SandySandfort on December 11, 2010, 07:16:34 am
The freer the market, the greater the advances in science and technology. Here's what happens when freedom expands:

  http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm

The world of EFT is just an extrapolation of this trend.

GeoModder on December 11, 2010, 04:22:43 pm
Pretty neath, eh?   ;D

ContraryGuy on December 13, 2010, 12:50:49 pm
The freer the market, the greater the advances in science and technology. Here's what happens when freedom expands:

  http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm

The world of EFT is just an extrapolation of this trend.


That was an amazing video!  It showed in four minutes what grad students spend sleepless years attempting to grasp.

And yet... aside from the trendline and the presenters optimism, I would like to respond to Sandy;
I saw nothing in the video that corresponds to the crushing authoritarianism of the UW, or the freedom of the belt.

History, and knowledge of business, shows the markets are never free; Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' is ever more visible and and what is seen about the way that 'hand' moves markets is ever more frightening.
Sandy is free, in his tropical paradise, to opine about "free" markets; but this video shows nothing about how "free" markets move countries.  Instead, it shows how the rise of mixed socialism and capitalism have improved every country that has allowed it.

You will notice that the US was not at the top of the heap.

As for free markets allowing greater science and technology, I hate to bust that myth (but somebody has to!), any amount of actual research (and the willingness to see the facts as they are, not as you want them to be) will show that the underlying foundation for nearly all great advances has been undertaken by governments.
Whether those governments did the work themselves or merely provided funds for it when "the free market" wouldnt, without such basic foundations there is nothing for the free market to build on.

Ok, I'll go away now; nobody likes the guy who mentions inconvenient truths.

jamesd on December 13, 2010, 02:52:09 pm
History, and knowledge of business, shows the markets are never free; Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' is ever more visible and and what is seen about the way that 'hand' moves markets is ever more frightening.
Sandy is free, in his tropical paradise, to opine about "free" markets; but this video shows nothing about how "free" markets move countries.  Instead, it shows how the rise of mixed socialism and capitalism have improved every country that has allowed it.

China was a huge failure when the mix was more socialism.  Every country that succeeded, succeeded in proportion as the mix was less socialist, Hong Kong being the best example.


SandySandfort on December 13, 2010, 05:46:59 pm
And yet... aside from the trendline and the presenters optimism, I would like to respond to Sandy;
I saw nothing in the video that corresponds to the crushing authoritarianism of the UW, or the freedom of the belt.

Uh, that is because it wasn't about the UW or the Belt. What I see is a correlation between freedom/science/technology and improvements in the human condition. Of course correlation is not causation, but I think there is a causal correlation in this case. YMMV

Bob G on December 14, 2010, 05:41:28 am
As for free markets allowing greater science and technology, I hate to bust that myth (but somebody has to!), any amount of actual research (and the willingness to see the facts as they are, not as you want them to be) will show that the underlying foundation for nearly all great advances has been undertaken by governments.

Franklin, Whitney, McCormick, Carver, Hill, Carnegie, Edison, Tesla, Gates, Zuckerberg - yep, all government stooges.



Quote
Ok, I'll go away now; nobody likes the guy who mentions inconvenient truths.

Oh, please do.
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

Apollo-Soyuz on December 14, 2010, 06:59:15 am
It took me a while to grasp that income was per-capita average.

Unfortunately without footnotes it raises more questions than it answers. Adjusted for inflation? How exactly? How does individual income affect longevity? "Natural" deaths only, or are suicides and murder also accounted for?

BTW, there's some javascript doohickey on flixxy.com that keeps you from getting to the vid on youtube. Here's the deep link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

ContraryGuy on December 14, 2010, 10:14:38 am
History, and knowledge of business, shows the markets are never free; Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' is ever more visible and and what is seen about the way that 'hand' moves markets is ever more frightening.
Sandy is free, in his tropical paradise, to opine about "free" markets; but this video shows nothing about how "free" markets move countries.  Instead, it shows how the rise of mixed socialism and capitalism have improved every country that has allowed it.

China was a huge failure when the mix was more socialism.  Every country that succeeded, succeeded in proportion as the mix was less socialist, Hong Kong being the best example.



How did Hong Kong succeed?  In terms of business success?  I'm sure businesses were very successful for their executives and employees, but how else did Hong Kong succeed?

What things has Hong Kong made or produced that have survived the transition to Chinese rule.
What industries are famous for being in or from Hong Kong?

ContraryGuy on December 14, 2010, 10:16:13 am
And yet... aside from the trendline and the presenters optimism, I would like to respond to Sandy;
I saw nothing in the video that corresponds to the crushing authoritarianism of the UW, or the freedom of the belt.

Uh, that is because it wasn't about the UW or the Belt. What I see is a correlation between freedom/science/technology and improvements in the human condition. Of course correlation is not causation, but I think there is a causal correlation in this case. YMMV

I'd agree with that.

Too bad America is now moving in the other direction.

ContraryGuy on December 14, 2010, 10:21:47 am
As for free markets allowing greater science and technology, I hate to bust that myth (but somebody has to!), any amount of actual research (and the willingness to see the facts as they are, not as you want them to be) will show that the underlying foundation for nearly all great advances has been undertaken by governments.

Franklin, Whitney, McCormick, Carver, Hill, Carnegie, Edison, Tesla, Gates, Zuckerberg - yep, all government stooges.


One need not be a government stooge to benefit from government sponsored research.

As for the people you mentioned: look beyond their personal genius and see what came before.

Sir Isaac Newton said "If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

No man is an island. (except maybe Bob G.)

mellyrn on December 14, 2010, 12:47:03 pm
Quote
any amount of actual research [...] will show that the underlying foundation for nearly all great advances has been undertaken by governments.

Quote
One need not be a government stooge to benefit from government sponsored research.

The latter is a much milder claim than the former.  Good.

And the original claim attributes "underlying foundation" to governments.  Nuh-uh, nope, no, not even close.  Governments can do large-scale development of ideas; coming up with the ideas is the work of individuals -- of course building on the work of earlier individuals, but "government" was very rarely the way the later individual found the earlier work; often enough, government or its near equivalent was the obstacle.

Even at that, a government is not necessary for large-scale development.  Consider the production of movies:  an individual movie is a huge deal:  actors, lighting companies, sound companies, costumeries, maybe animal trainers; the means to move and feed all these people and care for the equipment; ....  A whole lot of little companies gather together for a few months or a year, however long it takes to make the movie, and then they break up and all go off to re-form in  new constellations for new projects.  It is neither necessary nor -- evidently -- desirable, to keep the same vast team of mini-companies yoked together under a single plan forever.

Governments developed space travel, but apparently because they saw a military advantage before entrepreneurs saw a profitable one.  So maybe space travel would have been delayed a few decades.  Or maybe if we'd thrown off statism a thousand years ago, we'd already be on Ceres -- since governments have as much power to stifle as to promote.

J Thomas on December 14, 2010, 07:56:17 pm
Quote
any amount of actual research [...] will show that the underlying foundation for nearly all great advances has been undertaken by governments.

Quote
One need not be a government stooge to benefit from government sponsored research.

The latter is a much milder claim than the former.  Good.

And the original claim attributes "underlying foundation" to governments.  Nuh-uh, nope, no, not even close.  Governments can do large-scale development of ideas; coming up with the ideas is the work of individuals -- of course building on the work of earlier individuals, but "government" was very rarely the way the later individual found the earlier work; often enough, government or its near equivalent was the obstacle.

None of the most important developments had any government input to speak of. Flint-chipping. Fire. smoked meat. The oil lamp. Pottery. Curing hides. Weaving. Harvesting grain. Beer. Copper. Bronze. Glass.

Nowadays probably most of the really easy discoveries have already been made. We make new discoveries by doing things that are far from the norm, things that tend to be expensive. Government is good for that. Government will sometimes pay for ridiculously expensive things that have no obvious payoff, when nobody else would. Then possibly people who get a close look at things they would not otherwise see, might find something interesting.

Quote
Even at that, a government is not necessary for large-scale development.  Consider the production of movies:  an individual movie is a huge deal:  actors, lighting companies, sound companies, costumeries, maybe animal trainers; the means to move and feed all these people and care for the equipment; ....  A whole lot of little companies gather together for a few months or a year, however long it takes to make the movie, and then they break up and all go off to re-form in  new constellations for new projects.  It is neither necessary nor -- evidently -- desirable, to keep the same vast team of mini-companies yoked together under a single plan forever.

That's probably a bad analogy. Movies started simple, and they got more complicated as the makers found out how to get better results and still have a successful movie at the end. Each little company mostly knows what to do because they did something similar last time, and they got hired to do it again -- but maybe a little different.

A big complicated research team is different because they are more likely to actually do something new, and nobody knows ahead of time quite how to put the pieces together or quite what to expect when they're done.

"Complex systems designed from scratch do not work and cannot be made to work. Complex systems that work are always found to have evolved from simpler systems that work." John Gall.

quadibloc on December 15, 2010, 12:28:47 am
Government is good for that. Government will sometimes pay for ridiculously expensive things that have no obvious payoff, when nobody else would. Then possibly people who get a close look at things they would not otherwise see, might find something interesting.
Yes. It's obvious to see how one could make money from Star Wars. (The movie, not the Strategic Defense Initiative.) Making money from the Large Hadron Collider is something more difficult to envision.

jamesd on December 15, 2010, 03:03:32 am
China was a huge failure when the mix was more socialism.  Every country that succeeded, succeeded in proportion as the mix was less socialist, Hong Kong being the best example.

How did Hong Kong succeed?  In terms of business success?  I'm sure businesses were very successful for their executives and employees, but how else did Hong Kong succeed?

Hong Kong succeeded in that living standards for ordinary Hong Kongers rose dramatically - swiftly passing those of Britain.  For example, when they built their airport, the pick and shovel jobs were mostly done by Britons - because Hong Kongers would have cost too much - the British provided cheap guest laborers to do unskilled work.

What things has Hong Kong made or produced that have survived the transition to Chinese rule. What industries are famous for being in or from Hong Kong?

Hong Kong is today post industrial.  Much asian industry is run from Hong Kong.  Goods are designed in Hong Kong, and their manufacture organized in China and other countries, then sold from Hong Kong and shipped from the place where they were manufactured.  Only high value activities can pay Hong Kong wages.  Actual manufacture is a lower value activity that tends to get outsourced.

mellyrn on December 15, 2010, 06:54:42 am
OK, movies were not relevant. 

If you have an idea for a business (stay on the bus, it's going somewhere) but don't have the capital to start it up, you go around making your pitch to people who have money and no idea.  Maybe you find one person with a bunch of bucks, maybe you find a lot with fewer, maybe you find nobody.  If you find nobody -- that's what's called a clue:  either your idea is lacking, or your presentation is.

If you have an idea for a research project, or something merely decorative such as pure art, you do the same thing -- because people with money do more with it than seek profit.  They're notorious for doing more with it:  scholarships, foundations, museums, yadda yadda.

And, same deal:  maybe you find a few rich with lots of money, or you get a few bucks from nearly everyone -- or you don't find enough.  If you don't find enough, that's a clue:  maybe your community is too small to support your particular scheme, maybe your community disagrees about the value of your proposal.  If you can't convince enough of them that it's a good idea, why should they fund it?  What might be missing?

If you have a government, you don't have to worry about whether the community you are allegedly serving (with your scientific advances) actually wants your service, you only have to worry about whether or not you can convince the much smaller agency responsible for putting out the funds.  Government is in the business of spending Other People's Money, so it is notorious for not caring whether or not the money is well spent, and no one is accountable if it isn't.

Is the Hadron Collider less likely to be developed in an anarchy?  I don't know about less likely but I imagine it would probably be a harder sell, because there would be real accountability demanded in an anarchy.  Wishful thinkers would naturally prefer a government to rob those who are insufficiently impressed with the proposal, but it doesn't make it any less a robbery.

Is the Collider impossible in an anarchy?  Demonstrate that it is, and I'll revisit my views on government.  If you can't demonstrate impossibility, will you revisit yours?

 

anything