Said1 said:
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.
