Clean air or jobs?

[Said1]

If you have a background in economics I will go into more detail. That you don't know which "classical" theory I am talking about makes me a bit skeptical. Also, I am not going to do your homework for you (indeed I have plenty of my own) Prebisch has been around a while, if you want to know what he has to say then go to the library and look him up. In a few sentances I argue that the unsustainable nature of oil as the base of the global economic system offers a window of opprotunity to LA. In learning from the lessons of the first and second industrial revolutions these nations can focus on what is next rather than what is. As the world moves off oil and onto somthing else these nations will enjoy comparitive advantage and economies of scale.On top of that idea I layer the importance of social orginization and exogenous shocks to compute a coherent and comprehensive policy recomendation that has its foundings in a new, obvious, but until now, unrecognized theory of how development actually works.

Why would that make you skeptical? Based on what you've written, I have no clue as to what you are talking about - still. I can not for the life of me think of ANY theories that would coincide with anything you've written, simply because you haven't really written one thing making any solid connections to ANY theories. Being specific would give me some clues. How are you personally planning to avoid fossil fuel dependancy in SA by being in favor of supply side policies, I'm clueless. Also, if you look back, I didn't ask you who Prebisch is, I asked you how you drew different conclusions, I'm aware of his work.

Tell me honestly, did you really bring your paper to a conference unfinished, and so grossly incoherent? Oh well, post when done, I hope you at least get a C.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This guy is a babbling imbecile.

 

[Huckleburry]

the reason I reckond that you do not have a backround in econ is because classical theory is a theory that you did not know that is a red flag. Right wing demonstrated long ago that he does not know what he is talking about. You and I have not had any conversations yet so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The paper I am working on is written for other economists and an understanding of the subject is required. It also assumes that the reader has stayed current with Latin American economics and because sizeable chunks are written in spanish assumes they understand the language.

 

[Huckleburry]

So I take that as a no. Or has fox news university not quite coverd economics 101 yet?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So I take that as a no. Or has fox news university not quite coverd economics 101 yet?

What does the primary energy source have to do with comparative advantage? Or economies of scale? What is the jist of your previously unknown theory of development? If you can't answer these questions your own statements bring up, then shut the hell up.

We all see through your imbecilic smokescreen of crap.

 

[Said1]

So I take that as a no. Or has fox news university not quite coverd economics 101 yet?

I edited my original post, took the insults out, and added some questions. Remember, this is your project, and your ideas. Your failure and/or unwillingness to answer questions so far has left me tempted to insult you further, but I will hold back, for now.

It is a departure from other theories, hence the original part. Most of the assumptions agree with classical theory, except that I have chosen to socialize my actor, rather than rationalize him.

What assumptions, who's theory? What to you mean by socialize rather than rationalize?

I also agree with the underlying premise of Prebisch and the dependency theory school except that I draw very different conclusions from the underlying idea.

How do your conclusions differ?

At its most basic level, I argue that people matter, the environment matters, and that there is a fundamental flaw within the center/periphery relationship that is preventing sustained growth within Latin America.

What is the flaw?

In recognizing the weight of these facts, we can develop a path of growth that departs from standard growth path and in doing so creates value added growth sectors. Thus, when certain trends in global economics play out the country emerges not only squarely in the center, but also with comparative advantage, and economies of scale in the newly created value added sector. It is a little bit like the person who starts his own business because he cannot find a job anecdote.

How will everything be balanced, in all sectors of society?

In a few sentances I argue that the unsustainable nature of oil as the base of the global economic system offers a window of opprotunity to LA.

In learning from the lessons of the first and second industrial revolutions these nations can focus on what is next rather than what is.

There were many aspects of leading up to present conditions, could you outline a few?

On top of that idea I layer the importance of social orginization and exogenous shocks to compute a coherent and comprehensive policy recomendation that has its foundings in a new, obvious, but until now, unrecognized theory of how development actually works.

List a few recomendations, specifically dealing with internal and external pressures. List a few features of your dazzling plan which will revolutionize S. American economies, taking into account all levels of society.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Huck. Does this nonsense pass for scholarship at your sad university? I strongly suggest you try to get your money back.

 

[Huckleburry]

I edited my original post, took the insults out, and added some questions. Remember, this is your project, and your ideas. Your failure and/or unwillingness to answer questions so far has left me tempted to insult you further, but I will hold back, for now

What assumptions, who's theory? What to you mean by socialize rather than rationalize?

How do your conclusions differ?

What is the flaw?


How will everything be balanced, in all sectors of society?





There were many aspects of leading up to present conditions, could you outline a few?



List a few recomendations, specifically dealing with internal and external pressures. List a few features of your dazzling plan which will revolutionize S. American economies, taking into account all levels of society.

Remember that mine is a growth theory not a function theory. I am trying to use the information available to build a new theory on long-term growth.


Classical theory makes a number of assumptions about the way markets functions. Many people have contributed to Classical Theory but the principle architecture is attributed to Adam Smith. Among the assumptions made in the classical model is that man is a rational actor. This is to say that he always acts in his own best interest and that the presence of many actors all working toward there own self interest is what drives the market. I disagree with this assumption. I argue that social organization affects the way the market functions. I compared the patterns of consumption in rural suburban and urban environments to demonstrate this point. Many firms that are successful in one environment are not successful in another environment. Therefore, that is what I mean by a socialized actor, that the way in which we live affect the way in which we consume. If you find this point to be entirely unacceptable then stop now. I agree, more or less, with the invisible hand assumption.

After examining Classical I took a look around at what else is out there and found the dependistas and the structuralists, I also found an environmental theory called integrative conservation, which I thought had unexplored economic implications. If you are interested in what they had to say Cristobal Kay wrote a very nice summery of the theories and compared them. Lauren Esposito wrote a case study on integrative conservation that can be found on Lexis Nexus.

I agreed with structuralists in that I think it is the underlying structure of the global economic system that creates the center-periphery relationship rather than the actions of any particular nation or state (notice I am not vindicating the failures of the past). I also agreed with the structuralists in arguing that the industrial revolution was a singular event. Nations either hopped on early or were left standing on the beach. (I know that Japan seemingly trumps that assumption, however, a close examination of their rise to economic power reveals an unusual and small window of opportunity that Japan was able to capitalize on) I disagreed with the stucturalists in the conclusion that the failure of the periphery is a result of the center. Rather I saw the fault to be in the actual building block of the global economic system, namely oil. If the world cannot physically support the entire globe using Oil in the manner that the G8 do, and if a G8 standard of living is the goal of development (and I think it is) then the world must find a new building block to allow for continued economic growth. Again, if you find this idea to be entirely ludicrous it is best to stop reading.

Therefore, my assumptions are.
1. Social organization matters
2. The industrial revolution was a one time deal those countries that did not industrialize are now hopelessly behind.
3. Oil is an unstable building block of the world economy and so market forces will move us away from its use.

Recommendations.
If people matter than L.A. governments should turnover control of resources to those groups best equipped to use them. Empirical evidence in Brazil and the United States suggests that local communities use scarce resources most efficiently because they have a stake in their own future. There also seems to be a correlation between private ownership and technological innovation (Classical side)

LA should not try to industrialize in the same patterns of the industrialized countries (textiles, chemicals, raw materials...Manufacturing). That window of opportunity has passed and pursuing it will only lead to aggravation. Rather L.A. should focus on developing green technology and being at the forefront rather than the rear of what I see as the next revolution.
As the rest of the world moves off the oil standard L.A. will have comparative advantage in producing this new technology. They will also have economies of scale because presumably the modes of production will already be in place.

So that is a sampling of what my paper deals with. I have some problems to address in the longer version. I also have some new views as a result of my latest site interviews. I also structured the paper such that half of it is written in Spanish and tells the story of a town that adopts this strategy. Needless to say having a paper written in two languages presents certain problems that should have been avoided but at the time I felt it was the only way to move the paper forward. Half of it is an economic theory with certain policy recommendations, the other half is a fictional story that envisions the inner workings of the theory (Lenin might have tried this). That the concrete half dictating the rules to the fictional half is written in English, while the fictional half bolstering the argument of the concrete half is in Spanish is a major problem and one that I wish I had not created.

 

[Huckleburry]

ps. Does this thread still have anything to do with clean air or jobs?

 

[Said1]

Classical theory makes a number of assumptions about the way markets functions. Many people have contributed to Classical Theory but the principle architecture is attributed to Adam Smith. Among the assumptions made in the classical model is that man is a rational actor. This is to say that he always acts in his own best interest and that the presence of many actors all working toward there own self interest is what drives the market. I disagree with this assumption. I argue that social organization affects the way the market functions. I compared the patterns of consumption in rural suburban and urban environments to demonstrate this point. Many firms that are successful in one environment are not successful in another environment. Therefore, that is what I mean by a socialized actor, that the way in which we live affect the way in which we consume. If you find this point to be entirely unacceptable then stop now. I agree, more or less, with the invisible hand assumption.

I agreed with structuralists in that I think it is the underlying structure of the global economic system that creates the center-periphery relationship rather than the actions of any particular nation or state (notice I am not vindicating the failures of the past). I also agreed with the structuralists in arguing that the industrial revolution was a singular event. Nations either hopped on early or were left standing on the beach. (I know that Japan seemingly trumps that assumption, however, a close examination of their rise to economic power reveals an unusual and small window of opportunity that Japan was able to capitalize on) I disagreed with the stucturalists in the conclusion that the failure of the periphery is a result of the center. Rather I saw the fault to be in the actual building block of the global economic system, namely oil. If the world cannot physically support the entire globe using Oil in the manner that the G8 do, and if a G8 standard of living is the goal of development (and I think it is) then the world must find a new building block to allow for continued economic growth. Again, if you find this idea to be entirely ludicrous it is best to stop reading.

Therefore, my assumptions are.
1. Social organization matters
2. The industrial revolution was a one time deal those countries that did not industrialize are now hopelessly behind.
3. Oil is an unstable building block of the world economy and so market forces will move us away from its use.

Recommendations.
If people matter than L.A. governments should turnover control of resources to those groups best equipped to use them. Empirical evidence in Brazil and the United States suggests that local communities use scarce resources most efficiently because they have a stake in their own future. There also seems to be a correlation between private ownership and technological innovation (Classical side)

LA should not try to industrialize in the same patterns of the industrialized countries (textiles, chemicals, raw materials...Manufacturing). That window of opportunity has passed and pursuing it will only lead to aggravation. Rather L.A. should focus on developing green technology and being at the forefront rather than the rear of what I see as the next revolution.
As the rest of the world moves off the oil standard L.A. will have comparative advantage in producing this new technology. They will also have economies of scale because presumably the modes of production will already be in place.

I asked you to be specific because you said you agreed with Prebisch's dependency thesis (which argues against Ricardian Trade), but not his conclusions. I couldn't figure out what you were talking about, hence the request for clarification.

In part, your ideas remind me of post-Fordist society models, especially when you mentioned Japan. If I remember correctly, post-fordism played a large part in capitalizing on that small window of opportunity you mentioned. To be honest, I've been awake since 3am, and I don't feel like being overly critical, BUT I will ask you this: What makes you so certain S. American governments will be willing to hand over control of resources? Some things to chew for now.

 

[Annie]

Have to it environ. econ. genius. I'm in the dust.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Huck,
Men can still be rational and come to different purchasing conclusions. They're rational for their value system or environment. The suburbs sell more lawn care products because there's more yard our there. saying items sell differetnly in different regions in no way buttresses your argument. Your argument is essentially disrespectful to people and their decisions and indicates the state tyranny you intend to help usher in.

 

[Said1]

Therefore, my assumptions are.
1. Social organization matters
2. The industrial revolution was a one time deal those countries that did not industrialize are now hopelessly behind.
3. Oil is an unstable building block of the world economy and so market forces will move us away from its use.

Recommendations.
If people matter than L.A. governments should turnover control of resources to those groups best equipped to use them. Empirical evidence in Brazil and the United States suggests that local communities use scarce resources most efficiently because they have a stake in their own future. There also seems to be a correlation between private ownership and technological innovation (Classical side)

LA should not try to industrialize in the same patterns of the industrialized countries (textiles, chemicals, raw materials...Manufacturing). That window of opportunity has passed and pursuing it will only lead to aggravation. Rather L.A. should focus on developing green technology and being at the forefront rather than the rear of what I see as the next revolution.
As the rest of the world moves off the oil standard L.A. will have comparative advantage in producing this new technology. They will also have economies of scale because presumably the modes of production will already be in place.

Ok, I'm awake now.
Here is my take on what you wrote:
- privatizing oil (locally??) will provide manufacturing development capital (a "friendly neighborhood Halburton" so to speak.) to areas not pocessing oil resources.
- the new window of opportunity is the "green revolution", and manufacturing sectors (in areas not oil rich) need to be developed in that direction, based on post-fordist manufacturing models, minus governmental meddling
- once the world jumps on band wagon, they'll be all set, providing this sector will last on it's own until then

Is that about right?

One last question, is capitalizing on the green revolution your big idea, or post-fordism?

 

[Huckleburry]

Local resource control extends to all resources (I had not even considerd oil) and is a major problem in L.A. where one or two groups control a vast amount of resource (primarly land) and use it ineffectively.

The big idea is the synthesis of three distinct theories. Classical theory, dependency theory, and integrative conservation. Focusing on the green revolution is a policy recomendation following from the idea.

 

[Said1]

Local resource control extends to all resources (I had not even considerd oil) and is a major problem in L.A. where one or two groups control a vast amount of resource (primarly land) and use it ineffectively.

The big idea is the synthesis of three distinct theories. Classical theory, dependency theory, and integrative conservation. Focusing on the green revolution is a policy recomendation following from the idea.

Ok, so when you said oil, you really didn't mean oil, you meant everything but oil, (cause you hadn't thought of that) and primarily land? How will the land/resources be redistributed? What if people/governments don't want to give it up? What about the other questions I asked you? I would like to stay with those before moving on - if you don't mind.

 

[manu1959]

I also agreed with the structuralists in arguing that the industrial revolution was a singular event.

Therefore, my assumptions are.
2. The industrial revolution was a one time deal those countries that did not industrialize are now hopelessly behind.

question:

How will, do, the structuralists explain chinas current industrial revolution?

 

[Said1]

question:

How will, do, the structuralists explain chinas current industrial revolution?

I want to answer that sooooo bad. :teeth:

 

[Huckleburry]

You are confusing two independent ideas. The first is that the concentration of resources, be they oil, land, minerals, etc in a few hands leads to inefficiency. If land these resources are managed locally they will be used more efficiently.

Second: Oil as the basic unit of the global economy is not sustainable and will be replaced by something that is sustainable. This presents a window of opportunity.

Lastly, mercantilism is dead. Governments should focus on the strength of the market place rather than the accumulation of tangible wealth. L.A. governments can strengthen their market places by relinquishing control of resources to local communities.

 

[Huckleburry]

I am not a structurlist but I think they would argue that China is far from being out of the woods (and indeed they are) and that in time (say when they are forced to revalue their currency) the structre of the system will cause their economy to crash.

 

[Said1]

You are confusing two independent ideas. The first is that the concentration of resources, be they oil, land, minerals, etc in a few hands leads to inefficiency. If land these resources are managed locally they will be used more efficiently.

No, you're confused. I asked you how these resources will be placed in the hands of locals, since this is not the case now. Who will force them? I mentioned several other things which you are STILL ignoring too.

Second: Oil as the basic unit of the global economy is not sustainable and will be replaced by something that is sustainable. This presents a window of opportunity.

I know, you said that....,the green revolution. Where will the development capital come from, the local resource owners, or the government? I'm assuming this industry is not developed yet, where is the pot-o-gold?

Lastly, mercantilism is dead. Governments should focus on the strength of the market place rather than the accumulation of tangible wealth. L.A. governments can strengthen their market places by relinquishing control of resources to local communities.

Forced redistribution, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.......gottcha commie.