Re: What caused the world economy to collapse,article link

On Feb 1, 10:06 am, Democracy Highlander
<democracy.highlan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let consider 2 countries C1, and C2. Both of them produce and consume
bread and wine. C1 is 2% more efficient at making bread than C2 and C2
is 2% more efficient as C1 at producing wine.

Case 1: C1 and C2 keep their own localized economies and trade only
surpluses and use protectionism to keep both bread and wine
productions.

Case 2: C1 and C2 implement total free-trade, C1 specialize on bread
and C2 only wine and then trade with each other. Because of
advantages, they both consume 2% more bread and wine.

Case 2 (Globalized economy) seems definitely better to case 1
(Protectionist economies).

Now, let consider a plague of locust in C1 destroying all their crop.

Case 1: C1 is left without food. They appeal to humanitarian aid from
C2 and also agree to trade most of their wine for some bread. C2 help/
trade with them and give them enough bread (1/3 of C2 production) to
survive till next year.

Case 2: Both C1 and C2 are left without food. If they are the only
major players into the global economy of liberty loving countries. Now
it is a good time for their enemies C3 and C4 to  attack and subdue
them both. Bye bye freedom, we will always remember you.

.................................

For many many years, from when the systems started to become complex,
the engineers knew that as a complex a system, as easy can fail. In
order to handle the ever growing complexity, engineers started to
develop complex systems in independent modules, able to be designed
and operate  independent of each other, and they just communicate
using a small and well managed interface. That way, if a sub-system
fail it crash does not affect other sub-systems. The supervisor module
will detect the failure of a sub-system and try to restart/reboot it.

This modularization does indeed introduce a lot of inefficiencies. The
computer used for flight control can also handle communications very
well, but it never will. The reason is that the engineers want to
prevent a potential crash of the comm module to make the plane
unresponsive to pilot commands. If the comm module crash, the co-pilot
just turn it off-on without the risk that the pilot lose the control.
This safety feature however, imply multiple computers, with their own
power sources, cases, heat sinks etc. It is less efficient but is able
to handle failures. It goes so far as to have duplicate subsystems for
the most critical components like flight computers.

But, that inefficieny isn't always so bad. Since it's also why that
the actual
non-braindead engineers also cut-off communications with many
buisness people,
like the New York-Tower-of-Bull*** G.M and G.E. "Efficiency
Experts" ENITRELY
And started working on Gas Turbine Engines, Autonomous Vehicles,
Biodiesel,
Neo Wind Energy, Digital-Terrain Mapping, GPS, Drones, Cruise
Missiles,
Pv Cell Energy, Microcomputers, RISC Processors, C++ debugging,
Parallel Processors,
Cell Phones, Holographic Memory, HDTV, CD+rw, CD-rom, CD-ram DVD-
tw, DVD-rom,
DVD-ram, Optical Computers, non-Chrysler Mufflers, non-Ford
Robots, neo-D Cell Batteries,
neo-Banking, neo-Printers, and neo-Publishing.










One can only wonder how an economist proponent of globalization will
propose to consolidate all the computers of a plane into a powerful PC
running an off the shelve Microsoft Windows Vista - Home Edition for
"efficiency" purpose :-) Oppose any "useless redundancy" because this
is not what the market wants and even globalize all the electric
circuits on the plane on a single big fuse, instead of that "wasteful"
fuse panel with independent circuits.

If the financial system would not been as tightly integrated, and
globalized and so consolidated in huge large financial institutions
(too big to fail) the sub-prime problems in US would been visible much
much sooner. A number of small banks fail, our friends from England,
Germany, Canada, Australia or yes, even France would been able to help
and nothing bad happen.

Unfortunate, instead of having a large number of small local/national
banks we allowed a wave of huge consolidation of the financial power
in institutions "too big to fail". We gave them the right to globalize
at their will and by this to induce unhealthy inter-connects  into all
our friends financial systems (more circuits on a single fuse).
By this, when the short-circuit happen in US, there was available
enough raw power to
keep the wire running hotter and hotter until it started a fire
everywhere in the system.

.........................................................

Looking at this economic collapse we shall start to think. Efficiency
is not always the only purpose:

Yes, we can increase the production with 2% but we risk to loose our
freedom for that. Do we really want to pay that price price ?

We can reduce at half the weight of the avionics, and that will
increase the fuel efficiency with 1% for every plane. But for that 1%
increase we are going to have every one in five planes crashing and
killing everybody on board.  Do we really want to pay that price
price ?

We can globalize our economy, giving free-trade rights to corporations
to do at will whatever they want without any government control and
supervision. But by doing this we will have something worst than Great
Depression, a world wide systemic collapse that have the power to be a
civilization ending event. Do we really want to pay that price
price ?

.

Quantcast