[From Bill Powers (950902.1730 MDT)]
Marc Abrams (950902.1320) --
I think competition drives innovation.
Why do you think that?
Because I believe that people are looking for "better" ways to do
things. Whoever provides it gets the customer.
There's no magical connection between needing an innovation in order to
compete and coming up with one. If anything, the effect is likely to go
the other way: when the competition gets tough, R&D is the first thing
to be cut back because nobody can promise new concepts on demand and
tight money needs to be spent on quicker fixes. Innovators are people
who are good at creating new ideas and enjoy doing so when left alone.
They enjoy solving problems. They don't enjoy it any more, or get any
better at it, just because one company is competing against another and
management is hovering over them threatening to fire them if they don't
have a brilliant idea by tomorrow.
No competition, OK. Who decides What people should have and how
much. Has Socialism been such a world wide success. What would
you do
Hmm. Why is it that whenever you criticize anything about capitalism, as
soon as you inhale you're being accused of socialism (if not communism
or totalitarianism or incest)? What if I'm just trying to get a clear
picture of what's going on in order to understand some of the problems
and perhaps get some ideas about how to fix them? Competition between
businesses creates a tremendous waste of resources. It reduces each
company's ability to function. It costs the consumer dearly (just
compare the price of the store brands with that of the nationally
advertised brands -- of anything). The economic system would work better
if we could find a way to eliminate competition without losing the other
beneficial aspects of the system. I don't know how to do that, but it's
worth thinking about.
Since there's nobody around but human beings to decide who gets what, I
guess we'll just have to work that out among ourselves, as we always
have had to do.
Competition "forces" you to pay attention to the _CUSTOMER_. Ask
the Auto Industry, or consumer electronics. If you don't give
people what they want they WILL get it. Someone WILL provide it.
Even if its illegal (ie. drugs, guns, etc.).
I think all people have to decide whether they're willing to supply what
others want in order to get money from them. This isn't a question of
morality, it's a question of the kind of society you want to live in and
whether you're willing to adjust your own behavior to act like a member
of that society. It's a question of what kind of person you want to be.
I've had no difficulty with solving interesting technical problems for
people who were willing to pay me to do it. I think I would have had a
problem if my customer had asked me to get him a girl or a vial of
crack. How about you? Do you say, "Well, if I don't do it, someone else
will, so I might as well make the profit?" Are there any things you
won't do to make money? I presume that there are. The first step toward
a new system of economics is for people to decide what they will and
will not do for money. Most people already have some ideas about that.
We need to talk about that and get the principles firmed up and agreed
upon.
Are you giving up your home to a homeless person or family ? If I
offered you a million dollars in research money, would you turn it
down, saying it would be put to better use feeding hungry people ?
Exactly what is a "Luxury" good and who decides ?
What kind of argument is that? If I see problems with a system that
creates a wide gap between incomes, does this mean I should make silly
gestures that will have no discernible effect on the system and might
even work against solving the problems?
[I suppose I could define a luxury good as one that takes many people or
a long time or both to create, but which only a few can afford to buy.]
At the end of the part of my post you cited here, I said "All of us who
live in relative comfort, as I do, depend on the fact that many, many
other people live on the edge of poverty." I didn't put the load on you,
I took it upon myself. I was simply stating what I see to be facts; if
you think that some defense is needed, that's up to you. It is indeed a
problem and it's going to catch up with us one day. Your suggestion that
I give up my home to a homeless person sounds nice, but it's hardly an
answer to a basic defect in the system. We would still end up with a
homeless person (me) and nothing would have been done to correct
whatever it is about the system that leads to some people being homeless
and others living like royalty. If I gave away my grant, I would help a
few people for a short time and also lose my ability to work on a long-
term solution (since, in effect, that is what I would use the money
for).
There must be some doubt about whether this is an acceptable social
arrangement, considering how many people in the upper brackets feel
the need to state that they have never ripped anyone off or taken
advantage of anyone, even when nobody has accused them of that.
Who are you talking about ? Lower bracket people generally rip off
OTHER lower bracket people.
I was simply suggesting that when someone spontaneously denies doing
something that nobody accused him of, there might be a tinge of guilt
feelings involved.
As to lower bracket people generally ripping off other lower bracket
people, that's simply a statistical artifact. There are a hell of a lot
more lower bracket people than upper bracket people, available to serve
either as perpetrators or victims. Another bias is that it is the upper
bracket people who generally get to decide what amounts to "ripping off"
others, and what is a normal acceptable business practice. According to
Mike Millkan's [Sp?] definitions, he never ripped anybody off.
Another important biasing factor is that a person who will stop at
nothing to win in economic competitions is more likely to end up on top
than a person who sets rules for himself as to what he considers
unacceptable behavior toward others. Nice guys finish last, goes the
saying. Another famous saying is that behind every great fortune there
is a great crime. There is probably some truth in such sayings. It may
be that ruthless business practices, rather than being admired, ought to
be subject to severe and prompt social sanctions.
Predicting a revolution ? Which country and system do you think
would provide you with the kind of life style and social
conciousness you desire. ?
Goodness, I'm tired of hearing that rejoinder. The point of examining
the system to see where its weaknesses are is not to trade that system
in on another one with even worse problems. I would really like to see
us solve our own problems before a revolution occurs, because
revolutionaries most often introduce worse inequities than the ones they
are revolting against. There have been exceptions, our own Revolution
possibly being one, but I wouldn't count on them.
If you simply won't hear a word of criticism spoken about the
capitalistic free enterprise system, why not just say so and drop the
pretense of logical argument? That would save us both some time.
That is true of any science. Consider physics, and the anniversaries
we have lately been observing.
You're right, losing another 200,000 men in an invasion would have
been more humane. The Japanese were model war mongers, just ask the
Chinese.
I heard of the Hiroshima bombing while waiting on Treasure Island for a
ship to carry me to the invasion of Japan, where as an electronics
technician I would have had the job of planting homing beacons on the
beaches just before the troops landed. I was in considerable conflict
about the bomb. On the one hand, it knocked off a lot of people pretty
much like me who had essentially nothing to do with the war and whom I
would not have met on the beaches, but on the other hand it saved my
miserable neck. I never wanted to be a person who would do any horrible
cowardly thing to save his own skin, but on the other hand I was quite
glad that I didn't have to go live out that life expectancy of about 10
minutes.
You seem to have had an easier time of deciding what you think about the
Bomb.
As to the Japanese being war mongers, when I was in Japan for the
occupation I didn't see many war mongers. It would have been hard to
tell who was and who wasn't one. It's pretty hard to tell what sort of
person you're talking to just from knowing that the person is Japanese.
It's much the same as when all you know is that you're talking to a Jew.
I suppose that the A-bomb killed some war mongers in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. It killed a lot of other kinds of people, too.
Sourness ? If you ask Ed, and LeEdna "why" the program works you
will get _different_ answers from each one. Ed will tell you about
the "fire in the belly" people must have about PCT. LeEdna, George,
and Darlene will tell you about the endless hours spent
"administrating" the program. The program at Claredon cannot be
"replicated" as is to other locations right now because the
administrive "details" of the program have not been ironed out.
This might have changed since the conference. I would LOVE to see
this program in EVERY school in the country.
That is a very superficial and biased assessment. Both Ed and LeEdna et.
al. will tell you a lot more than that. You're just picking out
statements that are as different as possible to create the impression of
a big disagrement.
What I am saying is that the jury is still out on wether this
program is successful. I do not believe the success or failure will
have _anything_ to do with the validity of PCT or the efficacy of
the program. It will have ALL to do with the political climate of
the administrative staffs. Again, probably very frustrating for
you. I can tell you it's been frustrating for them.
Well, then, Mr. Jury, do you recommend that we just forget about the PCT
program part and concentrate on the politics? It seems to me that the
point of the whole thing would then be lost, but perhaps you know
better.
At the conference and since on the Net I have been hearing about
the _great_ success of the program and _NONE_ of the problems.
You must not have been reading all the posts. Plenty of questions have
been raised. You are showing signs of having reached a premature
conclusion and then having searched for selected evidence to defend it.
If you've already decided that the program isn't working, why are you
bothering?
···
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.