Seasons

I'm impressed that you managed to write that whole thing without a single reference to Adam Smith. :-) I would have mentioned him in the first paragraph.

First of all, I'd like to say that I sincerely appreciate the time you've taken to answer my question Crab. Only on a web site dedicated to artificial intelligence, could a Canadian and an American discuss greed and economics without getting all defensive and stupid. I'm really enjoying this discussion and I hope you (or anyone reading) won't take anything I say in my response personally (I'll do my best to make that easy).

While I'm at it, I might as well say that I'm sure Ben Baird is a way nicer person than my first impression has lead me to believe. I obviously didn't take the time to look at all the cool stuff there may be on his site prior responding. Nonetheless, you gotta' be somewhat held responsible for what you say in public, otherwise why post it? It may not always be a good idea to share one's personal bone-picking with all of cyber-space.

Now the fun part!

First, there's the Microsoft issue! I can see that greedy bastard (you know the one) coming from light years away! I totally agree that there should be standards... I love standards. But Microsoft has absolutely no respect for standards - they've totally monopolized the computer industry and the Internet and now they're using they're power and money to show us all how easily they can do whatever they please. How could they ever give up they're source code for Windows? It won't happen! They'll do everything they can to manipulate consumers, the market, laws and - worst of all - our entire digital universe, for as long as they can.

On that note, right now the best browser available for the Macintosh is in fact Microsoft Internet Explorer. If you think Explorer for PC is good - you should see it on the Mac! It's exactly what you'd expect a browser to be! It's simple, fast, subtle, polite and it even does a perfect job of interpreting all the w3c standards! Until iCab recently became reliable enough, even I was using it at as my main browser - and I hated every second of it! Why? Because they knew that satisfying users like me was the only way they could get that share of the market. This should be a good thing right? I mean, I'm using a good browser aren't I? So what's all the whining about? I'm whining because they haven't made half the effort for Windows based computers! They don't have to because they've already monopolized the operating system, so why bother trying to make a good browser like we did for all those pretentious Mac users? Let us make a so-so app that's practically everywhere I look from the day I boot my machine! That's what I hate about Microsoft, they'll purposely make crappy applications if they can. Funny thing is, almost everyone's aware of this, yet Microsoft still rules the market. As you've mentioned, even our friend Ben Baird now hates 'em for exactly that reason. Some people are sure strange, wanting to boycott them like so (pardon the pun).

And that leads me to the next point, the one about the wonders of greed in the free market. (Hold on, I'm going to go role another one first though...)

(Ahh! mushbetter)

I have to admit Crab, I agree with a lot of what you're saying - most of it actually, but I still don't agree that "greed" in a "free-market" is a net "gain" for "all". It's true, we're living in the first system our society has developed that gives us a nice little *standard* to evaluate our progress, our expenditures and the allocation of resources. I wouldn't be caught dead saying that capitalism is a bad thing in general. But I am willing to admit that there are definitely some negative aspects to it. There's a good and a bad side to everything: life, relationships, war, the country life, Microsoft & Bill Gates, capitalism and perhaps, in some aspects, even greed.

Let's keep in mind however, that our economic system, good or bad is at may be, is just part of our evolutionary process and is inevitably going to change. It will shape itself to our level of scientific knowledge, financial freedom and hopefully wisdom. *How* our economic system will change is each and everyone of our personal decisions. Personally, I would like to leave a new system behind for our children to live in, where "generosity in a free world is a way of life".

I know what you're thinking... you're thinking that I don't know what it's like to live in the real world, that my idea may sound peachy keen, but it ain't going to happen! Why not? I'll get back to that in a bit.

For now, one of the main aspects I'd like to bring up in your message, is your genetically encoded idea that our standards of living our increasing at the best possible rate. First, what are excellent standards of living? Studies have shown that what accounts for a successful life are actually things like, love, friendship, creativity, culture and, most certainly, freedom. I think the kind of success you're referring to when you thank greed, must be something along the lines of owning a big house, a kick-ass mustang, smoking the finest chronic and spending as much time sucking back info on the net as one feels they deserve. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to feel more offended by the previous comment than myself... so don't anyone hit that panic button quite yet, k?

Here's the deal: the market isn't actually free right now (I won't scroll through all the previous posts, 'cause it's getting late and I've lot's to say, but I think you may have insinuated something along those lines yourself Crab). Our system, the best we know so far, has been ok for a long while... but I think now we can start agreeing that it's getting way outta' hand. There are a few hundred companies in the world right now that have more power than any government (even yours). These companies, are in my opinion, what's causing most of the misery around the world today. Our quality of life may not seem so great when we consider the amount of hours we work a week, the time we spend with the ones we love, the air we breath, the crap we're served on all 298 channels, our waste lines, our sex lives, our debts, the availability of social services, the time we spend on hold, the crime rate, world famine... you know the list goes on. And who exactly is "all" in that precious sentence? What about the average life expectancy rate of 24 years old in some parts of africa - is that simply "they're" fault?

Go ahead, reach for the panic button now. I have.

Don't get me wrong, I love admiring the incredible feats of engineering our species has managed to produce as much as the next guy. I buy a brand new computer every couple years (forgive me! it's for work!), I've got food in my belly, I've traveled all over the world and was offered tons of opportunity. So why is it that my little finger tells me angst, stress and depression are a choice topic of conversation?

The reason is that companies that are in it for the money, end up stacking up all the resources (land, money, workers, planet) and using them to... make money. They're not really worried about your mustang or whether or not it makes you smile. They'll just give you barely enough to keep you busy. Which is good, 'cause if you're busy, you don't go around publishing stuff like this on the Internet. Keep bringing in the cash and we'll give you a bite off this cake! Not too big a bite though, or you may not want to woek overtime!

OK, what really gets me about people who say the kind of stuff I'm saying here tonight, is that it's really negative. I'm not a negative guy. I've never thought of committing suicide and I'm very rarely depressed. The reason for this, is that I feel that there's still a shit load of hope out there! I believe in a world where creativity is encouraged and generosity is part of every "great man's" accomplishment. This is not a world that Microsoft, AOL Time Warner, General Electric NBC and the bunch would ever dream of. They want us to sit in our living rooms and consume they're product - thanx to their greed. Things like the freedom of speech, free left-wing press are illusions set up to make us feel good about riding around in a jeep cherokee while most of the real free world is falling apart. At one time, we were closer to being free, but now freedom is perversely used to sell us life insurance, cars and booze.

But I believe that there's still lot's of hope for the future. I believe that most people will "choose" the right thing. Why spend all your time waiting for something fun to happen on the Microsoft Network, listening to main-stream radio or watching another hollywood remake, when you could instead watch one of the classic silent movies, listen to non-stop original net music and spend most of your waking hours on the forge (I seriously doubt that it would be the same if it were lucrative).

Does that justify my question?

I also have a lot of simple ideas that would make our governing bodies worth while for our day and age as well as ways to encourage companies to *want* to be generous, but that'll just have to wait 'till tomorrow night!

Oh boy, I don't have time to answer all of that but here's a couple of thoughts:

It's not that greed is a good thing, although pursuing the best for one's own business doesn't necessarily mean being greedy. But the point is that in a free market, competition will cause companies to supply what is demanded. Market values emerge as the prices at which the consumers will consume as much as the producers are producing. It's Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- Economics 101. Unless you are a Keynsian, of course. :-) In the specific case of Microsoft, I think someone needs to stop complaining about the problems with their products and produce a superior product.

But I do not agree that the misery in the world is fundamentally caused by poor business practice. If businesses are greedy it's because people are greedy -- and this is the case because human nature is not basically good.
"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" -- Jeremiah 17:9

yeah, but how's the weather?

Cold to the locals but not to me. Okay, so we are a little off topic. There wasn't really a good forum to put this in. I guess we could take it to Dogh'd's, but there's a lot of drunk people in there right now...

*pages Eugene M* heyyz I no'ot drunnk!

Sir Rahz, you intrigue me. No panic button here, but I wouldn't say poverty in Africa (for example) is *necessarily* their fault or anyone's fault (though there are plenty there who definitely contribute to the problem!). However, suppose you were to redistribute the entire world's wealth equally around the world. You would succeed in keeping average wealth the same but not average standard of living, since each individual would have insufficient funds to keep themselves in anything better than subsistence-poverty. Furthermore, by dispersing all collections of capital, you would destroy the means for improvement and progress. The imbalance of wealth is really a kind of self-perpetuating ladder in which everybody rises, though again not at an equal rate.

I agree with you and Eugene about Microsoft -- they have operated out of the bounds of the free market and need to be "re-freed", but there should be no expectation from any company that they will produce a better product than consumers are happy to buy, unless they are pushed by competition...

And, trying to keep it all short, economists do not discount leisure time, etc. -- these are part of utility, where we measure the way people value these goods by how much money they are willing to spend (or not earn) to get them.

Part of increasing standard of living is to also increase choices and opportunities. The fact that there is so much more available than living in poverty is why those of us who choose not-poverty have less leisure time than our ancestors who had no choice in the matter did. But as Marx predicted, in the long run we will find our power of production per/person is so great that we will find it easier and easier to sacrifice earnings for leisure. We (except for the richest of us) are just not yet at a stage you might view as idyllic for leisure time; however I will definitely say compared to the recent past, running water and flushing toilets are DEFINITELY idyllic.

Speaking of idyllic, I think we actually do agree with each other on most of the points we're bringing forward. I guess it's to be expected, after all, we're all pretty much in the sci-fi-cyber-punk category!

I'm really enjoying this public debate. This is a little off topic (off a topic which was already off topic!) but I was reading an essay recently that was saying that back in the early 1900s when newspapers started becoming popular in the US and before anyone realised the potential they had for advertising revenue, newspapers were the place for public debate. People were encouraged to submit articles (and wanted to) resulting in all sorts of different points of views. This was a place where the public could discuss politics, religion, economics and anything they felt the rest of the world should stop and think about. At the time, the voting percentage (read, public interest in politics) was at an all time high! I'm not going to get too deep into this, but simply put, because newspaper revenues no longer come from copies sold to the public, but rather advertising, the content of the newspapers (and any news source that counts on advertising) is primarily to satisfy the people who pay for ads, meaning the richest people in society. Thanks to the Internet, we once again have a place for public debate (for how long though?)

Back to the subject, I really wouldn't want to try and turn our economic system upside down over night - this would translate into total anarchy for the entire planet (rather than partial anarchy for most of the planet?). Some people have lost all hope in humanity and as a result, believe that total anarchy might not be so bad, for a while anyways. I'm not one of those people, I'm still amongst the people that would rather sit in my cozy little home with all my digital toys, but would still rather live in a fare world.

I think our current system needs to be gradually improved on. One of the best outcomes of our economy, is all the scientific advancements it's brought us - especially the Net! But, we need to realize that nothing is permanent, not even a constitution or the "best economic system we've known so far". People spend their entire lives, sometimes even generations, fighting for what they believe in... then, once it's finally in place, no one would dare admit that it's already outdated.

You're right Eugene, human misery is caused by our basically not so good human nature, but since these companies have the most money and power, they're the ones that have the most influence.

Also, there is a better, more reliable and "fair" operating system out there - it's called Unix! Ben Baird would be a much happier person if he lived in the Unix/Linux world! Except they're non-lucrative so they won't advertise or push the product, you just have to try it. Yes, you can open Word documents on a Unix machine, yes you can surf the web and check your email. No, it won't *ever* crash (unless you drop your computer or something).

We're an intelligent bunch, but I think everyone has a right to be intelligent... at least the chance to anyway! There are ways to achieve this, gradually, smoothly and without taking away anyones possessions (what a relief!) and without the need to figure out a way to distribute everything equally.

Say, for example we all wake up one day and realize that we don't really have a single word to say in the policies that are decide by our governments and most of the time, neither do our own governments! If a company like Nike has the power to create or destroy hundreds of jobs, depending on such and such a tax cut... they just negotiate and move around from country to country without a second though about instability that's created wherever they open up (sweat) shop. Our governments job is to basically to try and keep us the very least informed or interested in politics all together, otherwise we'll all realize the obvious: the political situation is far from fare or free and doesn't represent the public's interests in the least! Let's keep it confusing, let's make it so only specialists can have a say and then let's switch to petty crime, sports and underage celebrity breast implants! After all, that's basically what satisfy's the advertisers, keeps the rich rich and the poor busy making ends meet (so they can pay the debt for the bedroom set "no one should live without...").

What I suggest is installing a government run by the people - yes, even the stupid people! This was pretty well impossible at a time, because of physical restraints involved (going across the nation on horse back collecting everyone's opinions about a new law or policy). So, at the time we naturally decided to let a few elected individuals take care of the entire nation's best interests. Unfortunately, over time this has translated to letting the elected individuals make all decisions "in our own best interests..."

In other words, according to a small percentage of people at the top, we don't need to know what's really going on, since most of us are just too stupid to have an opinion on the most important matters that will determine the way we live our own lives. Who agrees with this? I sure don't. I don't like to think of myself as someone who has no chance in understanding the way the system works (BTW, sorry, no advanced studies in economics, mostly the school of life).

What if we were to use the internet and computers to vote - daily, weekly or monthly - on the most important decisions that are to be made in order to run our nation? Now that we have the opportunity to do so, wouldn't this be a natural step in human evolution? We won't fire George W or any of the other politicians, they can still go around trying to change peoples minds... but it will be for a cause they believe in, not for the power! I have this system already planned in my head from start to finish, but I'll spare you the details. Just tell me what would inevitably not work in this system? Are we scared of ourselves? Is it too much responsibility?

In this system, which basically changes and evolves depending on public opinion, one might suggest that maybe there's a little too much advertising around. We could then decide, as a truly free nation, that advertising should be taxed and that the money collected should go into creating a real free public press for television, radio and the web (without ANY need to satisfy advertisers, just the readers). Would this make our economy fall apart?

Everyone hates the idea of a society where everything is decided for you by some horrible corrupt super structure, but in a way, that's what our society is coming to if we don't do something soon! Just think of where technological advancements will be at just 5 years down the road from now? We'll have wireless, thinking, self-charging gizmos all over the place! If we just do whatever we *can* instead of slowing down and regulating the inventions popping out around us, we're bound to destroy the human race (you know, the limited resources, etc...).

I think it's a natural part of evolution for any (still hypothetical) intelligent species on a planet. First, they figure out how to use fire, ten thousand years later, they figure out how to manipulate the masses through religion. Another couple thousand years go by and then they spend a few centuries figuring out and admiring the perfectness or the natural evolutionary system we're all actually a part of. Then a couple centuries where they have to control they're "nature" now that they've evolved to a powerful enough level of intelligence. These are hard times for us and we should all appreciate the power we have to choose in life. The past hundred years of evolution have gone at an unprecedented rate, we're kind of like teen-agers going through growing pains - all the while thinking we're invincible!

I don't want to change the world, the world *is* changing. How it changes is up to us.

I'll be happy to continue this conversation directly via an eMail list if we feel it's just too off topic... Although, I think we may have pretty well said what we have to say. Thanks again Crab and Eugene for taking the time to share your opinions.

We're having record breaking temperatures right now over on the East coast, so the weather's great!

I too enjoy debate -- it's an opportunity to clarify and test my opinions.

But when I read the above, Rahz, and you're saying we're in agreement, I must not have expressed myself at all! You just told a horror story!

You said the fact that advertisers are paying for newspapers means they are determining the content. What do you mean? Advertisers don't pay to see what they want to read -- they pay because they believe the most people (or the demographic they're selling to) want to read it! This is a far more equitable system than 200 years ago, when printing presses were rare and you basically printed something if you wanted other people to read it, rather than something being printed because people wanted to read it. And in the past 100 years since that editorial newspaper phenomenon, we've found so many additional ways to communicate and express ourselves that the newspaper as a medium for the common folks like you and me is close to obsolete, and while such papers do exist they are small circulation. Hell, look at us -- we could form a newspaper to have this conversation, but luckily, we don't have to. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the accumulation of capital and the fact that revenues come to newspapers from advertisers means that you get more widely-distributed newspapers at a huge discount compared to the cost of bringing the news to you. The quality is, in my view, generally piss-poor, but that is because the public clamors for piss-poor reporting rather than more objective reporting that sounds dry by virtue of its lack of invectives. We get what we want, and they get what they pay for: the miracle of capitalism again!

I don't think in this country we could pass a law to kick advertisers out of the press. That would be a violation of free speech. However, supposing we could, we would instantly bankrupt any number of periodicals and increase the cost to you the consumer of those that remained. Or, if it were government funded as you seemed to suggest, we could keep them all open but at a still greater cost to us. Then on top of that we will have content issues: suppose I don't want my tax money going towards editorial I regard as blasphemous. And etc.

The point of all that was that newspapers are actually better (by which I mean, a better fit with what we want them to be) the less governed they are by some dictator, whether that dictator be an editor or be a majority vote of the public. I don't know how it is in Canada, but one of the fundamental principles of government in the U.S. is that the minority must be protected from the will of the majority. Hence the Bill of Rights, hence the protection of religion and free speech, and so on. The "people" may not all be stupid, but even if not we are busy, bigoted, and far from expert on any number of matters. Certainly I don't think we should be given unchecked vote authority over every aspect of the law, courts, police, and government. Of course, putting elected officials in those slots is not generally much of an improvement. But the solution to this is not to give MORE power to the institution of government, it is to limit the power of government as much as is feasible.

What I thought you might take from my earlier comments was that, in economic matters, I'd like to see the government limited to actions intended to ensure the functioning of the free market.

You seem to be choosing government power over corporate power, and I have the exact opposite reaction, for two reasons:
1) I understand the motives of the corporation, and to the extent they work towards profit the ends will be good because of the miracle of capitalism. The motives of government are far less predictable and, in my view, potentially much more sinister.
2) the corporation (to the extent it's not shielded by government, which I would not allow based on the above limitation) is accountable, whereas government is not. The corporation has to make a product we will buy if it is to make money or stay afloat, whereas the government can bribe us with our own money.

I wouldn't say any of us has "no chance of understanding how the system works". But I will say none of us should be obligated to, and I'll say that most of us don't. As for are we scared of ourselves, we should be if history is any indication.

So...I don't know that I want to get into a debate about this here, but does anyone else not accept evolutionary theory as scientific fact?

it's iffy...