Re: Engineers Pay, world wide
From: gwhite (gwhite_at_hocuspocus_ti.com)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: Jim Adney: "Re: using mosfets as rectifiers?"
- Previous message: Michael: "Re: How to listen in on digital communication with AVR (8b uC)"
- In reply to: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Engineers Pay, world wide"
- Next in thread: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Engineers Pay, world wide"
- Reply: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Engineers Pay, world wide"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:24:16 -0700
Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> > Everything is based on the work of others, preferably people who are
> > referred to by their peers as authorities. As I already stated (and
> > you didn't get it), the idea is that some bright folks who dedicated
> > their entire careers to political economy, say you're wrong.
>
> Nonsense. You are *claiming* that *others* say I am wrong. You have
> presented no evidence of this. Its hearsay.
It is not hearsay. It is widely known what the books are about. It is inexpensive and in black and
white print.
The pointers have been provided. You could just read the book reviews on Amazon. The texts are
decidedly anti-socialist (pro-capitalist) manifestos, regardless on your (dis)agreement on the
points. Capitalism (classical liberalism) and socialism are at war with each other. They always
have been.
Reviewer: A reader from Berkeley, California
"...because the book is written in a simple and straightforward manner, any lay person without
training in economics will gain fundamental insight into the structure of the Capitalist system and
the inevitable problems of Socialism."
Reviewer: John A. Zangardi (see more about me) from Northern Virginia
"The test of time had vindicated Milton Friedman. When this book was published, its ideas and
concepts were far from mainstream. Today, the tide has turned decisively in his favor and away from
Keynesianism and corporatism. His critical and thoughtful defense of the marketplace and critique of
socialism laid the groundwork for the resurgence of the American economy. Friedman is not
anti-state, after all he recognizes the need for the state as an impartial umpire. He cautions
against relying to heavily upon state intervention as it leads to a consistent reduction in personal
freedom."
> I am not making any comment whatsoever on the
> possible merits of your citations. I am making a comment on *your*
> argument. Your argment is to present a book title and an authors name.
> This argument is worthless.
I see little utility in either paraphrasing or outright copying to this
newsgroup. As I've said, they disagree with you in black and white.
> I have the education to understand and derive the
> results for myself.
You do not.
> If you don't know their arguments, stop presenting their arguments as
> support to your own.
It is only that our standards for calling ourselves "educated" are
different. Note I'm not really saying "they support my view." I said they are contrary to a
specific statement you made.
> I am not attacking them, my disagreement is with you.
Again, it is in black and white. You need only to purchase the texts to
verify my claim that "some bright folks have contrary ideas." In truth,
that is the best way to do it. I will only pollute in translation. I
welcome you to read the texts and come back and say I'm wrong. I can
handle being wrong, I don't like it any more than anyone else, but it
happens from time to time. On your next visit to California, I'll buy you a glass of nice stout
beer of your choice if I'm wrong.
> > Like I said from the start, I'm not pretending to present "an
> > argument." They've all been written before. We can save a lot of
> > time by referring to the "authorities," since it has all been done
> > before.
>
> You obviously don't understand my point. Arguments based simply on the
> fact that someone is an authority are worthless. You need to present
> what the argument actually says.
I keep telling you that I'm not going to bother with a bunch of paraphrasing. I think that if you
were truly educated in the matter, you would know that Hayek and Friedman disagree with you on the
specific point. It is not under dispute for those with the most rudimentary reading in the field.
Basically I see you as winging it: an untrained amateur. I mean, have fun with it but stop kidding
yourself.
But let me break my own rule just one small bit: Hayek's book dedication is not to his wife, his
children, his mentor,... or whomever, it is "To Socialists of all Parties."
> >> Ahmmm.. maybe so, but not not relevant. I know *enough*, and that's
> >> what matters.
> >
> > I'll hold the reservation of a few pounds of salt on on that. I
> > suspect you'd get crushed quite badly in an argument with a
> > professional in the field of political economy.
>
> No chance whatsoever.
You'll never know in this forum. (No thanks to me, LOL.)
> Certainly, I dont know all of the details, its not my field, but the
> overall principles are pretty simple.
I don't find macroeconomics all that easy. But then I'm an amateur hack
that has no problem admitting it.
> No one does nout for nout. Its
> only the fact that there are a lot of interacting issues that make the
> details complicated.
Of course. It is a social science; social sciences are far more
difficult to get a handle upon than the "hard sciences."
> > Buchanan's work is worthless?
>
> I have no idea, I have not seen his work, ...
Perhaps it is time to bone-up.
> ...and that was not the claim.
>
> The claim is that *your* "appeal to authority" argument is worthless,
> not Buchanan's arguments.
>
> Again, you don't understand the scientific method.
"Scientific method" is not remotely under contention.
> An argument is not
> correct because say, someone *claims* Einstein holds a particular view.
I covered that at the outset: "My point here isn't that "they are unequivocally right..."
Go to the source and benefit from it. Agree or disagree on the content. That agreement or
disagreement was not my concern, nor was it my statement. Why learn calculus on the usenet from
hacks when good books written by career experts are cheaply available?
> The argument must stand on its *own*, irrespective of who states it.
Of course, but irrelevent. I really don't care if you "agree" with Hayek, Von Misis, Friedman....
I'm just saying you made a point they would argue against.
> Secondly, the quoted authority may be in total disagreement with the
> claim being presented. Its easy to say Einstein agrees with me. Its
> another mater to show that that is a true claim.
>
> So, you have failed to show that the quoted author actually *agrees*
> with you view,...
ka> "Second, there is nothing intrinsically wrong
ka> with many aspects of socialism. It has many
ka> attributes that maximise the interests of
ka> individuals."
gw> My point here isn't that "they are unequivocally
gw> right," it is that there are some fairly potent
gw> contrary arguments by folks who know a lot more
gw> about it than you do.
Again, it is not an issue with they and me agreeing on views of political economy -- no such
statement was originally made. It is that they counter a certain statement of yours. They are
respected, even if disagreed with, by critics in their career field.
My so-called "view" goes no further than the rather minor issue of whether or not the referenced
individuals are in any substantial agreement with you, not that "their views are similar to my
views." I have no intention of re-writing their books here in s.e.d. The matter of "substantial
agreement" is not disputed by any one with a rudimentary education in the field, even those who
vehemently disagree with Hayek and Friedmen on the actual matters of substance (maybe _especially_
by those!). In truth, some people have written entire books in counter -- a sort of left-handed
compliment.
> ...or that even if so, the quoted author is correct. You
> have presented no argument for either. I can quote any name you like to
> the cows come home. It means nothing.
In the end you will either self-educate and judge for yourself
(by looking at the books themselves, and yes, even judge my claim they
disagree with you), or persist in ignoring them. I have no care if you
in the end believe I simply appeal to authority, for you are little to
me as I'm sure I am to you. In truth of fact, I am not appealing to
anything, I only state they disagree with your claim. That is the grand
limit of my possible "wrongness" in the matter.
I basically want to force you to read them and judge for yourself. My
views are, to the largest extent, unimportant to anyone but me, and I
can't present the ideas better than the authors themselves. If you
simply wish to end it by dismissing me, that's your call. I think you
would be the loser in that case. My belief is the books are "required
reading" in the field of political economy, regardless of whether or not
anyone agrees with them. (Except if many didn't agree, they would
simply be oddball works destined for the literary junk heap.)
> > I mean, that is the relevence to "special interests," the point that
> > was made and you then responded to. You implied it was false ("get
> > real").
>
> This was a misunderstanding. I made it clear in the follow-up that my
> complaint was that the argument of "special interests", was *itself*
> another special interest argument.
In the academic sense, it certainly is not. Moreover, IF enough folks recognize that governance
with all manner of twist and turns of multitudinous special interests eventually costs them in the
end (not in *their* self-interest), they would be far more willing to ban all manner of it. I put
"if" in caps because as a realist, it recognize it is a very big IF. My view is the more practical
approach is that of the capitalists, just keep the power (economic and thus political) out of the
politician's hands, and the errors will be smaller in most affairs. If the politicians don't have
the power in the first place, then there is limited effectiveness of special interests by design.
> It is usually easy to come up with
> such an argument to support a view based on the view you *want* to
> support, so they are worthless. The point was that I have heard all them
> all before and am bored with them.
If the works of Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan, and on and on and on, were so
trivial and boring, they would not receive so much attention, both pro
and con. I do not find the arguments and counters in this field as
boring, I find them exciting. I find them fascinating.
> > Perhaps our difference is accorded to whether "the system _can_ be
> > abused," as distiguished from "the system _will_ be abused." I guess
> > I tend to be more cynical: I think it is inevitable that it will be
> > abused.
>
> This is not cynicism, this is fact. Of course the system will be abused.
> Its unavoidable. Its basic to Replicator theory. Mutants will always be
> generated such that they will take advantage of the system. You should
> have a good read of my papers on this.
You are a very bright guy. I don't believe this can be disputed.
However, in the matters of economics and political economy, I will not
be sourcing from you. This doesn't at all say I believe you're wrong.
I simply am not likely to spend the opportunity cost in learning your
lingo when a formalized system of study has already been developed to
good maturity (Economics). You could be correct in good part. I don't
know that I would disagree with you much; and this is partly from *some*
of the things you've concluded in more straightforward language.
I do think you have raw talent, and can produce some very nice results, because good results are
certainly not wholly contigent upon formal training. You are not refined through formal exercise.
Once it a while you'll step in a pit otherwise avoidable with a bit of formal training (we could
just call it cursory reading). You think you know all there is to know, and you dismissively wave
away the books of people who've gone beyond you, while pretending that it is all about an argument
about scientific method and appeal to authority in a nowhere usenet thread. Practice the scales and
appregios (sp?). Why not squeeze the last bit of tone out of the power chord? The birds will love
you and sing sweet songs in your ears.
> However, the fact that the system will be abused is completly irrelevant
> as far as a decision to actually use such systems.
It is not. You may have heard the old aphorism "the cure is worse than
the disease." Regarding government intervention in otherwise private
matters, my view is that the case for intervention must be *highly*
compelling as a foundational philosophy.
> For example, to run a
> successful retail shop, one must build right into the business plan that
> say, 5% of stock *will* be stolen.
>
> The real world is dog eat dog world. There are good reasons to try an
> limit this type of world. 100% success is not possible, but this is no
> reason not to do the best we can.
>
> >For this reason, I would limit government involvement in the
> > affairs of citizens as much as possible.
>
> I agree. The government "should" only be involved if there is a clear
> need for such involvement, e.g. marijuana and prostitution is a
> completely personal matter such the government has no business
> interfering.
>
>
> All of the politicians completely ignore the actual practise of what
> government for the people by the people, means. This is of course, quite
> explainable by Replicator theory. Government is itself a self interest
> group. With no laws, there is no reason for government, so they will
> obviously attempt to maximise their own interests by maximising the
> numbers of laws, i.e. law memes.
>
>
> > This doesn't mean I think
> > there are _no_ market failures and no justifiable government
> > intervention, I do.
>
> Then what are you arguing for.
Based on some of what you write, I would argue for you to read the
texts. I suspect you'll find much to agree with. I suspect you will
modify a few statements. I suspect you'd not be bored. But who really
knows?
> >>> As far as public goods go, this is decent:
> >>> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoodsandExternalities.html
> >>
> >> So, *some* traditional public goods *may* be successfull by the
> >> private endevour. Whats your point?
> >
> > My bias would be to eliminate government involvement, wherever it is
> > unnecessary, and minimize it as much as possible in others.
>
> Yes.
My reading of your agreement here, and other statements, is "Kevin is anti-socialist." That makes
resolution with the original bone-of-contention difficult. I see your statements in this section as
contrary to your original statement regarding socialism. You may wish to add consistancy to your
views.
> > According to economists (pretty much universally as far as I
> > know), national defense has the free rider problem and is a public
> > good.
>
> Prety much *all* social programs have the free rider problem. As I
> explained, It is a trivial manifestation of the *selfish* meme/gene.
>
> er.. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
>
> >IOW, I
> > think Rich's zero'ing of defense spending is likely "wrong" based on
> > the guidance of authorities in the matter.
>
> Of course Rich is wrong. The wastage in national defence is a necessary
> "evil". No system is perfect, but not having the system at all can be
> disastrous. Am I supposed to stop accepting credit card because some
> charges may be fraudulent, or do I just accept the business loss on the
> grounds that net revenues are still larger by accepting them. Actually,
> fortunately, I have not had this issue yet:-)
You were supposed to complain that I appealed to authority. Your guard
is really going down. Regarding "not having the system at all," read
Friedman. The capitalist, as defined by Friedman, hardly equates a
"free market" with anarchy, or a lack of government. Only the badly
uneducated make such preposterous claims. Do you really need a quote?
As I stated, I have no intention of verifying that the books are pro-capitalist (anti-socialist),
but here are some ocr'ed tidbits that will either peak your interest, or allow you to choose a pass:
Hayek, The Road to Serfdom [socialism is the road], p28
2
The Great Utopia
What has always made the state a hell on earth has
been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.
—F. HÖLDERLIN
THAT socialism has displaced liberalism as the doc-
trine held by the great majority of progressives
does not simply mean that people had forgotten
the warnings of the great liberal thinkers of the past about
the consequences of collectivism. It has happened because
they were persuaded of the very opposite of what these men
had predicted. The extraordinary thing is that the same so-
cialism that was not only early recognized as the gravest
threat to freedom, but quite openly began as a reaction
against the liberalism of the French Revolution, gained gen-
eral acceptance under the flag of liberty. It is rarely remem-
bered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly au-
thoritarian. The French writers who laid the foundations of
modern socialism had no doubt that their ideas could be put
into practice only by strong dictatorial government. To them
socialism meant an attempt to “terminate the revolution” by
a deliberate reorganization of society on hierarchical lines
and by the imposition of a coercive “spiritual power.” Where
freedom was concerned, the founders of socialism made no
bones about their intentions. Freedom of thought they re-
garded as the root-evil of nineteenth-century society, and
the first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted
that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards
would be “treated as cattle.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, pp1-2
Introduction
IN A MUCH QUOTED PASSAGE in his inaugural address, President
Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask
what you can do for your country.” It is a striking sign of the
temper of our times that the controversy about this passage cen-
tered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the
statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his gov-
ernment that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.
The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies
that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view
that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility
for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your
country” implies that government is the master or the deity, the
citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country
is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something
over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and
loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a
means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts,
nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He
recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the
goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national
purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which
the citizens severally strive.
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for
him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather
“What can I and my compatriots do through government” to
help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our
several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our free
dom? And he will accompany this question with another: How
can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frank
enstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to pro
tect? Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us,
and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the
concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our
freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise
our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is
also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this
power initially be of good will and even though they be not
corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract
and form men of a different stamp.
And so, of course, Friedman goes on to finish the book in writing about that very question of "How
can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom
we establish it to protect?" That entails discussion of both economic power and political power,
and that concentration of economic power leads to political power with the inevitable consequence of
concentration under the socialist doctrine, since the two are necessarily cojoined. He's saying the
inevitable concentration of political power as a result of practicing socialism will destroy
individual freedom and Hayek (Saint-Simon) referred to as “treated as cattle.” I reckon that cannot
be resolved with "[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with many aspects of socialism. It has
many attributes that maximise the interests of individuals." Indeed it is quite contrary, because
capitalism is all about the individual and socialism is all about groups (because collective control
has practical trouble doing any better), as I stated from the outset.
It matters not that you agree, only that you recognize there is a point being made that is quite
counter to yours. It would be best that you simply read the books since they are required
political economy texts: agree or disagree with them. Don't waste your time arguing with me about
vapor, I make no pretense of originality in this matter. I grow rather weary of doing other's
homework. It is especially disturbing because it is harder for me to do the work for someone, than
for them to do it for themselves. I suppose that was in your self-interest and you got what you
wanted. Unfortunately, your work is only beginning.
- Next message: Jim Adney: "Re: using mosfets as rectifiers?"
- Previous message: Michael: "Re: How to listen in on digital communication with AVR (8b uC)"
- In reply to: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Engineers Pay, world wide"
- Next in thread: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Engineers Pay, world wide"
- Reply: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Engineers Pay, world wide"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
