SGI: Discussion

ORIGIN 400 - Page 3

hamei wrote:
clavileno wrote:
So, in the context of a market economy, we do, in fact, need the rich in order to provide (some of the) jobs for the poor!

Sorry but you do not understand a "market economy" in the slightest. The wealthy do not do shit to advance an economy. They are pretty much parasites. There will always be the wealthy and they do provide nice decorations but almost ALL advances come from the middle class.

Wealthy people and companies do not create anything new : they manipulate whatever comes along to provide the maximum profit for themselves and kill anything that interferes with their own selfish desires in the process. It's the middle class which is the "market economy." Crush the middle class and you get Mexico or China or India.

Please, people, use your own brains and eyes instead of just regurgitating the swill you've been fed by the CEO's and Wall Street brokers.


Ah-hem, thank you for that. Contrary to what you may think, I've spent many decades using my eyes, ears, and brain to examine the world and form my own opinions. Those opinions may not match yours, but that is the way of the world, and it would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed on everything.

Whether we like it or not, the desire for wealth has facilitated some of the most important technological advances. Without the desire for wealth, there would have been no industrial revolution, no explosion in technology and, yes, no SGI. Without access to existing wealth (capital), those advances would have been slower coming.

The market economy provides efficient means by which wealth may be acquired, and products / services distributed. Without a market economy, wealth creation becomes more difficult; without some pre-existing wealth, a dynamic market economy cannot realistically flourish. At least, it cannot in the longer term; in the short term there has, of late, always been borrowing.

Where you see parasites, I see self-interest on the part of some participants in an efficient market. Just as a mixture of abilities, of resources, of means, and so on is important to both the diversity and the movement of the economy (and, lest we forget, it is economic entropy which keeps things moving), so the varied motivations and ambitions of the market's participants also stimulate movement and development.

Now, socially - or at least, politically - it may be expedient (or even desirable!) to limit or otherwise temper by regulation the operation of some market participants, so as to allow the market to meet other, not-necessarily-market-related goals. But that is the role of the regulation; the lack of self-regulation on the part of individual participants does not render them somehow deficient or deserving of our ire, in my opinion at least.

To brand "the wealthy" "parasites" is as pointless as calling "the poor" "lazy" or "stupid". Each participant (in society, as in the market economy) plays their part, within constraints both of their own making and imposed by others. We all need (almost) all of the various types and flavours of participants; remove some, and the rest operates - at best - inefficiently.
I knew that there was no way that I could have been the first! :D

Tempus fugit...
Dubhthach wrote:
josehill wrote:
skywriter wrote:
ah, yes the O3!
aka, "The Ozone."
Reminds me of my post from nearly 6 years ago! :shock:

http://forums.nekochan.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4282&p=33015&hilit=ozone#p33015
clavileno wrote:
Ah-hem, thank you for that. Contrary to what you may think, I've spent many decades using my eyes, ears, and brain to examine the world and form my own opinions. Those opinions may not match yours, but that is the way of the world, and it would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed on everything.

Whether we like it or not, the desire for wealth has facilitated some of the most important technological advances. Without the desire for wealth, there would have been no industrial revolution, no explosion in technology and, yes, no SGI. Without access to existing wealth (capital), those advances would have been slower coming.

The market economy provides efficient means by which wealth may be acquired, and products / services distributed. Without a market economy, wealth creation becomes more difficult; without some pre-existing wealth, a dynamic market economy cannot realistically flourish. At least, it cannot in the longer term; in the short term there has, of late, always been borrowing.

Where you see parasites, I see self-interest on the part of some participants in an efficient market. Just as a mixture of abilities, of resources, of means, and so on is important to both the diversity and the movement of the economy (and, lest we forget, it is economic entropy which keeps things moving), so the varied motivations and ambitions of the market's participants also stimulate movement and development.

Now, socially - or at least, politically - it may be expedient (or even desirable!) to limit or otherwise temper by regulation the operation of some market participants, so as to allow the market to meet other, not-necessarily-market-related goals. But that is the role of the regulation; the lack of self-regulation on the part of individual participants does not render them somehow deficient or deserving of our ire, in my opinion at least.

To brand "the wealthy" "parasites" is as pointless as calling "the poor" "lazy" or "stupid". Each participant (in society, as in the market economy) plays their part, within constraints both of their own making and imposed by others. We all need (almost) all of the various types and flavours of participants; remove some, and the rest operates - at best - inefficiently.

Hogwash and sophistry. Believe these fairy tales all you like but in fact, they are pure nonsense. We've had 30 years of this crap and look where we are directly because of it. Greed is not good.

Nothing but corruption comes from avarice and that's been true even before King Midas.
hamei wrote:
clavileno wrote:
Ah-hem, thank you for that. Contrary to what you may think, I've spent many decades using my eyes, ears, and brain to examine the world and form my own opinions. Those opinions may not match yours, but that is the way of the world, and it would be a pretty dull place if we all agreed on everything.

Whether we like it or not, the desire for wealth has facilitated some of the most important technological advances. Without the desire for wealth, there would have been no industrial revolution, no explosion in technology and, yes, no SGI. Without access to existing wealth (capital), those advances would have been slower coming.

The market economy provides efficient means by which wealth may be acquired, and products / services distributed. Without a market economy, wealth creation becomes more difficult; without some pre-existing wealth, a dynamic market economy cannot realistically flourish. At least, it cannot in the longer term; in the short term there has, of late, always been borrowing.

Where you see parasites, I see self-interest on the part of some participants in an efficient market. Just as a mixture of abilities, of resources, of means, and so on is important to both the diversity and the movement of the economy (and, lest we forget, it is economic entropy which keeps things moving), so the varied motivations and ambitions of the market's participants also stimulate movement and development.

Now, socially - or at least, politically - it may be expedient (or even desirable!) to limit or otherwise temper by regulation the operation of some market participants, so as to allow the market to meet other, not-necessarily-market-related goals. But that is the role of the regulation; the lack of self-regulation on the part of individual participants does not render them somehow deficient or deserving of our ire, in my opinion at least.

To brand "the wealthy" "parasites" is as pointless as calling "the poor" "lazy" or "stupid". Each participant (in society, as in the market economy) plays their part, within constraints both of their own making and imposed by others. We all need (almost) all of the various types and flavours of participants; remove some, and the rest operates - at best - inefficiently.

Hogwash and sophistry. Believe these fairy tales all you like but in fact, they are pure nonsense. We've had 30 years of this crap and look where we are directly because of it. Greed is not good.

Nothing but corruption comes from avarice and that's been true even before King Midas.


Well, I can't fault you on your brevity nor your succinctness. However, I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you think my views are sophisms whilst yours are not! Or is this one of the Churchill-esque irregular verbs; something like: "I am right, you are wrong, he or she is a sophist"?

I would suggest it is hardly 30 years we have to worry about; in the context of, say, the rise and fall of SGI, we must, at the very least, look back over the period since around 1780 (a reasonable date for the start of the industrial revolution), or even as far back as the 16th century (the start of what has become modern capitalism). In terms of "greed is good" and, perhaps, unfettered avarice, one must cast aside Gordon Gecko in favour of such ne'er-do-wells as the early Venetian bankers, with their pocket armies and orchestration of wars.

I'm really not sure how to put this; capitalism and the market economy are the only proven engines of technological development. We are not all here to enthuse over the work of Siliconski Grafiks. The planned economy, socialist (or further left-wing) ideals, the curtailment of the entrepreneurial imperative; these are all important pillars of systems which have demonstrably failed to deliver on so many levels.

That said, it is not I who am extolling the virtues of "greed is good" as a mantra; I have merely pointed out that avarice is just one part of a complex capitalist ecosystem, which must be balanced by other positions in order to create a healthy economy, and which must be tempered by society (whose will in this regard is represented by the authority delegated to legislators and regulators) in the interests of society's wider aims and objectives.

Incidentally, for what it is worth, I've spent the last dozen years running social enterprises and not-for-profit organisations. My personal objectives owe more to giving back than to taking away from society, but that doesn't prevent me from understanding the world nor supporting that which I believe to be right.

Rather than throwing accusations of character flaws and lack of analysis my way, perhaps you can articulate your idea of how the economy should function so as to meet the needs of society and continue the path of technological development?
tally ho! well put, old 'bean!

_________________
I love my iPad!!!
Jim Clark used 10 million dollars of the money he made at SGI to create Netscape Communications Corporation. In the end, Netscape made a small number of people very wealthy but cost a whole bunch of other people, mainly AOL/Time Warner stockholders, a fortune. So, was the creation of Netscape ultimately good or bad for the economy? I'd say it was bad. Was it good or bad for society? I'd say it was good. Did the societal good outweigh the economic bad? Did the billions of dollars made by Jim Clark disappear from the real economy, i.e. the economy that's accessible to us commoners, forever? I'd say that to make such an argument is ludicrous. Unless it's buried in bell jars in the back yard money is an equal part of the economy no matter who lays claim to billions of it. It's not a zero sum game; every dollar earned by Jim Clark is not a dollar that can never again be earned by a commoner...