Post #13,634
10/16/01 4:36:42 PM
|
Nice Try.
Per Capita income going up across the board doesn't say anything about the uneven distribution of all "personal wealth". But, you knew that, didn't you?
For simplicity, suppose the entire national personal wealth amounted to 100,000 in 1970 and was distributed as follows:
Top 1% 7,000 (100 people)
Everybody Else: 93,000 (100,000 people)
Per Capita Wealth (rounded): 1.00
In 1990 the total rises to 200,000 and is dispersed as follows:
Top 1% 20,000 (100 people)
Everybody else: 180,000 (100,000 people)
Yippee! Everybody's doing great, right? Per Capita Wealth for everyone has doubled and for the poorest gone from 0.93 all the way up to 1.80! Almost double! No inequity here, right? Only, in 1970, the Top 1% had 7% of the private wealth and in 1990, they have 10%. Just like today with the real numbers. But that's okay, "some people are more equal than others."
|
Post #13,651
10/16/01 5:57:17 PM
|
So you don't like averages
[link|http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf|Let's try specifics (.pdf)]
Specifically page 4.
You got me...by a little. Net from 67 to 92...the bottom 20 are 4% worse while the top 20 are 8% better off. (You have to add the 2 sets 67-80 and 80-92. Since 92...no material change has occurred)
The conclusions of the report are a very good read...and should offer you some insight into reasons why the shift is occurring..and a big chunk of that reason is NOT a problem with "the system"
A good read...and a MINOR capitulation to you.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #13,700
10/16/01 10:48:41 PM
|
You are nothing, if not a gentleman.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."
or words to that effect ;-)
bcnu,
Mikem
p.s. thanks for the info.
|
Post #13,701
10/16/01 10:56:16 PM
|
Addendum.
I posted my compliment before I read your link.
The compliment stands. However, by your own page 4, do you not see a trend of inequity? Look at the top fifth from 70 forward, then look at everyone else. Is there nothing there that you can point to that says, "perhaps there has been some inequity in the distribution of wealth"?
I promise to read this document in its entirety, but a cursory review indicates an inequity that I find disturbing.
Cheers and thanks once again for the "modest capitulation" ;-)
Mikem
|
Post #13,781
10/17/01 1:39:38 PM
|
I read the link...
...and, in fact, gave you the net growth in the inequity since 1967. Hence, my minor capitulation. There has been a "net" inequity since 1967. Almost all of it occurred in the 1980's. You got me...by a little. Net from 67 to 92...the bottom 20 are 4% worse while the top 20 are 8% better off. (You have to add the 2 sets 67-80 and 80-92. Since 92...no material change has occurred) My read, the rewrite of the tax code under Ronnie removed some of the balancing factors in earnings equity which had the net effect of making the top 20 better off. After all...when you half the high end rates...these folks got to keep a little more of their money...and on the percentage basis...5 percent of alot is more than 5% of a little. So yes...the rich got a bit richer under Ronnie. The interesting part is more in the conclusions. At the same time,changes in living arrangements have occurred that tend to exacerbate differences in household incomes.For example,
increases in divorces and separations,increases in births out of wedlock,and the increasing age at first marriage may have all led to shift away from traditionally higher-income married-couple households and toward typically lower-income single-parent and nonfamily households.Also,the increasing tendency
for men with higher-than-average earnings to marry women with higher-than-average earnings may have contributed to widening the gap between high-income and low-income households. Hard to blame that on "the system". Actually I'm glad we're having this argument. Its making me do my homework. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #13,801
10/17/01 3:05:04 PM
|
That last does tend to indicate, however
That just possibly, economic theory is hardly er Turing complete, as the Boolean horde loves to chortle.
(I'm not sure where to apportion the blame however, where a slavish adherence to numbers generated from the economic model du jour: so regularly produces all those Other unintended consequences - are you (sure)?)
Whatever the division of spoils er.. labor .. cum blame: I trust that at least one meta-principle is self evident (?)
Any society which believes that its operation may be derived from Any mere 'economic model' -- is composed of either an unimaginitive and banal populace or merely -- one with so little apperception of the range of human possibilities (?) its ignorance may be irremediable (while still operating under such an impoverished model) ummm Catch $22 ?
Ashton
The Dismal Science ain't .. (science)- it's arithmetic. And is to philosophy as ~the Taleban is to Gandhi.
But it is Dismal. But EZ. Thus Popular.
|
Post #13,865
10/17/01 8:13:32 PM
|
Dismal Science.
Definitions
Microeconomics=psychology of money
Macroeconomics=Sociology of money
Is it arithmetic? Partly.
Is there science involved...depends on your definition. There is definitely research conducted, theories tested, statistics compiled, analyzed, trended, tested again...I would say that there is at least some science involved...or at least principles of scientific research.
Is is dismal...definitely. Mostly, for me, because it allows me to better understand how much bullshit spouted out of the mouths of world leaders (and IMF/WTO protesters, and etc...) is really bullshit. At least in here there are several fairly well educated induhvijuals ;)...we can differ on points.
Is >free enterprise< the final answer. Maybe not...but its the closest we've come to getting an A so far. BUT...the society as a whole plays a factor as well. And that...especially in urban areas...is disintegrating.
The one example I can give of societal failure impacting bizness...in Cleveland a study was conducted by the HR departments of the utilites. They were attempting to hire base labor (pole climbers, meter readers) at a time when unemployment was still very high. What they found was that the vast majority of people in this area were not just unemployed...they were unemployable. They couldn't read, didn't have rudimentary math skills (ie couldn't subtract an old meter reading from a new one)...so...while bizness had a >need< for blue collar unskilled, society had failed to provide even the most basic skills to the people and both bizness and the people were left with a need.
These types of issues will destroy us long before >bizness< does.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #13,928
10/18/01 4:16:23 AM
|
Are you describing, endorsing or wishing?
And is what you describe above - what you deem is operative today? Or believe will / ought to be operative by and by?
Again your examples subordinate society / all of life! (animals as chattels, all else as 'material' - including manpower) - to economic theory, macro, mini or micro. The societal failure! [your phrase!] is that 'it' didn't meet the contract requirements for the larger authority: bizness!! Bizness had no obligation to inhabitants' skill-sets beyond: cherry picking those appropriate to its initial product; certainly no incentive to build a different one.
(Corollary: can we 'afford' a surfeit of toys we cannot build except at the cost of - destruction of everything from the (now) unmaintained infrastructure and - of any job stability except for the smaller and smaller minority?)
I repeat, the above is tantamount to saying more than approximately:
The 'purpose' of life IS to meet a bizness agenda. !!
What else do you mean by, 'societal failure'?
Such an idea would, however - explain the utter disconnect from social reality, of the behavior of increasingly concentrated mega-Corporations, and the widening gap between the obscenely rich and the huge number of persons with 0 net worth.
(I'm sure you can find the numbers for those with [-] net 'worth', factor in the absence of savings - a recent Murican habit, and note the direction of the 1st derivative of that wealth distribution curve)
I can think of few dystopias from my sourcebook -- much more robotic than the above: 'efficiency' / time-motion obsession / unlimited consumption for its own sake / subordination of the vast majority to the whim of an elite.
That's not what anyone came here to try to build, nor what was operative here as recently as 30 years ago. It is a grotesque parody of the various principles of the Founding Mothers, however often mouthed still.
I'm not sure how long the cannon-fodder would fight new wars to maintain such a structure.. as and when the realization dawned - despite the manic noise level of distractions intended to keep the flock docile.
Are you sure you read your macro- text right, as to priorities? Please verify:
First: the desires of the Corporations must be met.
Second: the needs of the living non-robotic inhabitants, as and only if - they fulfill the demands of the Corporations.
Third: inhabitants may not modify the Corporation rules, to alter this priority, or decide how national wealth shall be distributed ie theoretically yes; in long practice: no.
That it? Is that Murica 2K according to your hymnal?
Ashton
Dismal may be too kind a word; how about Diabolical?
|
Post #13,938
10/18/01 8:08:18 AM
|
Aren't you putting de SCART before the hobby-horse?
OK, so Ashton's said most of this already... But, I feel it is important that it be said in different-style prose, too. (And, hopefully, I might add something besides a pure translation. If nothing else, some may find it nice to know that someone who, just like you, has Studied Economics at a Fancy Universitah can disagree...) So, it sure *looks* like you've got it all pretty much bass-ackwards here, BeeP: Is >free enterprise< the final answer. Maybe not...but its the closest we've come to getting an A so far. Uh... The "final answer" to *what*? "Life, the Universe, and Everything"?!? It might not have been what you meant (but judging from the rest of your text, it is -- see below), but it sure seems as if you're seeing the economy as the *end* result, the good we're striving for. It's not, it's just a means. The whole economy enchilada, be it a "free enterprise" market or a "socialist/communist" command economy or stone-age barter -- it's all just about providing the resources for us (people individually, and society as a whole) to *really* _do_ something with. That's all it is; a means to an end. Not an end in itself. BUT...the society as a whole plays a factor as well. This is precisely, exactly, 100-percent, 180 degrees, WRONG. You're subordinating *society as a whole* to the Holy Free Market (or, in wider terms, to the economy), and that's upside-down, ass-backwards, running in reverse, the tail wagging the dog. It should be, " Society blah blah ... but the economy [plays a role / is a factor] as well". The one example I can give of societal failure impacting bizness... Yup, this clinches it. Not that it isn't true, of course -- let me hasten to add -- but how this shows the style of your argument: From the whole tone of your epistle, it transpires that "society" has no higher function than to serve "The Market" (or, again, the economy (whatever form it may be)). That's wrong. It is the economy that is a part of, and subordinate to, society. NOT[*] the other way around. ...while bizness had a >need< [...] society had failed to provide... Heh -- never mind the Cremlologist examination of your "tone"; you're bloody well spelling it out. It's not the science of economy that's dismal, it's the perspective all too many people seem to have on it that is.
*: Note to Mike H: At least it's not bold-face... Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #13,955
10/18/01 10:19:23 AM
10/18/01 5:14:09 PM
|
Boy did you guys miss my point.
Probably because I didn't make it very well, huh?
In NO WAY do I subordinate society to free-enterprise. Free-enterprise (bizness) is the choice that >this< society chose to use to conduct its material trade. And not even in its purest form...because this society has at least recognized some of its areas of failure. So with that choice...society has created a need upon itself...to prepare its members to live with that choice.
So...
Society has not failed bizness...which is how my point came across...society has failed >itself< by not preparing the members of society to survive within its own framework.
This society (Merka) has adopted a slightly bastardized version of capitalism to conduct its affairs. It has worked better than any other currently available choice. Perhaps it has a shorter half-life..and free-enterprise is the actual culprit causing societal decay...
I don't think thats the case...and precisely for the reasons you guys are whacking me over the head with...there is more to society than its business model.
Don't have a cow man...
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Edited by bepatient
Oct. 18, 2001, 05:14:09 PM EDT
|
Post #13,970
10/18/01 12:12:41 PM
|
I didn't study Econ, but I'm not following this.
In response to the criticism that you have things backwards, that you have society subordinate to free enterprise, you post:
"Free-enterprise (bizness) is the choice that >this< society chose to use to conduct its material trade...Society has not failed bizness...which is how my point came across...society has failed >itself< by not preparing the members of society to survive within its own framework."
So, the point remains the same. That is, "Society failed to prepare its people for survival in a free market" or "Society failed to prepare its people to be productive in a free market".
Seems a minor nit, but then, I didn't study economics.
bcnu,
Mikem
who doesn't worry about little elements of R, except for point-set topology, where they're all r ... (okay, some have subscripts) ;0)
|
Post #14,006
10/18/01 3:31:04 PM
|
It may be a minor nit....
...but I think it changes the meaning quite a bit.
This country...as a subset of the global society...(hereinafter known for this discussion as "society") chose an economic model to use for the conduct of its interactions between its members and other subset societies.
In making that choice..."society" committed itself to the support of that model. It is NOT the only thing involved in the support of society...even if it is a pretty big part.
Another aspect of "society" is the goal of education of its members. In the US...the goal of education is not only the simple goal of raising self-awareness...but the goal of preparation and indoctrination of the membership in the ways of society. Part of that goal MUST be the preparation of its members for survival in "society's" choice of an economic model.
So the change of meaning is in that statement. Society failed itself by failing to educate its members to survive within itself.
This does NOT place society subservient to its economic model. It simply makes society responsible for its choice of conduct.
Obviously, Soviet society's model was completely different. Thus, the goals of the other societal aspects were different...because they were designed to support a different view of how its members should interact. And...since soviet society fell...obviously that society failed itself...in many ways...and so drastically as to collapse itself.
Hell, France has a completely different system of education based upon their economic system. Apprenticeship's and other craft oriented development is much more important to them than to us. Our focus is more on college and higher education.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #14,017
10/18/01 4:00:52 PM
|
Much better!
BTW, Germany is also still pretty big on apprenticeships and stuff... Sweden, OTOH, has gone all-out on vocational schools -- only, in the name of Holy Equality At Least In Names, they're known as the practical programs of Senior High...
But those countries, including France, don't have all that much of a different "economic system"; it's just the degree of "bastardisation" that is a little higher than in yours... And it's debatable (Well, *I*'ll gladly debate you on it, anyway! :-) which degree is the "best"; whether your claim that yours is the "best" compromise holds up.
But those are just differences in degree, at least for the most part.
Oh, BTW, there was an LRPD that called for you: "At the tone, please leave a message. *beep*" :-)
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #14,036
10/18/01 5:12:36 PM
|
Wow...my very own LRPD...*blush*
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #14,116
10/19/01 2:23:59 AM
|
Seemed more a dripping thorn.. howsomeever -
I hereby retract any inference that you might once have been locked in a room with three dark-complected guys (one named Osama bin-A-Smith) given a few shots, had brain removed, laundered and replaced with..
a Marchant calculator replacing the hypothalamus and a bearer bond replacing the pineal gland.
As to the chicken-egg question re *chosen?? mercantile calculus VS [that usually called life], I will continue to assert that there is growing evidence that the calculus does not (what's the phrase.. promote the general welfare). A flawed system has instead permitted a recursive mechanism by which the already fat may, and do, with consummate ease: extract increasing portions of [all there is] both in material and in power/control .. in all nuances.
* was that like: the Social Contract, say?
Since it is axiomatic that the two concepts must mesh, by your definition; it appears we must next and soon:
1) Alter the the crass mercantile number processing, especially with a focus towards curtailing the growing concentration into mega-corps / mini-governments - consequent homogenization of all 'biz-inefficient' differences across many meanings (both things and ideas). OR
2) Reprogram the inhabitants / redefine life so as to better fit this wondrous Free Market chimera-thingie, so beloved of the folk who like generating systems out of math concepts: because they can - and because it's fun to pretend that the map is 'real'ly the territory. (Numbers are so much neater than messy humans.)
Of the two main choices, well ... obviously some might want to do a bit of both. But the trend is toward pure-2) in any suited meetings, when their notes sometimes seep out into the \ufffdther.
Who gets to exercise power? - that is the question. And who among the most-powerful are willing to cede back: that which they have arrogated to selves via the above recursive mechanism, seen so clearly at play re Messrs. Billy n' Bally?
War - as in actual revolution? Anything less.. for the less macho billionaires? Would we have to kill all the market researchers, economists - not just the lawyers? CIEIOs with a bounty? Swiss bank accounts? Hmmm - declare them Terrorists because -- [similar ends].
How do they address such issues in post-grad mercantile courses these days? At all? (My bet: it isn't even on the class list. It's someone Else's problem)
Ahh - under Terraforming, perhaps?
Ashton
still not sure about that pineal, Bill..
You seem to Like 'conserving' this status, pretty quo (?)
|
Post #14,016
10/18/01 4:00:13 PM
|
OK, sorry -- I was going to ask, but must have forgotten:
So you were speaking in a narrower context, focusing on the "How do we run the economy?" bit of society only?
If so, then no quarrel -- then I'm with you all the way. But yes, it could have benefited from being spelled out.
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
