the government could easily have controlled the greed. unfortunely, when you try, people who know not of what they speak start screaming about free market economys. clue camel guys, a powerful single industrial leader destroys the free market as surely as the most socialist government controls would.
On 7/29/05, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > Edmund Storms wrote: > > > >> The complication I was addressing is based on the need to make a > >> policy decision based on many conflicting possibilities. The number of > >> these possibilities is increasing, as it always the case in every > >> country, from classical Greek times to Germany under Hitler. > > > > > > Honestly, I do not see this happening. Policy decisions and economics > > have been complicated throughout history. I do not see why they are more > > complicated today. > > Well, let me provide a few examples. Never before was a "wrong" > decision able to eliminate most life on earth. We now have at least > three ways to do this - by nuclear weapons, by bioweapons, and by > ignoring growing CO2 in the atmosphere. I get the impression that > policy makers have no understanding of these dangers, especially the > Bush administration. > > Never before have the economics of the world been so inner rated and > complicated. In the past a company, located in a particular country, > made something using local labor and materials. A simple ledger could > be used to keep track of their activities. Now a company is located all > over the world, it sells its products everywhere, and make the products > in many locations. They use money from many sources, including debt > based on derivatives, and other new and complex systems. Some companies > are more wealthy and powerful than many governments. The activities can > only be understood using large computers. > > Never before has scientific knowledge been so extensive and complicated. > Knowledge is growing so rapidly that it can only be organized using > computers and no single individual can understand the general field of > scientific knowledge. This was not always true. People we elect to > manage this system are generally scientific and economic idiots, as > recent decisions demonstrate. > > > There were often times in history when people could > > not tell whether policies were helping or hurting. The British > > experience with the East India Company and later with their colonies was > > so complicated that economists and historians still argue about whether > > the British made money or lost money on the deal, and it is even more > > difficult to determine whether the people in India benefited more than > > they were harmed. > > Yes, and this is a good example of my point. As a result of this > complexity, the British Empire Died. England is a much different country > now. The development of the computer has made a greater amount of > complexity understandable in recent times. However, even this tool is > now being overwhelmed. In addition, the educational system has not kept > up in the US so that an increasing number of voters are totally ignorant > of basic information. This ignorance produces confusion and anxiety, so > they turn to religion, something they can understand and from which > they can obtain emotional support. They can't understand or control the > threats - maybe God, if asked properly, well help. > > (There was no question that a small class of people in > > England made a fortune on the colonies.) Pre-modern Japanese governments > > gathered immense quantities of data from the population, and they > > micromanaged every aspect of the economy and millions of people's lives. > > The inventoried every major tree in the country. They specified the type > > of cloth that every class of person was allowed to make into clothing, > > how many suits of clothes people would be allowed to own. They spelled > > out how big their houses could be, how they were designed, what kind of > > wood was allowed in each type of house. They decreed what kind of dishes > > people of different classes and occupations would be allowed to use. > > They did not just make these rules; they enforced them, with inspectors, > > paperwork galore, centralized record keeping and so on. This was an > > incredibly complicated undertaking. > > I suggest the effort was designed to reduce the complexity for the > general population. Ordinary people in Japan did not need to know very > much, they only had to follow the rules. The people in charge had to > understand the system very well, but these people could be given > sufficient education. The US takes an ordinary C student and puts him > in charge of a system that is very complex and open ended, with few > rules. It is no wonder we are in trouble. > > > > I assume that the US congressmen are smarter than they look, they > > understand that ethanol is an energy sink, and they voted for it because > > they are corrupted by payola from big agriculture. > > They may be smarter than they look, but they are not smarter than they > act. Granted, corruption is common place. However, even obvious self > interest does not seem to be acknowledged. Why would a smart person who > needed votes from workers in his state support NAFTA? > > This is nothing new. > > The U.S. Congress has often voted for economically dysfunctional and > > unfair taxes and benefits. The ancient Roman legislators blocked the > > construction of better channels and improved freight landing docks and > > warehouses in Rome, because they want to keep a choke-hold on the > > importation of food at critical times of the year, to drove up prices. > > It is likely they were paid off by by corrupt shipping interests who > > wanted to gouge the public by keeping supplies tight and prices high. > > And we all know what happened to Rome. > > > During the fake California energy crisis of 2000, Enron and other > > companies did the same thing, and the US fossil fuel companies > > accomplished exactly the same thing this week: they engineered an energy > > bill that rewards them with billions of dollars while choking off the > > development of competing technology and efficient automobiles. They even > > managed to slide in a provision that kills the development of > > energy-efficient overhead fans by nullifying standards set by the > > California legislature. (This is a gift to Home Depot -- a major > > contributor.) > > Greed will always be present. The problem comes when complexity is so > great that greed can not be kept under control. ENRON is a good example > of a greed driven company that created a system that was so complicated > that government could not control it. Only bankruptcy stopped the > greed, not the government. ENRON could have milked the energy system for > many years if they had controlled their hubris. > > Ed > > > > It does not seem complicated to me. I would call it corrupt, > > dysfunctional, treasonous, and a lot of other nasty words, but not complex. > > > > - Jed > > > > > > > > -- "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
