Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
Topic: Is ProgArchives still an AnCap forum, primarily? Posted: June 07 2016 at 10:08
In a nutshell, PA is a left-right-wing anarco-royalist, post-imperialist, post-marxist forum (with some light hints of capitalism, because someone made nice, conmfortable and not too expensive t-shirts and it would be time for all of you to buy them, so M@x could spend his next vacations at Hawaï for one full month).
tl;dr Is ProgArchives still an AnCap forum, primarly? Or are there two or three ancaps who are incredibly loud and make everyone think that "ProgArchives is still an AnCap forum, primarly." No, but seriously, in a nutshell, is it?
Categories strain, crack and sometimes break, under their burden - step out of the space provided.
Read a book recently that laid out how so much of the technology we use today, ranging from health to computers, was started by government initiative. Either funding, loans or direct R&D, or even stuff that comes from a result of military...the pieces were there thanks to government and people took them, built stuff with it and run off to a fortune.
Basically: It'd be like someone making a bunch of random metal pieces and individuals technologies, leaving it a park, then someone comes, takes em and builds a smart phone with it. The author noted this happened far less in Europe, and thus it's not coincidence they have had lower innovation.
So while private enterprise may be a driving factor, perhaps more credit should be given to government which enabled it to happen at all. Also, for those who want lesser government, perhaps we should be wary where those cuts fall.
The smartphone thing is a good example, because one of the (more vapid) retorts I see against anti-capitalists is "posted from an iPhone" or some variant. It is funny because internet was a DARPA project, wifi was significantly developed by the Australian government (i think), etc.
DARPA is indeed mentioned as well as a bunch of other things. Blanking off the top of my head but it was usually stuff like how company X had a loan early on, how Y's algorithm is thanks to a grant, or research from somewhere. An obvious one is Tesla who had a government loan.
The author wasn't opposed to this btw, she mainly just laid out how it is, and actually advocated the gov taking a more activist role. She did conclude by saying since the gov is such a big investor and many dont often pan out, they should get a piece of successful projects, like directly through owning stock or part of it.
That last part is a matter of personal debate, I'm fine with people running with what the gov may lay down but it was quite interesting, and certainly took a bit of a swing at the Ayn Rand type notion of glorious geniuses who do it all on their own with no help, and free markets being this soup of bubbling brilliance. Again not that there isn't amounts of that or even a motivating factor for people, but we gotta understand the complexity of innovation.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: May 05 2016 at 10:14
JJLehto wrote:
Funny thing on the note of greed and innovation.
Read a book recently that laid out how so much of the technology we use today, ranging from health to computers, was started by government initiative. Either funding, loans or direct R&D, or even stuff that comes from a result of military...the pieces were there thanks to government and people took them, built stuff with it and run off to a fortune.
Basically: It'd be like someone making a bunch of random metal pieces and individuals technologies, leaving it a park, then someone comes, takes em and builds a smart phone with it. The author noted this happened far less in Europe, and thus it's not coincidence they have had lower innovation.
So while private enterprise may be a driving factor, perhaps more credit should be given to government which enabled it to happen at all. Also, for those who want lesser government, perhaps we should be wary where those cuts fall.
The smartphone thing is a good example, because one of the (more vapid) retorts I see against anti-capitalists is "posted from an iPhone" or some variant. It is funny because internet was a DARPA project, wifi was significantly developed by the Australian government (i think), etc.
Read a book recently that laid out how so much of the technology we use today, ranging from health to computers, was started by government initiative. Either funding, loans or direct R&D, or even stuff that comes from a result of military...the pieces were there thanks to government and people took them, built stuff with it and run off to a fortune.
Basically: It'd be like someone making a bunch of random metal pieces and individuals technologies, leaving it at a park, then someone comes, takes em and builds a smart phone with it. The author noted this happened far less in Europe, and thus it's not coincidence they have had lower innovation.
So while private enterprise may be a driving factor, perhaps more credit should be given to government which enabled it to happen at all. Also, for those who want lesser government, perhaps we should be wary where those cuts fall.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: April 03 2016 at 09:43
A Person wrote:
Disparate Times wrote:
greed that drives innovation
I have never understood this concept.
My thinking is basically that innovation comes from human curiosity and creativity, the economic system merely rewards greed as a motivator to use that creativity, but it is far from the only reason people innovate. If anything, greed in capitalism quashes innovation that doesn't result in profit.
I suppose what scares me the most is the faith that people put into the gov when it's obvious how corrupt they are. I also wonder if too many economists think of economics as purely a science that can be cured with the right formula so to speak. Things like emergent order are almost impossible to predict, not to mention unforeseen policies that can be game changers. Of coarse I'm not foolish enough to think that a freer market will absolve all of our problems I worry that the same greed that drives innovation could just as easily lead to the collapse of a middle class, some may say it already is.
Yeah but the alternative I see as no better and hate to say, I see lots of corruption, crony capitalism, regulatory capture, etc etc etc seems to have grown with the rise of lesser government/more pro market policies.
Oh well mainstream economist's do see it as a hard science, and I think that is very very problematic, especially since many of the models used and theories are pretty unrealistic, to be polite
Likewise I am not foolish enough to think gov can solve everything, but I don't want some centralized planning and all this tinkering, stimulii packages that right and left love and various strategies. I just say, put people to work directly doing useful stuff.
Joined: July 12 2015
Location: Rust belt
Status: Offline
Points: 261
Posted: April 02 2016 at 14:15
I suppose what scares me the most is the faith that people put into the gov when it's obvious how corrupt they are. I also wonder if too many economists think of economics as purely a science that can be cured with the right formula so to speak. Things like emergent order are almost impossible to predict, not to mention unforeseen policies that can be game changers. Of coarse I'm not foolish enough to think that a freer market will absolve all of our problems I worry that the same greed that drives innovation could just as easily lead to the collapse of a middle class, some may say it already is.
Songs are like tightly budgeted meals Nobodies doing anything new or even real
How it was spent is what I mean by politicians making the choices. As for saving I've heard the argument that when people save it sends a message to the market that their not providing or properly producing goods that consumers want so it's up to them to change.
Well that's fair. I just say because of the private debt situation (btw far worse than it was during the great depression) it should be understood by policymakers/economists that any $ given to people will go to saving.
For stimulation, the gov will need to spend it, but that is fair..people saving does send that message...that the markets are not working very well (aka people are taking on way too much debt/the wall st big wigs are pushing too much debt)
^^^ In short, I think basically the US stimulus program should have lasted until the economy was in a bit better shape than 2006 (i.e. just before things began to unravel). Otherwise, the recovery would be anemic, as it seems to have been.
Thing is, if you believe like I do that there are some deep structural (opposed to just cyclical) issues the need for a longer, more new deal like program could be in order. I think of this as more than just a stimulus.
But yeah, the stimulus itself wasn't super effective and not very long lasting. Also just a couple of years after that spending ended the US pursued, mild, austerity, so not only did it run out too soon, we reversed course Good thing it was only light austerity
Joined: July 12 2015
Location: Rust belt
Status: Offline
Points: 261
Posted: April 02 2016 at 13:20
How it was spent is what I mean by politicians making the choices. As for saving I've heard the argument that when people save it sends a message to the market that their not providing or properly producing goods that consumers want so it's up to them to change.
Songs are like tightly budgeted meals Nobodies doing anything new or even real
^ that's a classic response if it doesn't work just spend more if it does see I told you so. When bush gave everybody $600 they said it didn't work as well as it should've because too many just saved the money(myself included) so why not give everybody a prepaid credit card that charges five bucks every month forcing people to spend the money. I think that when the government does the spending it sends false signals the gov won't spend money like the people will if you're gonna stimulate the economy put the power into the people's hands. At least then business has a better idea of what's working.
To me it's not HOW much, but how it's spent.
The reason the stimulus (Obama's) wasn't super effective was because despite the large amount of $ over half of it went to tax relief (people often dont know/fail to mention this one) and aid to state and local budgets.
This is helpful, but it's not very stimulative. It was more like throwing a bucket on a forest fire, or putting a band aid on an axe wound. Of course there was the infrastructure investment, which economists and business people left right and center all agree is good, but this wasn't a massive amount, and it's longer term pay off (so people just saw a whole lot of $ and not much result).
As for the Bush stimulus bill, well just giving people a few hundred bucks isn't really gunna do much, but you're right most saved it. This is where mainstream economics misses the target: They ignore private debt. The US was drowning in various debts by 2008, so of course people were gunna save their $ again this is helpful, but not a stimulus.
So I wouldn't say spend more, but spend wiser. While it was bold of Obama to use direct gov stimulus, bucking 30 years of orthodox, he should've done it better (more direct, longer term, more job creation) made it 2 bills, something.
I am your typical, middle class European social-democrat. A type that most early proggers were. Anyway, I don't think politics should make a difference to us, we are all here because of our love to good music and that is what matters!
Oh yeah, but ya know fun to discuss other things, and I did grow tired of talking music after awhile, especially when so much of it was the same stuff over and over (many many years on the forum will do that)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.246 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is ProgArchives still an AnCap forum, primarily?
Topic Options
A Person wrote:
