The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
European Tribune - A Funny Thing Happened At The G20
What I see happening here in the US is that austerity is being mobilized to protect existing privilege.
austerity for the proles...good times in the compound.
famine in the fields, let the peasants starve, deliveries of foie gras to the castle will proceed as per.
austerity is their last resort, accept the screw, and relative freedom will be yours.
history indicates they will go too far and the compound become a bunker, history also indicates that the same forces buffering them from public rage now, will betray them eventually, for fear of that rage for them and their families, who will not all fit in to the bunker.
simple math! 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
History also indicates a thousand-year-long dark age is possible. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
The democratization of knowledge does give me hope that we have the ability to build the coherent alternative vision that is necessary to beat back these elite-friendly economic policies. And the world will live as one
But suppose it got bad. Suppose it got one notch worse than you can contemplate. I can actually live with the prospect of a massive die-off, even a massive die-off with ecological collapse. The world didn't end with the European black death of the 14th Century. What I think I have a serious problem with is a collapse of civilisation to the point where knowledge is lost. Even worse, where science and technology themselves are blamed for the disaster.
I can actually live with the prospect of a massive die-off, even a massive die-off with ecological collapse. The world didn't end with the European black death of the 14th Century.
What I think I have a serious problem with is a collapse of civilisation to the point where knowledge is lost. Even worse, where science and technology themselves are blamed for the disaster.
Maybe what this diary of mine is getting at is that the ET Think Tank idea is still a very good one. And the world will live as one
The time is now. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
So, I can see a change in the economic structure, or more probable, the reality will strike the predatory group and force the masters of the universe to face other masters of the universe.
I also think that the real problem is not taking rights from workers, but keeping financial and asset power in front of wages. they would not mind if everybody grows and wages also grow.
if they go after future income, privatization of pension plans , etc.. the system becomes easy to break.
The problem here is that all the masters of the universe want the same thing now, keep a small growth defleted economy, but if reality hits again (Keynesian reality) they may realize that not all of them want the same thing.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
Right now I think I need to be convinced that they cannot create a high-tech feudal system. Why is a cyberpunk dystopia impossible? By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
Cities have resource areas from which they draw the raw goods and foodstuffs required for urban living. Destruction or interdiction of those supplies must adversely affect the ability of the urban area to survive. Some resources are more vital than others. For California water is one. Cut the water and SoCal can't exist for more than a week.
If the people whose land the California Aqueduct passes have to chose between watering their crops and themselves or letting the water flow on to LA I suspect enough will decide to grab what they can and let LA go hang.
Even cyberpunks have to drink and, occasionally, take a shower. ;-) She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
The same thing can easily happen within the metropolis. Provide stable deliveries to certain segments of the population - Beverly Hills, Malibu, the Westside, Rancho Santa Margarita - and leave the other, poorer, less white places with less reliable deliveries. And the world will live as one
What they lack is imagination and a willingness to stop digging themselves ever deeper into a mess. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
"Ton" is not a metaphor nor an exaggeration.
US Golf courses are water wasting toxic stews built and maintained for the oblivious. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Pasatiempo/Santa Cruz: Same thing, overpumping the local watershed and aquifers. They too have probably overshot their carrying capacity and will need to turn to desal.
Just wait until global warming hits with full force and reduces the size of the Sierra snowpack. CA will get more rainfall, but can't store it all. The snowpack is the most important reservoir in the state and the rest of CA is soon going to lose it. And the world will live as one
AT&T's new data pricing scheme strikes me as a form of this - or at least a 21st century version of sharecropping. And the world will live as one
Punishment, rewards, and expropriation Masters also rewarded slaves who performed will with patches of land ranging up to a few acres for each afamily. Slaves grew marketable crops on these lands, the proceeds of which accrued to them. On the Texas plantation of Julian S. Devereux, slaves operating such land produced as much as two bales of cotton per patch Devereux marketed their crop along with his own. In a good year some of the slaves earned in excess of $100 per annum for their families. Devereux set up accounts to which he credited the proceeds of the sales. Slaves drew on these accounts when they wanted cash or when they wanted Devereux to purchase closthing, pots, pans, tobacco, or similar goods for them. Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. William Jemison, an Alabama planter, entered into the following agreement with his bondsmen. "[Y]ou shall have two thirds of the corn and cotton made on the plantation and as much of the wheat as will reward you for the sowing it. I also furnish you with provisions for this year. When your crop is gathered, on third is to be set aside for me. You are then to pay your overseer his part and pay me what I furnish, clothe yourselves, pay your own taxes and doctor's fee with all expenses of the farm. You are to be no expense to me, but render to me one third of the produce and what I have loaned you. You have the use of the stock and plantation tools. You are to return them as good as they are and the plantation to be kept in good repair, and what clear money you make shall be divided equally amongst you in a fair proportion agreeable to the services rendered by each hand. There will be an account of all lost time kept, and those that earn most shall have most." [Engerman and Fogel, Time on the Cross, p 148 - 153]
Masters also rewarded slaves who performed will with patches of land ranging up to a few acres for each afamily. Slaves grew marketable crops on these lands, the proceeds of which accrued to them. On the Texas plantation of Julian S. Devereux, slaves operating such land produced as much as two bales of cotton per patch Devereux marketed their crop along with his own. In a good year some of the slaves earned in excess of $100 per annum for their families. Devereux set up accounts to which he credited the proceeds of the sales. Slaves drew on these accounts when they wanted cash or when they wanted Devereux to purchase closthing, pots, pans, tobacco, or similar goods for them.
Occasionally planters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. William Jemison, an Alabama planter, entered into the following agreement with his bondsmen.
"[Y]ou shall have two thirds of the corn and cotton made on the plantation and as much of the wheat as will reward you for the sowing it. I also furnish you with provisions for this year. When your crop is gathered, on third is to be set aside for me. You are then to pay your overseer his part and pay me what I furnish, clothe yourselves, pay your own taxes and doctor's fee with all expenses of the farm. You are to be no expense to me, but render to me one third of the produce and what I have loaned you. You have the use of the stock and plantation tools. You are to return them as good as they are and the plantation to be kept in good repair, and what clear money you make shall be divided equally amongst you in a fair proportion agreeable to the services rendered by each hand. There will be an account of all lost time kept, and those that earn most shall have most."
[Engerman and Fogel, Time on the Cross, p 148 - 153]
And you will learn to like it, this master plan of modern monetary policy, or you will discover an alternative means to make your livelihood and master it. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
"Masters also rewarded slaves who performed well with free development tools. Developers produced marketable apps with their tools, some of the proceeds of which accrued to them. On the Apple plantation of Steve Jobs, developers operating such land produced as many as three or four apps per year, and Jobs marketed their products along with his own. In a good year some of the slaves earned in excess of $1000 per annum for their families. Jobs set up accounts to which he credited the proceeds of the sales. Developers drew on these accounts when they wanted cash or when they wanted to purchase clothing, pots, pans, tobacco, or new hardware. Occasionally masters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. Steve Jobs entered into the following agreement with his bondsmen: "[Y]ou shall have 70% of the App Store revenue and 60% of iAd sales. I also furnish you with software updates and beta versions for this year. [...] Those that earn most shall have most."
On the Apple plantation of Steve Jobs, developers operating such land produced as many as three or four apps per year, and Jobs marketed their products along with his own. In a good year some of the slaves earned in excess of $1000 per annum for their families. Jobs set up accounts to which he credited the proceeds of the sales. Developers drew on these accounts when they wanted cash or when they wanted to purchase clothing, pots, pans, tobacco, or new hardware.
Occasionally masters even devised elaborate schemes for profit sharing with their slaves. Steve Jobs entered into the following agreement with his bondsmen:
"[Y]ou shall have 70% of the App Store revenue and 60% of iAd sales. I also furnish you with software updates and beta versions for this year. [...] Those that earn most shall have most."
He invokes LOCKE but doesn't relate archetypal property legitimized by GOD, ROME, or RES PUBLICA to any argument either to refute Holbo's disquisition of a paper written by Samuel Freeman, "Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2002), 105-151. (Holbo's citation.) or Bryan Caplan's thesis of "libertarian nostalgia" in "How Free Were American Women in the Gilded Age?"; whence arises Holbo's attempt to distinguish thresholds of tolerance for liberty among authors of libertarian political philosophy for whom the expression of property rights represents a fundamental, ontological conflict between individual and group --corporate or industrial-- enterprise. (Let us note momentarily how the political issue of property from sex that inspired this cross-talk sure as hell didn't survive the voyage to ET and move on.)
Then, Brad dismembers Holbo's article to disguise the coherence of Holbo's thesis ( what are thick and thin libertarian ideologies?) so that Freeman's statements are indistiguishable from Holbo's in the pull-quotes he's provided.
But wait: There is more of the sophic humor one might expect from a professor of macroeconomic revelation who's also, apparently, averse to Oliver Williams and Veblen. Brad whets his accusation of Holbo's disingenous thesis by alluding to his own citation to LOCKE and hagiography of (paranthetically, theocratic) ROMAN antiquity: "That's how serfdom got started. The Roman Empire collapses...."
The jiggin' must stop, people.
Today, right now, the state's interest in you is a claim of ownership of your person. So.
How would you differentiate authoritarianism and socialism?
How would you differentiate so-called liberals' exhortations for "adult" government from so-called authoritarians' deprecations of "nanny state"? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
The economic significance of the property rights in man In recent years economists have extended the use of the concept of capital beyond its usual application to machines, building, and othe inanimate objects. They have applied the concept of capital to the wealth in herent in the capacity of human beings to perform labor, calling such wealth "human captial." This extension of the concept seemed odd at first because it was applied not to explain behavior in nineteenth-century slave societies but in twentieth-century free societies. Nobody doubts that human beings were a form of capital in slave society. Slaves who wer traded commanded prices as specific and well-defined as thos on land, buildings, or machines. Since prices of slaves varied by age, health, skill level, and geographic location, it is clear that the vocational training of slaves or their relocation from on region to another were just as much forms of investment as the erection of a building or extension of a fence. What made the application of the concept of human capital to free societies seem odd is that free people are not traded in well-defined markets and hence do not command market prices. However, the absence of explicit market prices on human being usually prevenets their capital values from being mad explicit. Legal reconition of the fact that free people continue to have capital values takes place whenever courts grant cash awards to the widows of men killed in industrial accidents. The amount of such an award usually turns on a debate regarding the capital value of the deceased at the time of his death. Viewed in this light, the crucial difference between slave and free society rests no on the existence of pproperty rights in man, in human capital, but on who may hold title to such property rights. Under freedom, each person holds title, more or less, to his own human capital. He is prevented by law from selling the title to this capital except for quite limited periods of time and then only under a very restricted set of conditions. Moreover, one generally cannot sell the title to the human capital of others, or if such sales are permitted (as in the cases of the contracts of movie and athletic stars, or as in the case of the parents or guardians of minors), the title is transferred only for relatively short intervals of time and under strictly defined limitations. In slave societies, however, a large number of individuals were permanently deprived of the title to their own human capital. Those who held the titles ( the maters) were virtuall unrestricted by law in the abilitity to sell them. And ownership of a female slave brought with it title, in perpetuity, to all her descendants. How did the special way in which the antebellum South treated the matter of property rights in man affect the economic behavior of that society? What special economic advantage, if any, did the system of property rights which prevailed under slaver give the slaveowners? How did this system of property rights affect the real income of the masters, of slaves of free Southerners, and of free Northerners? While these are not new questions, certain of the findings of the cliometricians suggest new answers. Economies of scale in sourthern agriculture were achieved exlusively with slave labor. While the urban demand for slave labor was quite elastic, the agricultural demand was very inelastic. ... [Engerman and Fogel, p232 -238]
In recent years economists have extended the use of the concept of capital beyond its usual application to machines, building, and othe inanimate objects. They have applied the concept of capital to the wealth in herent in the capacity of human beings to perform labor, calling such wealth "human captial." This extension of the concept seemed odd at first because it was applied not to explain behavior in nineteenth-century slave societies but in twentieth-century free societies. Nobody doubts that human beings were a form of capital in slave society. Slaves who wer traded commanded prices as specific and well-defined as thos on land, buildings, or machines. Since prices of slaves varied by age, health, skill level, and geographic location, it is clear that the vocational training of slaves or their relocation from on region to another were just as much forms of investment as the erection of a building or extension of a fence.
What made the application of the concept of human capital to free societies seem odd is that free people are not traded in well-defined markets and hence do not command market prices. However, the absence of explicit market prices on human being usually prevenets their capital values from being mad explicit. Legal reconition of the fact that free people continue to have capital values takes place whenever courts grant cash awards to the widows of men killed in industrial accidents. The amount of such an award usually turns on a debate regarding the capital value of the deceased at the time of his death.
Viewed in this light, the crucial difference between slave and free society rests no on the existence of pproperty rights in man, in human capital, but on who may hold title to such property rights. Under freedom, each person holds title, more or less, to his own human capital. He is prevented by law from selling the title to this capital except for quite limited periods of time and then only under a very restricted set of conditions. Moreover, one generally cannot sell the title to the human capital of others, or if such sales are permitted (as in the cases of the contracts of movie and athletic stars, or as in the case of the parents or guardians of minors), the title is transferred only for relatively short intervals of time and under strictly defined limitations. In slave societies, however, a large number of individuals were permanently deprived of the title to their own human capital. Those who held the titles ( the maters) were virtuall unrestricted by law in the abilitity to sell them. And ownership of a female slave brought with it title, in perpetuity, to all her descendants.
How did the special way in which the antebellum South treated the matter of property rights in man affect the economic behavior of that society? What special economic advantage, if any, did the system of property rights which prevailed under slaver give the slaveowners? How did this system of property rights affect the real income of the masters, of slaves of free Southerners, and of free Northerners? While these are not new questions, certain of the findings of the cliometricians suggest new answers.
Them Who Hath figured-out there was more profit in lending money to ag producers than having anything "real" to do with crop production. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
The key was the availability of industrial work at decent wages. If we lose what's left of that, any newer feudalistic system could be difficult to escape. And the world will live as one
The answer is intentional or co-operative communities. I don't know about pricing in SoCal anymore. In NM's Big City - Albuquerque - four and eight-plexus can be had for around $50,000/apartment at, about, 1,000 sq. ft. per versus $175 sq ft cost for new construction or $175,000 for a comparable single detached dwelling.
Combining basic utility services would save - NM pricing - $50 per unit or $150 to $300 month for water, sewage, and garbage collection and about the same for electric: total (rough) $300 to $600 month.
"Savings," meaning money not duplicatedly disbursed, for the community would range from $2,000 to $10,000 a month and could easily go much higher.
The main problem is financing: banks hate co-operatives and come up with all sorts of bullshit reasons not to lend. Credit Unions used to be more amenable, tho' that may have changed. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
teh problem with cyber-punk sci-fi is the rpoblem of who sustains the whole research-apply-mantainence system. You need a good chunk of the population ofr that. That's makes feudalism impossible.
Antoher proof is that the second industrial revolution destroyed the feudalism structure.. and I think the reason is exactly the same. The invention of invention destroys feudalism. DeLong has a full course in his webpage. I think he has there all teh links regarding the transition and how it would have been with a new research structure.
This is not to confuse with high unequality..which you can have (what percentage of the population you ned to sustain th system.. Brazil an ohter countries give a hint..a round 50%..you can certainly have the rest living on begging) but I would say that then the system is highly unstable.
The last time the industrial world went belly flopping it was pulled out by a combination of the destruction of plant by bombing and other destruction during WW 2 and an immediate rise in non-working population, the Baby Boom.
Now we've got excess industrial capacity out of our ears and a workforce slowly losing, or having in the first place, any ability to purchase the goods produced.
And we can't continue to endlessly throw cheap energy at the problem.
I can see the potential for industrial feudalism to arise. I don't see it persisting as there's too many contradictions between the non-innovative mind set one has to inculcate in any highly stratified society and the "inventing invention" nature of a technological industrial economy.
She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Couple with the cultural and intellectual deficiencies of Roman Catholicism and one has the recipe for stagnation. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
I have a doomery view, and assume we'll see another major war, which will be a game changer for people's attitudes. I'm not even sure the neo-aristos are the problem - it's more about how they have mindshare than the fact that they exist.
And in Toobz world, mindshare is going to be an increasingly fragile thing.
That wouldn't be stable if the technical caste found itself some political ambition.
The modern corporate structure and the narrow specialisation of technical specialists has been quite successful in suppressing political ambition (and not teaching the relevant political skills to those who may have any such ambition).
Yes, the technicians can make the system stop working. But why should they? Their feudal overlords provide them with a steady income, access to their favourite toys and enough excuses to ignore the huddled masses.
The crucial point would be to isolate the technical specialists from direct exposure to poverty - as long as they, their families and their immediate surroundings are kept pretty, it is a simple matter to instill the kind of smug superiority and/or convenient excuses for inaction that permit people to ignore widespread human misery.
Oh, it would not work perfectly - there would be dissenters. But the genius of modern managed democracy, from the perspective of the feudal elite, is that dissenters are alright, because the oppression is not sufficiently self-evident that individual dissent can cause a cascading reaction.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
But it's a feature of feudal systems that repression spreads, and status differentials continue to increase.
It goes against every leadership caste instinct to give mere technical underlings a decent slice of the pie, for the same reason that it goes against their instincts to pay workers a decent wage so that can continue to participate in the economic game.
MBA culture is inherently authoritarian. It buries the motivation under economic rather than racist or political rhetoric. But whatever the language, a key motivation is that it hurts to share.
So I wouldn't expect leaderships caste members to be capable of the self control or strategic thinking required to keep a technician caste fat and happy - not for long, anyway.
This is already happening in the US, where science, engineering and IT jobs have virtually no security.
Now - imagine the possibility of adventurous technical types building trap doors or dead man switches into critical systems.
The means to do a lot of damage are already there. So far, it's only the false rhetoric of inclusion that's preventing actual rebellion. And in the US at least, that rhetoric is unlikely to still be convincing by the end of the decade.
Freenet is a decentralized, censorship-resistant distributed data store originally designed by Ian Clarke.[4] According to Clarke, Freenet aims to provide freedom of speech through a peer-to-peer network with strong protection of anonymity; as part of supporting its users' freedom, Freenet is free and open source software.[5] Freenet works by pooling the contributed bandwidth and storage space of member computers to allow users to anonymously publish or retrieve various kinds of information. Freenet has been under continuous development since 2000.
And again, there is a big difference between large inequalities and a feudal system.
In a feudal system you can not have 20 % with very good resources and 30% more with proper working conditions. In a feudal system, the cast is 5% of the population and all the services and goods are performed by the masses.
So afeudal system is jsut not possible.
The reason why I think the inequality system is unstable is precisely because the cast is not smart enough to keep the unequal system under control and because aggregate demand fluctuates strongly leading to large changes in the power structure of the elite. I only ahve to look at the inequalities in the US at the beginning of the century or Brazil in the 80-90... they al finished.
On the other hand , the semi-feudal system in an economy based on agriculutre is going smoothly in Central America.. an the rich there atre just not that rich.. and they always emigrate. So tehya re not really the global elite... imagine a feudal lord in El Salvador without a place like Houston or europe to go for the medical treatment, the computer updates...
we'll see another major war,
the one on gaia isn't enough?
where do you think, TBG, and is it a WW? obviously our little skirmishes in afpak and iraq don't count... 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
why do you think there's all the paranoia about chipping?
the tech is there, all they need is enough shock, for the new doctrine. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Mostly by bible-thumping end-timers or survivalist militia types. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 2 2 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 21 10 comments
by gmoke - Nov 12 6 comments
by Oui - Dec 5
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 32 comments
by Oui - Dec 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 22 comments
by Oui - Dec 26 comments
by Oui - Dec 112 comments
by Oui - Dec 14 comments
by Oui - Nov 306 comments
by Oui - Nov 289 comments
by Oui - Nov 276 comments
by gmoke - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 268 comments
by Oui - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 2513 comments
by Oui - Nov 2318 comments
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 222 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2110 comments
by Oui - Nov 2120 comments