evolution smooth throughout time, or punctuated?
You should not confuse reasoned debate among educated people based on
observational data, with support for any wacko criticism somebody comes up
with. No mainstream economist (leaving aside Marxists, socialists, etc.)
would support the claims that have been made here: that the major effect of
free trade is to export jobs from the US to the third world. That the poor
countries may be better off but the rich countries like the US are
consequently getting worse off. That free trade is something like foreign
aid, just a pure gift from the rich countries to the poor ones.
There's absolutely zero support for such a view, yet it is being proclaimed
loudly on this thread. The fact that some economists are carefully examining
the data in order to refine the theory, does not mean that the ignorant
complaints on this thread are justified.
(Oh, try this as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Economics_of_free_trade
You can criticize free trade. You could talk about environmental impact.
You could talk about exporting pollution from regulated countries to
unregulated ones. You can talk about loss of local culture, with McDonald's
and Starbucks worldwide. But you _can't_ talk about a net loss of jobs, or
a transfer of wealth from the US to the 3rd world. At least, not without a
LOT more evidence.)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Most people don't realize that large pieces of coral, which have been painted
brown and attached to the skull by common wood screws, can make a child look
like a deer. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
On 2008-03-11 12:44:52 -0400, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
> But you _can't_ talk about a net loss of jobs, or
> a transfer of wealth from the US to the 3rd world.
I can only account for what I've been talking about, which is the very
wealthy becoming significantly wealthier while the working majority
sees falling real incomes and chronic under/unemployment, both of which
are partially caused/exacerbated by so called free trade.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <878x0obykq.fsf@geddis.org>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Tue, 11 Mar 2008:
> I can only account for what I've been talking about, which is the very
> wealthy becoming significantly wealthier while the working majority sees
> falling real incomes and chronic under/unemployment, both of which are
> partially caused/exacerbated by so called free trade.
I disagree that you've established any causal link between growing US income
inequality (which is true), and free trade.
And it's worth noting that the economic theory of free trade completely
contradicts the implication you're making. The theory may be wrong, but your
mere assertion that it is isn't sufficient to make it so.
In other news, one consequence of free trade appears to be that parents are
now outsourcing child care overseas:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/report_many_u_s_parents
I suppose that low-paid US nannies suffer, but the parents sure seem happy.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
In America, we have a two-party system. There is the stupid party. And
there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party.
Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both
stupid and evil. This is called bipartisanship.
-- Republican congressional staffer
On 2008-03-11 20:00:53 -0400, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> said:
> And it's worth noting that the economic theory of free trade completely
> contradicts the implication you're making. The theory may be wrong, but your
> mere assertion that it is isn't sufficient to make it so.
Again, I'm not asserting that the pure theory is wrong but rather that
it is not actually being put into practice and so, does not correspond
to reality - the old saw that, in theory, there's no difference between
theory and practice, but in practice there usually is.
For example, while firms are free to effecively export jobs to earn
greater profits, consumers are not free to import pharmaceuticals from
abroad where they are less costly.[1]
IOW, the political process is heavily manipulated by those with the
most wealth to spend on manipulation - i.e., lobbying and campaign
financing. The predictable result is that the laws are crafted to favor
the economic interests of the wealthy, so that exporting a citizen's
job is "free trade" but importing a citizen's medicine is "smuggling."
Secondly, even in theory free trade will cause massive dislocations to
the work force, many of whom do not have the means to retrain or
reeducate themselves. In theory there should be lifelong, government
funded retraining and education. In reality we don't even have full
government funding for first time college students, let alone middle
aged workers who will need retraining every decade or even more
frequently, especially as the pace of technological change increases.
So the wealthy get the profits of exporting jobs, but do not pay the
cost of the retraining and continuing education of those whose jobs
were exported.
In theory we live in a world described by economic theory; in reality
we live in a world of political manipulation of the economy by means of
wealth, favoring the wealthy.
[1] Thanks to Paul Wallich for this example and others.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87ejafnaud.fsf@geddis.org>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Tue, 11 Mar 2008:
> For example, while firms are free to effecively export jobs to earn greater
> profits, consumers are not free to import pharmaceuticals from abroad where
> they are less costly.
I agree with you that the restrictions on pharmaceutical imports are a shame,
and should be removed.
> Secondly, even in theory free trade will cause massive dislocations to the
> work force, many of whom do not have the means to retrain or reeducate
> themselves. In theory there should be lifelong, government funded
> retraining and education. In reality we don't even have full government
> funding for first time college students, let alone middle aged workers who
> will need retraining every decade or even more frequently, especially as
> the pace of technological change increases. So the wealthy get the profits
> of exporting jobs, but do not pay the cost of the retraining and continuing
> education of those whose jobs were exported.
Again, I agree completely. Free trade definitely causes dislocations, and
those dislocations ought to be moderated by redistributing the additional
wealth that flows from free trade.
I share your unhappiness that the burdens from free trade fall
disproportionately on a small set of individual workers.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Dear Mr. President: There are too many states. Please eliminate three. I am
not a crackpot. -- Abraham "Grandpa" Simpson
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> wrote on Tue, 11 Mar 2008:
>> For example, while firms are free to effecively export jobs to earn
>> greater profits, consumers are not free to import pharmaceuticals
>> from abroad where they are less costly.
>
> I agree with you that the restrictions on pharmaceutical imports are
> a shame, and should be removed.
There are odd side-effects that fall out of restrictions elsewhere;
there have been cases where it has appeared convenient to import
pharmaceuticals from Canada, due to pricing differences, which has the
distinct possibility to strip shelves in view of "raiding" a market
only 10% the size...
>> Secondly, even in theory free trade will cause massive dislocations
>> to the work force, many of whom do not have the means to retrain or
>> reeducate themselves. In theory there should be lifelong,
>> government funded retraining and education. In reality we don't
>> even have full government funding for first time college students,
>> let alone middle aged workers who will need retraining every decade
>> or even more frequently, especially as the pace of technological
>> change increases. So the wealthy get the profits of exporting jobs,
>> but do not pay the cost of the retraining and continuing education
>> of those whose jobs were exported.
>
> Again, I agree completely. Free trade definitely causes
> dislocations, and those dislocations ought to be moderated by
> redistributing the additional wealth that flows from free trade.
>
> I share your unhappiness that the burdens from free trade fall
> disproportionately on a small set of individual workers.
Unfortunately, it's inherent in this. "Who is affected" is an
emergent property, not an "intentional property."
--
output = ("cbbrowne" ·@" "acm.org")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
"How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for. I
only coded it." (Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a
posting)
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <ubq5kij2x.fsf@nhplace.com>
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> > There may also be long-run/short-run and averaging issues that are
> > in play such that it's not even terminologically meaningful.
>
> That criticism is definitely true. Free trade causes changes in the
> two economies, and any transition has dislocation costs. In this
> case, we're talking about workers losing their jobs, and perhaps
> needing to be retrained to a different kind of job. That's a clear
> short-term cost.
>
> It's in the long run, after the restructuring, that both nations are
> better off.
Ignoring even the question of who's going to do all that retraining,
what kind of long run are you speaking of?
The reason I ask, and I say this in absolute seriousness, is:
What makes you think there will BE a long run? Present estimates of
how soon Global Warming will be deadly to mankind are measured in
quite small numbers decades, and every time there's a serious report
on the matter, the lead headline is "and it's happening even faster
than we had said the last time".
> If you wanted to rally against non-compete agreements, I'm on your
> side. That's an improvement worth making in the US, to benefit
> workers. Do that, instead of misplacing your anger on free trade.
I don't have anger about trade. However, I am simply making the
obviously true observation that the US law has ineffectively protected
us not from trade, but from unfair trade. And by unfair I don't even
mean against treaty--I mean our leaders have signed us up in treaties
that benefited a few of us at the expense of many. "Free trade" is
the buzz word, but "unpoliced" is not the same as "free". In a
situation where there are no (or an inadequate number of) regulations
or penalties, the selfish will seek a personal benefit.
There's nothing wrong with personal benefit per se, but the goal of
good law should be to align personal benefit with public benefit, and
US law has not done that. If you're championing that people should
get wealthy just because some of them MIGHT help the poor, that's a
pretty weak claim. It's also weak if you're saying "well, it does
help the poor" but you're treating "benefit" as a boolean. That is,
you'd be saying "as long as they made at least $1 in benefit, then we
can say they benefited".
> > What are you using as your measure? (Note that I'm not
> > discounting the possibility of other metrics, I just can't see
> > what you're using.)
>
> Well, basically, GDP: the total annual production of the entire
> economy. What stuff of value got made? After free trade, more
> wealth is created each year than before free trade.
You've appeared to be equating "better off" with monetary wealth.
e.g.,
| But in the sense of "almost always", "99% of the time", etc.,
| then: yes. Free trade always results in both nations being
| better off.
| Free trade only "guarantees" that both nations will be better off as
| a whole, on average.
Although you mean to say it only for the country as a whole, you still
are narrowly addressing money. The fact that is is so easily quantified
and other things are so hard to quantify is not a proof that there is no
other such effect.
For example, if we just paid each prisoner at Guantanamo $1 for each
waterboarding, we could (if we appealed only to a money analysis)
claim they were "better off" for the experience. Perhaps that should
be Bush's feeble justification for doing what we all know we should
not do.
Precise definitions that exclude things we're uncomfortable talking
about are a wonderful thing. (They seem to have worked for Bush. The
Republicans laughed when Clinton tried it.)
You go on to say in the second quote:
> Of course it's the case that particular individuals may be worse
> off. That's why I would be happy to support retraining programs,
> unemployment insurance, educational grants and loans, etc. Economic
> restructuring has real transition costs, and I don't minimize those
> at all.
So either you're offering yourself up as a lightning rod to avoid
others who've created this problem being asked to pay their fair
share, or you're advocating that these costs should in general be paid
by people who create the corresponding burdens.
If you're advocating that the people making the burdens pay for them,
then you're in agreement with what I, at least, refer to as restricting
trade. Restricting is not limited narrowly to "turning off" (though
that may be easy to set up as a strawman and then knock down).
For me, "restricting trade" means things like: not trading with
countries who are going to permit factories in the US with decent
working conditions to be closed in favor of factories with poor
working conditions afar, but it also means taxing companies that dump
their workers, leaving a burden on society to clean up the mess.
And yes, I know that unemployment benefits are paid by the
employer-funded insurance, and it's common for people to claim this is
not a burden on society. I respectfully disagree with such claims:
* not everyone qualifies for unemployment for technical reasons,
so the cost of unemployment is born solely by that person
* unemployment is not full pay, and so the unemployed person makes up
the difference
* unemployment can make a mess of medical care, since it's easily too
expensive for many to afford to carry while unemployed
* unemployment payments can run out before the person is reemployed,
so the insurance doesn't cover the full cost
* retraining is often not covered by unemployment
* the people making the decisions to relocate US employees to get
cheaper operation for the company rarely also replace themselves
with cheaper alternatives elsewhere, even though that might often
save a lot, too, suggesting that perhaps it's not being done for
entirely "the good of the company"
* if someone can't find as good a job, they may have to take a lesser
job--that cost is absorbed by the employee, not the unemployment
insurance
* unemployment has secret other taxes because during a time of
unemployment, credit for normal people is hard to get, and credit
cards take up the slack. such cards are usually at (or quickly go
to) large interest rates if this is attempted. This hidden cost
can linger for years since such balances can be hard to pay down.
> You imagine that this is all a matter of opinion, and one person's
> opinion deserves just as much respect as anyone else's.
The points of view I was suggesting were to do with metrics. I don't
discount your observations about the GDP, I simply don't accept the
GDP nor a number of the other monetary metrics as a good indicator of
either the health or wealth of our nation.
I could go into a lot of reasons, but the easiest to defend
objectively would be that I don't think the GDP at any given day is a
good predictor of future success. (It's a bit like my doctor saying
I'm healthy because I'm breathing.... it means SOMETHING, but it isn't
the whole story, and may not be the important part of the story.) I
don't count it as success to be having a job or a bank account with
money in it if I don't know structural things like whether that job
will be there the next day, whether the money in the account will be
there the next day, whether the money will be worth anything the next
day, etc.
There are structural elements amiss right now, and I don't see the
policy-makers doing due diligence to assure that they are measuring
what's really going on; rather, I see them scrambling to find ways to
prove that things are fine. I think this is, in part, because it's a
feedback loop, and they're afraid that too much truth will hurt the
prospect and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that may be so.
But at some point the truth is so obvious that if you don't speak
about it, failing to openly speak of it is the worse option. I think
we are in that latter phase now.
P� Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:53:42 +0100, skrev Kent M Pitman
<······@nhplace.com>:
> I could go into a lot of reasons, but the easiest to defend
> objectively would be that I don't think the GDP at any given day is a
> good predictor of future success. (It's a bit like my doctor saying
> I'm healthy because I'm breathing.... it means SOMETHING, but it isn't
> the whole story, and may not be the important part of the story.) I
> don't count it as success to be having a job or a bank account with
> money in it if I don't know structural things like whether that job
> will be there the next day, whether the money in the account will be
> there the next day, whether the money will be worth anything the next
> day, etc.
>
> There are structural elements amiss right now, and I don't see the
> policy-makers doing due diligence to assure that they are measuring
> what's really going on; rather, I see them scrambling to find ways to
> prove that things are fine. I think this is, in part, because it's a
> feedback loop, and they're afraid that too much truth will hurt the
> prospect and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that may be so.
> But at some point the truth is so obvious that if you don't speak
> about it, failing to openly speak of it is the worse option. I think
> we are in that latter phase now.
>
Give me a break! Is this silly discussion still going on?
--------------
John Thingstad
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <877ig7llli.fsf@geddis.org>
"John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote on Wed, 12 Mar 2008:
> Give me a break! Is this silly discussion still going on?
So, when you happen to turn on a television show that doesn't appeal to you,
do you:
1. change the channel; or
2. lobby that the show be banned from the airwaves?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Schadenfreude. (Etymology: German, from Schaden damage + Freude joy.)
Enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others. [SHA-den-freud-da]
From: stan
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <1irna5-gh9.ln1@invalid.net>
Don Geddis wrote:
> "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote on Wed, 12 Mar 2008:
>> Give me a break! Is this silly discussion still going on?
>
> So, when you happen to turn on a television show that doesn't appeal to you,
> do you:
> 1. change the channel; or
> 2. lobby that the show be banned from the airwaves?
When two people are sitting in my living room and talking while I'm
trying to watch TV should I give up and turn off the TV or ask the rude
intruders to carry the conversation somewhere else? There are
appropriate places for political rants and there are inapropriate places
for such noise. I thought this was a place to discuss lisp. There are
other places specifically designated to discuss politics. Why shouldn't
people in the lisp living room have an expectation that others would be
considerate and respect usenet charters?
The world has seen a lot of change politically and economically in a
short period of time. Not all change is good, but change is inevitable.
We can either fight change or accept it and find ways to deal with it.
By that same reasoning, I'll stop before I get on a rant about the
negative change in respect for others and the increase in rude behavior
rampant today.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87zlt289xz.fsf@geddis.org>
stan <······@exis.net> wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008:
> When two people are sitting in my living room and talking while I'm trying
> to watch TV should I give up and turn off the TV or ask the rude intruders
> to carry the conversation somewhere else?
The sound spectrum is a limited, shared, resource. When the other people
talk, you can't hear the TV. Their choices eliminate your choices.
Is that the case on comp.lang.lisp? Are you finding that the mere presence
of a (possibly) off-topic discussion -- clearly of interest to some c.l.l
participants -- somehow prevents you from engaging in the discussions that
you prefer?
Why is that? There doesn't seem to be a bandwidth/resource issue. There
seem to be adequate tools (threaded newsreaders, killfiles) for filtering to
the information you're interested in.
Perhaps, if you explain the precise nature of your difficulty, others can
assist you in getting the quality interaction from c.l.l that you desire.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
The Naked Gun 2 1/2:
If you only see one movie this year...you should get out more often!
From: stan
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <cu5pa5-edb.ln1@invalid.net>
Don Geddis wrote:
> stan <······@exis.net> wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008:
>> When two people are sitting in my living room and talking while I'm trying
>> to watch TV should I give up and turn off the TV or ask the rude intruders
>> to carry the conversation somewhere else?
>
> The sound spectrum is a limited, shared, resource. When the other people
> talk, you can't hear the TV. Their choices eliminate your choices.
>
> Is that the case on comp.lang.lisp? Are you finding that the mere presence
> of a (possibly) off-topic discussion -- clearly of interest to some c.l.l
> participants -- somehow prevents you from engaging in the discussions that
> you prefer?
>
> Why is that? There doesn't seem to be a bandwidth/resource issue. There
> seem to be adequate tools (threaded newsreaders, killfiles) for filtering to
> the information you're interested in.
You clearly don't have a problem with it. I agree there is a way to
filter out noise and the most effective and apparently only effective is
to not hang around c.l.l
As I noted in my response to Ken, we don't have to agree and I'm OK with
that. I have plenty of other things I've been meaning to get round to
besides learning lisp better. It's clear to me that I have a very
different value system when it comes to usenet than the people who hang
out here. As I said in the reply to Ken, lisp will be fine without me
and it's best if I just move along.
> Perhaps, if you explain the precise nature of your difficulty, others can
> assist you in getting the quality interaction from c.l.l that you desire.
Seems we see things fundamentally different. I prefer focused newsgroups
and you seem to believe it's OK to weed through noise (with technical
help). For me the most effective weeding is to unsubscribe. I was
recently diagnosed with cancer and after treatment I'm recovering
wonderfully. Since the diagnoses I've really learned that lifes too
short to deal wth unecessary triffles. I choose not to keep "dealing with
noise" on my plate. Others, such as yourself disagree. I'm OK with
that.
I'll let you have the last word on this subthread.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <uy78mnrt7.fsf@nhplace.com>
stan <······@exis.net> writes:
> When two people are sitting in my living room and talking while I'm
> trying to watch TV should I give up and turn off the TV or ask the rude
> intruders to carry the conversation somewhere else?
I think this is reasonable as far as it goes.
I certainly have found there are people who intrude into individual threads
But I think the analogy breaks down.
> There are appropriate places for political rants and there are
> inapropriate places for such noise. I thought this was a place to
> discuss lisp.
One person's trash is another's treasure. Strictly speaking, your
message is off-topic to the subject line and the messages you are
responding to are not, so there is a reasonable view that the noise is
you and not the people speaking under a clearly posted topic that you
are free to ignore.
One of the things that makes this a better-than-average newsgroup is
that people try to behave like human beings to one another. You may
regard what you call a political rant as an irrelevance, but not
everyone does. The conversation has drifted far afield, but fundamentally
the question of whether and how it is possible to make money on Lisp
is intensely relevant to Lisp, even if you personally don't care to talk
about it.
I, for example, am not interested in engaging in a forum where I am
forbidden to contribute at least a little of my personality. So if
the price of my participation here is that I must never speak of
politics, then I won't contribute technically here either. As such,
it is not a choice between "lisp stuff with noise or lisp stuff
without" but rather "people who you sometimes regard as noise and
people who you never regard as noise". I am not one of the latter.
The problem is that this is not a living room. Rather, it is tree,
with branches that are threads. If there were part of this
thread/branch you were trying to hear and the discussion was actively
impeding on a message-by-message basis what you want, it would make sense
to complain. But since the thread is properly labeled
Personally, I found MOST of this thread to be something I didn't have
time to read and in that sense had little interest, though I am
interested in the topic. But I did at one point look in, and
responded to the messages I saw. I don't begrudge the people the
other people talking about something when I'm not up to it. That's
what subject lines are for.
> There are other places specifically designated to discuss
> politics. Why shouldn't people in the lisp living room have an
> expectation that others would be considerate and respect usenet
> charters?
Because they would lose contributors (not just me, but to include me,
and to include others whose opinions I value) who would not accept
such policing practices.
Moreover, on a political thread, the people whose opinions I value would
be lost in the noise. Whereas here, they are not. So that matters.
And, moreover, here we can talk politics and yet comfortably slip into
programming metaphor where convenient. Or we can talk politics where
we are confident that the person we are talking to has a structural
understanding of presentation, data representation, semantics,
procedure, and other functional notions that the politics threads
don't have. So the choice, even if you thought that was the venue, is
not the same. This is one of the reasons I eschew cross-posting; we
can converse here about Scheme or in the Scheme newsgroup. But it
will be different discussions among different people; to blur the two
communities as if the Scheme newsgroup and this one were just a filing
system, and not a difference in participation and in rules of
engagement is neither practical nor really an honest representation of
the truth of what really happens. (I'm not saying you're lying, I'm
saying you're not being honest with yourself if you think that the
only difference is that the same conversation will happen in the two
places and it will just be filed differently.)
> The world has seen a lot of change politically and economically in a
> short period of time. Not all change is good, but change is inevitable.
And yet, we have to respond to it not only as individuals but as groups.
> We can either fight change or accept it and find ways to deal with it.
True, but not relevant.
> By that same reasoning, I'll stop before I get on a rant about the
> negative change in respect for others and the increase in rude behavior
> rampant today.
I won't accuse you of being disrespectful. You just responded to a
post and your tone wasn't bad. I'll just urge you to consider that
the questions of markets, ethics, etc. are, in fact, relevant to
everyone. Or, at least, it's worth tolerating the idea that some
think that's the case.
Indeed, I've often said that ethics ought NEVER be taught or discussed
in a forum of its own. That only attracts people who are interested
in ethics, and in my experience, most people who are interested in
ethics don't need it, since the core of ethics, when you strip away
all the other stuff, is a spirit of self-questioning and not just
assuming without question that one is right. It's the people who are
not seeking out such things that NEED it, and hence it's almost
necessary that ethical discussions stop and inject themselves into
other discussions.
And when it comes to licensing, geez, a big issue is how software of one
person in the modern world combines with that of another. And if licensing
is not utterly central to that, I don't know what is.
From: stan
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <vp4pa5-v9b.ln1@invalid.net>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> stan <······@exis.net> writes:
>
>> When two people are sitting in my living room and talking while I'm
>> trying to watch TV should I give up and turn off the TV or ask the rude
>> intruders to carry the conversation somewhere else?
>
> I think this is reasonable as far as it goes.
>
> I certainly have found there are people who intrude into individual threads
>
> But I think the analogy breaks down.
>
>> There are appropriate places for political rants and there are
>> inapropriate places for such noise. I thought this was a place to
>> discuss lisp.
>
> One person's trash is another's treasure. Strictly speaking, your
> message is off-topic to the subject line and the messages you are
> responding to are not, so there is a reasonable view that the noise is
> you and not the people speaking under a clearly posted topic that you
> are free to ignore.
<large snip>
On one point we ae in violent agreement. My contribution tothis thread
was off topic. On most other points we disagree. You don't seem to
believe in focused groups and that things like politics groups don't
have a real purpose. I prefer focused groups and politics focused n
politics groups. We don't have to agree and I'll leave yo the last word
on our subthread.
You have been around lisp for awhile and while I've had learning more
about lisp on my round to it list for some time. Lisp will survive quite
nicely without me and you have convinced me that I'm not cut out for
this place. I'll leave as I came in; quietly.
I'll apologize for a rather arbitrary snip as you make several points in
the snippage. As we both agree I've contributed to the off topic noise I
choose to minimize the contribution.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87bq5jllo3.fsf@geddis.org>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote on 12 Mar 2008 01:5:
> Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
>> It's in the long run, after the restructuring, that both nations are
>> better off.
>
> Ignoring even the question of who's going to do all that retraining,
> what kind of long run are you speaking of?
Well, enough time so that the two economies can specialize. If both
countries were making both guns and butter before free trade, and then
after free trade one specializes in only guns and the other in only butter,
then both countries are better off.
Some benefit comes immediately, as consumers can now purchase certain goods
cheaper than they could before. Some benefit comes later, after the
gun-making workers in one country retrain (or retire, and new workers enter
the work force) to make butter instead (and vis versa in the other country).
It's not even clear that things are worse overall even on day one, since you
have to balance the cheaper imports (and greater exports!) with the loss of
jobs in a narrow industry (but a gain of jobs and salary in the export
industry). But certainly by the time the new specialized export industry
ramps to full employment, the country as a whole is better off.
How long is that? Probably depends on the industry, but it would seem like
5-10 years is more than enough time.
> The reason I ask, and I say this in absolute seriousness, is: What makes
> you think there will BE a long run? Present estimates of how soon Global
> Warming will be deadly to mankind are measured in quite small numbers
> decades
I don't think that's the case. They're talking a few degrees over centuries,
and most of the damage is about rising sea levels to flood coastal areas.
This may cause huge financial pain, and perhaps widespread deaths in certain
(especially poor) populations, but it is unlikely that "mankind" as a whole
is in danger. Certainly not within a few decades.
The one horrible scenario is Earth turning into Venus. Climate isn't
understood well enough, and there's some tiny possibility that could happen.
That would probably kill all life, including humans.
If that's the scenario you believe in, than any human sacrifice is worth it
to prevent complete destruction of humanity and the earth. You ought to be
in favor of immediate global (probably nuclear) war, in order to decimate
current human populations and eliminate modern civilization. Reduce our 6B
population down to a few hundred million, living a simple rural agrarian
existence.
In either case (whether you believe in the Venus scenario or not), I don't see
how the current topic of free trade is relevant.
> However, I am simply making the obviously true observation that the US law
> has ineffectively protected us not from trade, but from unfair trade.
That's a term that hasn't come up before. We all know what protectionism is
(tariffs, regulations, prohibitions, etc.). And we know what free trade is
(lack of government interference in the import/export market). I don't know
what "unfair trade" is.
> And by unfair I don't even mean against treaty--I mean our leaders have
> signed us up in treaties that benefited a few of us at the expense of many.
I don't know what you're referring to here. I certainly don't think NAFTA
is an example, if that's what you have in mind.
> "Free trade" is the buzz word, but "unpoliced" is not the same as "free".
Yeah, it kind of is.
I mean, OK, sure, a "free market" is not the same as "anarchy". You need
a medium of exchange (currency), enforcement of contract law, stock markets,
banks, etc.
But "free trade" means that you impose no special penalties or taxes for
goods crossing your border. I don't know what else you think needs
"policing", aside from what government already does in purely domestic
markets. "Free trade" is about whether international markets are the same,
or different than, purely domestic markets.
But sure, anarchy is not the same as capitalism.
> In a situation where there are no (or an inadequate number of) regulations
> or penalties, the selfish will seek a personal benefit.
But the selfish (= just about everybody) are _always_ seeking personal
benefit. I don't see how the free trade situation is any different from any
other local version of capitalism.
If you want to argue against capitalism, then that's a whole different topic.
But assuming you buy into local free markets and US capitalism, then free
trade is an (almost) purely good enhancement to that system.
> There's nothing wrong with personal benefit per se, but the goal of good
> law should be to align personal benefit with public benefit
Absolutely. I agree completely.
> and US law has not done that.
I'd need to be convinced. This is certainly not obvious to me.
> If you're championing that people should get wealthy just because some of
> them MIGHT help the poor, that's a pretty weak claim.
No, of course not. I would never recommend a system of government that
relies on altruistic rich people.
> It's also weak if you're saying "well, it does help the poor" but you're
> treating "benefit" as a boolean. That is, you'd be saying "as long as they
> made at least $1 in benefit, then we can say they benefited".
They get more stuff they value, for cheaper. There are more (if different)
jobs available after than there were before.
The US poor are vastly better off than the poor in countries which are also
poor overall (Haiti, Bangladesh, most African republics). Here there are
roads and highways and free television and charities and parks and
playgrounds and plenty of jobs for productive people (e.g. any healthy
reasonably smart person can join the military). All of that opportunity is
available to the US poor specifically because there happen also to be US rich
(and middle class) -- which is not the same in overall poor countries. So
the US poor get the benefit of the society that the wealthier members pay
for.
> Although you mean to say it only for the country as a whole, you still are
> narrowly addressing money. The fact that is is so easily quantified and
> other things are so hard to quantify is not a proof that there is no other
> such effect.
I grant completely that there is more to happiness than just GDP.
But you've got to be really careful when you open that can of worms.
It's not at all obvious that it supports your case. You have to resolve
issues of drug-addicting the population, and of envy (where the poor are
unhappy not because they are suffering absolutely, but only because their
neighbors are even better off; do you really prefer a society that rewards
and empowers that envy?).
>> Of course it's the case that particular individuals may be worse off.
>> That's why I would be happy to support retraining programs, unemployment
>> insurance, educational grants and loans, etc. Economic restructuring has
>> real transition costs, and I don't minimize those at all.
>
> So either you're offering yourself up as a lightning rod to avoid others
> who've created this problem being asked to pay their fair share, or you're
> advocating that these costs should in general be paid by people who create
> the corresponding burdens.
I'm not sure I understand your paragraph. Free trade rewards overall
society, on average, but with some costs for a few particular individuals. I
don't see that there's anyone in particular who created the "burden". I
wouldn't target any specific small group for a special tax. But taxing
overall society, in order to pay for retraining or other transition costs for
those affected negatively by free trade, sounds very reasonable.
> If you're advocating that the people making the burdens pay for them, then
> you're in agreement with what I, at least, refer to as restricting trade.
I don't think we're in agreement.
> Restricting is not limited narrowly to "turning off" (though that may be
> easy to set up as a strawman and then knock down). For me, "restricting
> trade" means things like: not trading with countries who are going to
> permit factories in the US with decent working conditions to be closed in
> favor of factories with poor working conditions afar
That's a _very_ complex question. Different societies have different
conditions. I would never expect every foreign society to operate factories
with the same standards and laws as the US imposes domestically. That's a
bit arrogant, don't you think? To believe that whatever laws the US happens
to have, are by fiat the "right" ones that ought to be imposed worldwide?
> but it also means taxing companies that dump their workers, leaving a
> burden on society to clean up the mess.
You write as though it is a moral duty of companies to employ particular
workers, and they are to blame when they fire those workers.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. That's not the point or purpose of
companies.
> I don't discount your observations about the GDP, I simply don't accept the
> GDP nor a number of the other monetary metrics as a good indicator of
> either the health or wealth of our nation.
Well, I'm open to discussion of other ways to judge such issues. But making
false claims like "free trade causes US jobs to be lost, and moved to 3rd
world countries, and any patriotic politician ought to care about US citizens
before those of other countries, so all patriotic politicians should oppose
free trade" is a non-starter. That's ignorant, alarmist rhetoric, appealing
to people's base fears, and contrary to the facts as they are best understood
today.
I'm not wedded to GDP as the only possible measure. But at least it's a
start. Meanwhile, free trade is _such_ a positive development for _all_
nations, that it would take a lot to find a way to view it negatively (on
average). I'm willing to listen to evidence -- but not to mere vociferous
opinion.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
He who tries to carry a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in
no other way.
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote on 12 Mar 2008 01:5:
>> Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
>>> It's in the long run, after the restructuring, that both nations are
>>> better off.
>>
>> Ignoring even the question of who's going to do all that retraining,
>> what kind of long run are you speaking of?
>
> Well, enough time so that the two economies can specialize. If both
> countries were making both guns and butter before free trade, and then
> after free trade one specializes in only guns and the other in only butter,
> then both countries are better off.
>
> Some benefit comes immediately, as consumers can now purchase certain goods
> cheaper than they could before. Some benefit comes later, after the
> gun-making workers in one country retrain (or retire, and new workers enter
> the work force) to make butter instead (and vis versa in the other country).
>
> It's not even clear that things are worse overall even on day one, since you
> have to balance the cheaper imports (and greater exports!) with the loss of
> jobs in a narrow industry (but a gain of jobs and salary in the export
> industry). But certainly by the time the new specialized export industry
> ramps to full employment, the country as a whole is better off.
>
> How long is that? Probably depends on the industry, but it would seem like
> 5-10 years is more than enough time.
And soon enough, the price of oil increases tenfold, and suddenly it's
too costly to transport guns from the other side of the world, or
butter.
The lucky ones are those who have the butter.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In a World without Walls and Fences,
who needs Windows and Gates?
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87abl3i702.fsf@geddis.org>
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote on Wed, 12 Mar 2008:
> Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
>> If both countries were making both guns and butter before free trade, and
>> then after free trade one specializes in only guns and the other in only
>> butter, then both countries are better off.
>>
> And soon enough, the price of oil increases tenfold, and suddenly it's too
> costly to transport guns from the other side of the world, or butter. The
> lucky ones are those who have the butter.
You have a valid point, but local sourcing isn't quite the same as trade
barriers at national borders.
For one thing, Canada and Mexico are closer to many parts of the US than
other parts of the US are. Why should California or Texas import goods from
New York, rather than from Mexico? Economic shifts in trade due to
transportation costs will take care of themselves, with no need for central
planning or premature trade barriers.
For another thing, you may underestimate the efficiency of container
shipping. It's got high latency, but I'm almost certain that the cost in oil
per pound of getting goods from Japan to California is less than getting them
from New York to California. Shipping is _highly_ efficient, as far as
transportation goes.
So unless you plan to eliminate _all_ trade across distance -- and have us
only eat food grown within 100 miles, etc. -- then the question of free trade
still remains.
In any case, the price of oil increasing tenfold (which is a reasonable
projection, by the way) would by no means completely halt long-distance
trade. Transportation costs are a tiny fraction of the price of many
imported goods. Increasing those costs tenfold would not have much effect on
many goods (while of course it would have great effect on others).
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <uk5k7gx79.fsf@nhplace.com>
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
>
> Well, enough time so that the two economies can specialize. If
> both countries were making both guns and butter before free trade,
> and then after free trade one specializes in only guns and the
> other in only butter, then both countries are better off.
This is a perfect example of what I was saying about there not being a
good definition of "better off" and why I don't agree with yours.
I don't think a world that is divided as you say is structurally good.
I elaborate below.
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> responds to Don:
> And soon enough, the price of oil increases tenfold, and suddenly it's
> too costly to transport guns from the other side of the world, or
> butter.
This is nicely pithy, but I'll spoil all of that by splitting it into
two distinct issues, each a reason I disagree with Don about the
current situation being either good or even benign.
* If we are cut off from that supply, we will be ailing. That could
happen due to financial downturn, war, or catastrophe. This is
like what Pascal was saying, except it can happen for other reasons
than simply the expense of transport.
* But, even not cut off, we need to ramp down our usage of fossil
fuels at the maximum doable speed. But our present mode of making
money leans heavily on the use of fossil-fuel-powered transport of
things back and forth, things which in many cases didn't used to
have to be transported because they were locally produced. We are
going in the wrong direction for a healthy environment, and we're
doing it because there is a short term buck to be made by people
who aren't giving appropriate care to the long term.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html
The current situation seems, the more I think of it, to be actively
bad, and the fact that the market does not regard it as such worries
me a great deal. People seem to be in a dangerously optimistic denial
of how bad the issue is, continuing to try to milk cash out of the
present system without acknowledging the severity of the climate
change problem. The absence of serious government policies on the
subject is an issue, with the US leading some of that slowness.
Don, your remark from a prior post when I raised climate change as an
issue is HUGELY disturbing to me:
| I don't think that's the case. They're talking a few degrees over
| centuries, and most of the damage is about rising sea levels to
| flood coastal areas. This may cause huge financial pain, and
| perhaps widespread deaths in certain (especially poor) populations,
| but it is unlikely that "mankind" as a whole is in danger.
| Certainly not within a few decades.
I'll skip right past the part where the poor are so abruptly dismissed
here, and cut straight to my point, which is that EVEN IF one doesn't
care about the poor (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that
you didn't intend that reading, and will assume your wording here is
just terribly unfortunate), this is likely to affect EVERYONE in
PROFOUND ways for many centuries.
So perhaps you've not been watching, or maybe just you don't believe
it, but descriptions by many scientists of the effects of even two
degrees of temperature rise is FAR more extensive than the paragraph I
quoted from you acknowledges. And the reports seem ever more dire,
suggesting an unexpectedly accelerating effect. I would urge you to
reconsider your relaxed position on this. There may be a calm before
the storm, but the duration of that calm is not known and is not
terribly long. And if something is not done in that calm which is
preparatory for what might come after, the chances we can do things at
the last minute are projected to be poor.
And, yeah, doom and gloom tends to put me at some risk of ridicule
from those who like to engage in such, like some textual incarnation
of an old guy with a sign saying "the end is near". But if the choice
is between raising consciousness about climate change but risking
being called alarmist OR sitting quietly and allowing bad things to
happen because I was too timid to speak out, I guess I (not
surprisingly) pick the potential ridicule.
If twenty years out, this is all a false alarm, I can live with that.
If twenty years out, this turns out to be real, I hope you can live
with your decision. I hope those who minimize things are fortunate
enough to feel comfortable looking back on your roles today as this
situation later unfolds.
Also not that it matters a lot really either way, but for those who
think this is all off-topic for comp.lang.lisp and perhaps for open
source software (as the subject line suggests), I actually do have a
plan to tie it all in sometime, but it will have to wait for another
post on another day... For now, you can just make a note that if
there is no habitable earth, there won't be any lisp.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <8763vri4xr.fsf@geddis.org>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote on 12 Mar 2008 22:4:
> * If we are cut off from that supply, we will be ailing. That could
> happen due to financial downturn, war, or catastrophe. This is
> like what Pascal was saying, except it can happen for other reasons
> than simply the expense of transport.
I agree that if your goal is to go to war with lots of neighbors, then it
may be a poor idea to rely on them for critical supplies. The US imports a
lot of oil from Mexico. If our goal is to start a war with Mexico, perhaps
that's not the best arrangement.
On the other hand, I much prefer a tightly-connected world of large trade
exchanges, than one where every nation is self-sufficient and doesn't need
any other nation for anything.
The capitalism route leads to peace. The nationalism route leads to war.
As for your other examples (financial downturn, catastrophe), I'm not sure
how relying on greater international trade puts you at more risk. Generally,
diversification in suppliers is a good thing for risk mitigation. And
international trade allows you to purchase the goods from anywhere in the
world, theoretically protecting you from any local problems.
You're more likely to get in trouble on orange juice with an unfortunate
freeze in Florida if you _don't_ import oranges, than if you do.
> * But, even not cut off, we need to ramp down our usage of fossil
> fuels at the maximum doable speed. But our present mode of making
> money leans heavily on the use of fossil-fuel-powered transport of
> things back and forth, things which in many cases didn't used to
> have to be transported because they were locally produced. We are
> going in the wrong direction for a healthy environment, and we're
> doing it because there is a short term buck to be made by people
> who aren't giving appropriate care to the long term.
If you seriously want to return to a world of limited trade and exclusively
locally-produced goods, that's a bigger change than you may have in mind.
Most of modern society can't exist that way. Manhattan and Mexico City and
Tokyo are too dense: they would have to be abandoned. The Earth probably
can't support 6B people on only local food production. We'll have to
slaughter some of them.
You may be right. But this is no small change in the world.
> Don, your remark from a prior post when I raised climate change as an
> issue is HUGELY disturbing to me:
>
> | I don't think that's the case. They're talking a few degrees over
> | centuries, and most of the damage is about rising sea levels to flood
> | coastal areas. This may cause huge financial pain, and perhaps
> | widespread deaths in certain (especially poor) populations, but it is
> | unlikely that "mankind" as a whole is in danger. Certainly not within a
> | few decades.
>
> I'll skip right past the part where the poor are so abruptly dismissed
> here
I didn't dismiss them. I specifically mentioned them. I didn't react to
that mention one way or the other. Of course that's a huge tragedy.
But you were claiming that mankind as a whole was in danger of extinction
within a few decades. That's absurd. I've never seen a single educated
projection that suggests such catastrophe on such a small time scale.
Do you have any references to back up the claim?
> and cut straight to my point, which is that EVEN IF one doesn't care about
> the poor (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't intend
> that reading, and will assume your wording here is just terribly
> unfortunate)
The deaths of worldwide coastal poor populations is a horrible, horrible
thing. And may be coming in the next few decades, due to climate change.
Yes.
> this is likely to affect EVERYONE in PROFOUND ways for many centuries.
Absolutely agreed.
Yet this is not the phrasing you chose in the original post. You said:
Present estimates of how soon Global Warming will be deadly to
mankind are measured in quite small numbers decades
That's what I was objecting to. If it were true, it demands far greater
immediate response than anything we've seen suggested so far.
> So perhaps you've not been watching, or maybe just you don't believe it,
> but descriptions by many scientists of the effects of even two degrees of
> temperature rise is FAR more extensive than the paragraph I quoted from you
> acknowledges.
Really? I have looked into it. Would you care to name the specific effects
that you expect from a two-degree (average) temperature rise?
I'd expect: rising sea levels; flooding coastal areas; a movement of massive
agriculture from the current temperate zones towards the poles (e.g. Canada
and Russia instead of California), etc. Huge financial costs, widespread
deaths for those in the coastal zones unable to relocate. I do not expect
the extinction of mankind.
Is this description in the last paragraph more compatible with my previous
writing, or with your previous writing? Do you expect something different
from a 2-degree rise in temperature?
(At least this climate problem is a _rise_ in temperature. The equator is
far more hospitable to life than the poles. We're actually long overdue for
another major ice age. If it were a significant cooling that were coming,
we'd be screwed. We probably can't support 6-10B people on an Earth 5-10
degrees colder than now. Luckily, for causing such a major problem, it's at
least heading in the better direction.)
> And the reports seem ever more dire, suggesting an unexpectedly
> accelerating effect.
Again, a runaway positive-feedback reaction, turning Earth into Venus, is a
possibility. Fortunately it seems that everyone thinks (as far as I can
tell) the Venus scenario is very low probability. That would probably end
all life on Earth.
> I would urge you to reconsider your relaxed position on this. There may be
> a calm before the storm, but the duration of that calm is not known and is
> not terribly long. And if something is not done in that calm which is
> preparatory for what might come after, the chances we can do things at the
> last minute are projected to be poor.
I'm not relaxed. I agree this is a major problem. The consequences of no
action are severe. Unfortunately, the costs of the scale of action that
might make a difference are also severe. You need to try to accurate predict
both things in order to choose wise actions.
If the Venus scenario is probable, then the US ought to immediately slaughter
90% of humanity. Probably nuke China and India, to start. If the choice is
extinction, or saving 10% of humanity, we ought to save 10%.
Oh. You think the consequences AREN'T that severe? Are they, perhaps, more
financial? Things like relocating coastal cities (or building walls), moving
farmland northwards, adding ocean desalinization plants to make up for drying
up riverbeds and streams, etc.? Well, then, you need to compare the costs of
coping with the change, with the costs of trying to prevent the change.
What specific global policies would you suggest? The immediate elimination
of fossil fuel use? Make it against the law to purchase anything
manufactured more than 100mi from your house?
I think you're really underestimating the costs of making a huge impact on
atmospheric CO2. We can all reduce our carbon use, sure. But if you were
King of the World, and wanted to halt (or reverse!) the coming climate change,
do you think you could do it? While keeping 6-10B people alive? I'd love
to see your plan. It's not at all easy.
> And, yeah, doom and gloom tends to put me at some risk of ridicule from
> those who like to engage in such, like some textual incarnation of an old
> guy with a sign saying "the end is near".
I'm willing to discuss the Venus scenario, if you think that's likely.
The problem is, nothing can be evaluated, because you never mention
specifics. We had been talking about free trade, which was introduced
(falsely!) on the basis that it (supposedly) caused US jobs to be lost and
moved to 3rd world countries. Now you've transitioned to saying that free
trade is bad because _all_ trade is bad because any transportation is bad
because of global warming.
Well, maybe. But if you really want to shut down all transportation, that's
a lot bigger problem than just some tariffs on imports at national borders.
> If twenty years out, this is all a false alarm, I can live with that.
After you slaughter 90% of the human population, and then in a few decades
say "oh, sorry, guess I was wrong"?
After you shut down all use of fossil fuels, thereby causing huge economic
depressions worldwide, resulting in deaths from malnutrition, disease, and
warfare?
You don't seem to appreciate the potential costs involved. And/or you
overestimate the negative consequences (like the extinction of mankind).
> If twenty years out, this turns out to be real, I hope you can live
> with your decision. I hope those who minimize things are fortunate
> enough to feel comfortable looking back on your roles today as this
> situation later unfolds.
I wonder what decision you think I've made, that you're criticizing.
It seems clear that human activity, in particular fossil fuel use, has caused
global warming. It seems clear that even if we dropped fossil fuel use to
ZERO tomorrow, the atmosphere will CONTINUE to warm for decades and perhaps
centuries. Much of the damage is irreversible at this point. It also seems
clear that the modern world cannot survive without substantial energy use,
which in the short run requires fossil fuels.
Luckily (?), we seem to be hitting Peak Oil at just the same time. These two
great crises are in some ways opposites of each other. Global warming is a
kind of "tragedy of the commons", such that it seems unlikely to get global
political consensus for dealing with the hard tradeoffs. Not only between
nations, but across time. Many choices DO make things better for this
generation, at a cost of much worse climate for future generations. It's
really, really, hard to "do the right thing" in such a circumstance.
So: practically, I think at best we can slowly down the global growth of CO2
emission, perhaps even reduce it a bit. But it will never drop near zero.
And keep in mind that there is ALREADY too much CO2 in the atmosphere right
now. The real "right thing" would be to take CO2 OUT of the atmosphere.
Perhaps raze cities and put forests back in those locations, etc. (Trees are
excellent machines for absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and fixing it in the
ground. You want new forests, so you want to constantly be cutting them down
and burying the logs underground, so that new trees are constantly growing.
That probably means you _shouldn't_ recycle paper, but instead should use as
much paper as you can, and throw it all away so that it winds up in
landfills. Each piece of paper that you throw away is atmospheric CO2 that
gets reburied in the ground.)
If Venus is coming, then we're probably screwed. If it isn't coming, then I
think the "fix" is to keep the world wealthy, in order to use that wealth to
adapt civilization to the climate change that will be unpreventable.
(Overall wealth, in this sense, is the ability of humanity to actually do
things. To apply energy to reconfigure matter in order to make it more
valuable.)
So. Do you think I'm "minimizing things"? Do you think I'll regret my role,
if climate change "turns out to be real"?
I'm trying to deal with real facts and accurate projections, as much as is
possible, and trying to avoid hysterics and doomsaying, as counterproductive
(in my opinion).
Perhaps that's not how it came across.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
I expected times like this -- but never thought they'd be so bad, so long,
and so frequent. -- Despair.com
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:53:42 -0400, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> For me, "restricting trade" means things like: not trading with
> countries who are going to permit factories in the US with decent
> working conditions to be closed in favor of factories with poor
> working conditions afar, but it also means taxing companies that dump
> their workers, leaving a burden on society to clean up the mess.
I visited China last year, and one thing I didn't fully appreciate before
then was that one person's sweat shop is in many cases another person's
opportunity of a lifetime. In China people can go to work in a sweatshop
for a couple of years and go back to the village with enough money to set
themselves up for life.
A sweat shop can be plain old exploitation but often, when put in context,
it is not that simple.
Taken too far, forcing western standards on 3rd world countries can be
enough to stop them from raising themselves from poverty.
Tim Josling
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <ubq5gciza.fsf@nhplace.com>
tim <····@internet.com> writes:
> I visited China last year, and one thing I didn't fully appreciate
> before then was that one person's sweat shop is in many cases
> another person's opportunity of a lifetime. In China people can go
> to work in a sweatshop for a couple of years and go back to the
> village with enough money to set themselves up for life.
The effect you're talking about is probably real (though I'm not sure
I'd want to go so far as to say that makes sweatshops
ok). Nevertheless, I had not meant to address this issue at all;
rather, I was meaning to speak narrowly to the effect domestically
within the US of competing with companies abroad who can afford to
compete with us not by making better product but simply by failing to
match the quality of life standards for treatment of ordinary workers.
Because competition on such basis does succeed (at whatever human
cost), it implicitly moves the US downward, since the primary way to
easily compete is to cut expenses by paying US workers as badly as is
done abroad... or by laying off US workers in favor of doing things
abroad. The effect has been sometimes rapid and harsh. It was a
voluntary decision of the US to enter into such trading arrangements,
and the terms of such arrangements were something that could have been
(and that might still should be) negotiated better. The people it
most adversely affects had very little say in it.
I'm no big fan of Ralph Nader, but this article from his site
certainly makes some valid points:
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/287-Meet-the-China-Price.html
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87fxurk7jv.fsf@geddis.org>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote on 15 Mar 2008 07:4:
> the effect domestically within the US of competing with companies abroad
> who can afford to compete with us not by making better product but simply
> by failing to match the quality of life standards for treatment of ordinary
> workers.
Competing on production cost (and thus sale price) is time-honored method of
marketplace competition, whether domestically or internationally.
> Because competition on such basis does succeed (at whatever human cost), it
> implicitly moves the US downward
That's not at all true. You continue to focus again on only one side of the
equation, the "jobs lost" in specific industries. You don't pay enough
attention to the "jobs gained" in other industries.
I point you again to Comparative Advantage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
and in particular this counterintuitive result:
The principle of comparative advantage shows that even if a country
has no absolute advantage in any product (ie. it is not the most
efficient producer for any good), the disadvantaged country can still
benefit from specializing in and exporting the product(s) for which
it has the lowest opportunity cost of production.
You're focusing only on the fact that labor costs are (absolutely) lower in
China than they are in the US, and you conclude that therefore free trade must
be a win for them and a loss for us. That's not actually what happens, EVEN IF
their labor costs are lower ACROSS THE BOARD (in every industry).
You may also find enlightening the "Economics of free trade":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#Economics_of_free_trade
and really trying to understand the supply/demand graph on that page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EffectOfTariff.png
Yes, free trade leads to economic restructuring (in _both_ countries).
But you're really misrepresenting the situation to only talk about jobs
lost.
> since the primary way to easily compete is to cut expenses by paying US
> workers as badly as is done abroad... or by laying off US workers in favor
> of doing things abroad.
In some industries, yes. But in other industries, MORE workers would be
hired. And, on balance, the US would be wealthier afterwards than before.
> The effect has been sometimes rapid and harsh. It was a voluntary decision
> of the US to enter into such trading arrangements, and the terms of such
> arrangements were something that could have been (and that might still
> should be) negotiated better.
Negotiated how? Free trade is a symmetric, bilateral thing. What leverage
do you think the US has in these cases? What concessions should it demand?
Why is the other country not symmetrically incented to demand the same
things, only in reverse?
> The people it most adversely affects had very little say in it.
True enough.
But you make it sound like disenfranchised voters, with no say, got screwed
by selfish wealthy elites. Which sounds like an injustice that we should all
rise up against to defeat.
And yet you make no mention of economic consensus around free trade. Quoting
from the "free trade" wikipedia article:
Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among
members of the economics profession in the U.S. is that free trade is
a large and unambiguous net gain for society.
Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, "Few propositions
command as much consensus among professional economists as that open
world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards."
At the very least, you're only presenting one side of the story.
> I'm no big fan of Ralph Nader, but this article from his site certainly
> makes some valid points:
> http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/287-Meet-the-China-Price.html
You need to understand how biased reports like this are put together, without
actually lying, yet leading to false conclusions.
To evaluate the net benefit of free trade, you'd need to examine both the
costs AND the benefits of the new environment. It is generally accepted
(among professional economists) that the net benefits are positive, for BOTH
countries. At the same time, there's no question that there are changes, and
local winners and losers. So it's not at all hard to come up with a negative
article that only mentions the losers. That's rhetoric, though -- not
analysis.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Underwhelming: Someone who, when he comes into a room, gives you the vague
feeling that someone has just left. -- Nemo Outis on rec.martial-arts
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:41:29 -0400, Kent M Pitman wrote:
> The effect you're talking about is probably real (though I'm not sure
> I'd want to go so far as to say that makes sweatshops
> ok). Nevertheless, I had not meant to address this issue at all;
> rather, I was meaning to speak narrowly to the effect domestically
> within the US of competing with companies abroad who can afford to
> compete with us not by making better product but simply by failing to
> match the quality of life standards for treatment of ordinary workers.
>
> Because competition on such basis does succeed (at whatever human
> cost), it implicitly moves the US downward, since the primary way to
> easily compete is to cut expenses by paying US workers as badly as is
> done abroad... or by laying off US workers in favor of doing things
> abroad. The effect has been sometimes rapid and harsh. It was a
> voluntary decision of the US to enter into such trading arrangements,
> and the terms of such arrangements were something that could have been
> (and that might still should be) negotiated better. The people it
> most adversely affects had very little say in it.
>
> I'm no big fan of Ralph Nader, but this article from his site
> certainly makes some valid points:
>
> http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/287-Meet-the-China-Price.html
A female shop assistant in Shanghai told me she is paid about 1,000 yuan
per month. This is for a 60+ hour week. This is about 4 yuan per hour, or
about 40c(US). So $1/hour would probably not be competitive, as Nader
suggests. It is frightening to think how you could compete with that.
Disparities for skilled labour are lower but are still enormous.
People in western countries enjoy a far higher standard of living than
most people elsewhere. I think we have to face up to the possibility that
this disparity is an accident of history and will not be sustained. As
countries like China become more wealthy, competition for food and raw
materials is pushing up prices. It seems possible that part of our
high standard of living comes from the fact that others do not have
the capital or skills/education to compete effectively for those resources.
The implication is that, when this changes, standards of living are going
to converge and some of that convergence will come from reduced standards
of living in currently wealthy countries.
Here is a small example. I recently visited Europe after a gap of about 25
years. All the interesting places were far more crowded than they had been
25 years ago. In significant part the crowds consisted of people from
countries that were too poor 25 years ago to support much outbound tourism.
This detracted from the experience to some extent because there was more
competition for the same resources.
To some extent modern economies are becoming more information centric and
less resource-centric. However resource consumption overall is still going
up so I don't think this is going to solve the problem.
We tend to assume that our current standard of living is appropriate,
valid, normal, permanent and good. Maybe it just isn't.
Tim Josling
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <uzlszbg77.fsf@nhplace.com>
tim <····@internet.com> writes:
> We tend to assume that our current standard of living is appropriate,
> valid, normal, permanent and good. Maybe it just isn't.
I don't assume that at all, but I can see how you might think I might
and how clearly there must be some who do. I definitely take those
matters that could reasonably vary widely and, as you say, reasonably.
However...
What I assume is that there is a limit to how fast a community can
absorb such change. Think of it like losing weight. If you lose it
all at once, you can die of shock, even if the loss is what was
needed. Sometimes it has to be paced in order for the patient to
survive. Ignoring the global warming issue, the problem isn't where
it's going it's how fast.
Global warming complicates things mainly because although I haven't
discounted the fact that some brilliant minds are probably coming
online due to all this rising in economic power, so too will millions
or possibly billions of people around the globe be suddenly affluent
enough to want to buy a new car, etc... which poses other resource-use
questions at a very bad time. That isn't me begrudging them their
success. It's just observing that this is a really bad time for it to
happen in absolute terms.
I could say more, but I'm really tired of how this thread has gone. I
haven't found it to be civil, and not due to you. Your remarks have
been civil and non-dismissive, just adding a point of view. But I'm
tired nonetheless, and so not really responding even to this post in
the full detail it probably deserves. This will be my last post on
this thread.
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <874pb6r1xe.fsf@geddis.org>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote on 15 Mar 2008 21:3:
> Global warming complicates things mainly because although I haven't
> discounted the fact that some brilliant minds are probably coming online
> due to all this rising in economic power, so too will millions or possibly
> billions of people around the globe be suddenly affluent enough to want to
> buy a new car, etc... which poses other resource-use questions at a very
> bad time. That isn't me begrudging them their success. It's just
> observing that this is a really bad time for it to happen in absolute
> terms.
Probably right. But -- lucky break -- the coming Peak Oil energy crisis will
probably prevent the new populations from getting those new cars, far more
effectively than any political solution may have.
Global Warming and Peak Oil: two independent crises, coming at the same time
-- but fortunately, in somewhat opposite directions.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
[On having a 6-month-old son with his wife:] We're hands-on parents. It's us
and only us that drop him off at daycare and choose the nanny.
-- Kevin Nealon (People magazine, August 13, 2007)
Hi all,
An small article about IBM :
"The company, however, has a history of supporting open-source
software. In 1998, it announced it would integrate the Apache Web
server into its Websphere application server; and in 2000, IBM said it
would invest $1 billion in Linux. A total of 650 IBM employees work on
various open source development communities, including Linux and
Apache. "
Just a question : 650 employees, is it a community :) is it
dumping ? :)
And, to finish : without the "invest $1 billion in Linux" where will
be Linux at this time ... ?
Without the help of Microsoft in Novell Compagny, where will be
Novell ...
With this examples, we just can note that the economic model of free
doesn't works. Because it's generate No money for the creation and
innovation.
Ubuntu hope to be profitable in 2010 .. How it's possible ? If I
believe the "free men" , Free software generate money :) I don't
understand why Ubuntu needs money; I believed the "free men" when
they explains that a altruist community work only Sunday :) and not
needs any money to work.
The summun of economic's hypocrisy : free software !
Best Regards
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: do we need to 'nationalise' free open source?
Date:
Message-ID: <87ve3mpmys.fsf@geddis.org>
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> wrote on 15 Mar 2008 07:4:
> It was a voluntary decision of the US to enter into such [free] trading
> arrangements, and the terms of such arrangements were something that could
> have been (and that might still should be) negotiated better.
If anyone's still following this topic, here's a recent NY Times editorial
on the subject ("Beyond the Noise on Free Trade"):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/business/16view.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Benny Hill: The master of the single entendre.