Skip to main content

View Diary: Your iPhone may be killing people (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's the problem. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Magick Maven, Loge

    As Krugman pointed out, a large chunk of the globe can't meet these standards without pricing themselves out of the global economy.

    Take, for example, a hellhole like Burkina Faso. They have exactly three things to offer the economy: Natural resources, cheap labour, and lack of environmental standards. Land can be found elsewhere. A far better skilled and more productive workforce can be found elsewhere. The country follows the BYOI principle (build your own infrastructure).

    In short, demanding First World standards of them condemns them to povery. The advantage would be a lot of sanctimonious self-congratulating in the West, and an even greater market for humanitarian aid.

    I think a better approach is to allow poor countries to have low labour and environmental standards, but they should escalate as a country develops to prevent unacceptable labour arbitrage.

    Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

    by Dauphin on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:13:50 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Um, no (5+ / 0-)

      The  real problem, as has been previously pointed out, is that Capitalism is based on infinite growth, but the only planet we have to live on has a finite amount of air, water, minerals, and other resources. Unless and until that problem is successfully addressed, everything else is merely reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

      We need to develop and then implement a new system that replaces the profit motive, or at the very least subsumes it to it's rightful place as being secondary to ensuring that everyone has basic food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education. Then we need to address the issue of population growth. Ultimately, we will have to recognize the need for a one world government and a borderless world with uniform global standards so that owners and employers will not be able to pit workers against one another in a contrived "competition" that lowers standards for workers and consumers for the sole benefit of managers and investors.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:27:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, Loge

        Yes, we might discover a system which can replace the profit motive. However, in the short- to medium-term, no such system seems to be on the horizon, making betting on that happening a risky proposition.

        And I think you're confusing two problems: The first is the question of what the maximal sustainable GDP is on a planet of finite resources given a certain technological level.

        The second problem is how to ensure Third World countries participate in a global economy so that they have a chance of improving their living standards. And I'm sorry to say that no one will invest in a Third World country if it has to follow First World standards, so in the current international framework demanding that condemns them to the Middle Ages or at best the Renaissance.

        Finally, about population growth: It's not as much of a problem as people think. Once states pass the first stage of the Industrial Revolution (not much is needed; think Russia or Kazakhstan) social mores change and birth rates drop to or below simple reproduction. This is already happening, which is why the UN revised its forecast for maximum human population down to 9.3 billion down from about 10.7.

        Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

        by Dauphin on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:35:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  An argument against the profit motive, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drewfromct, nickrud

          full stop, is like saying the problem with economics is it involves people.  We need to find a way to work with the profit motive to make the best of what we can.  One way to do this is to distinguish between "short term greed," which results in a race to the bottom, and "long term greed," which results in virtuous circles of increased education, living standards, and therefore money pumped back into the system.  How we encourage the latter and discourage the former is not an easy one, I'll grant you.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 07:58:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a question of incentives. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, cardinal, nickrud, Loge

            (Yes, my thesis involves law and institutional economics, which shows). I find I have little patience these days for people who moralise.

            Machiavelli was right. People aren't particularly moral or particularly immoral (and that applies to whatever morality they may espouse). On average, they're not bright, but not dumb. Not brave, but not cowardly. And they like creature comforts.

            But some movements, when faced with the problem of what people are like, choose to solve the problem by breaking it: Reform man. Sure, it works, but only to a limited extent, the results take a long time to show and are unpredictable.

            The Church tried to create the Christian man. Even the Inquisition couldn't achieve that goal. Communist regimes tried to create the socialist man, selfless and inclined toward teamwork. It didn't work, and the regimes collapsed. Austrians and the radical branch of neoclassical economists tried to create the capitalist man. That didn't work, either.

            In short, it's better to plan for human nature than to change it. The chances of success improve.

            Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

            by Dauphin on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 08:03:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a law and econ man myself (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              drewfromct, Dauphin

              I was initially skeptical, having been a philosophy major undergrad (though I studied the analytic school, which has at least some scientific pretensions), but enrolled at the University of Chicago law school because it was the best school I got into and I loved the people, the neighborhood, and Chicago, generally, when I visited.  Three things I learned early on:  (1) there are left wing as well as right wing economists, and (2) a lot of law, especially the kind I practice, involves business, so applying an L&E methodology makes sense; (3) economics is not objective (see point 1), but it at least tries to be, unlike appeals to morality.  The behavioral law and economics movement is especially appealing, because it dispenses with the "rational man" standard in place of analyzing where people are "predictably irrational."  Having said that, law and economics doesn't address a lot of issues, especially when due process or other Constitutional rights are concerned, but even in those questions, understanding incentives helps to clarify the issues to be decided by a case and the implications of a particular decision.

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 08:21:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk, cardinal

                I consider economics a useful tool which helps with law in all its stages, from the legislative process to drafting contracts.

                However, my interest is a bit different than yours. The approach I use for my thesis doesn't stress predictable irrationality so much as bounded rationality: People try to achieve their goals rationally, but are limited by the limits of brainpower, imperfect information, and uncertainty. You cannot plan all the outcomes in advance and stipulate against them.

                Add opprtunism and asset specifity (the identity of the parties matters, since changing them means a loss of value) into the mix and sprinkle it with generic transaction costs, and you have a formidalbe toolbox for institutional solutions which run from market to hierarchy.

                Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

                by Dauphin on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 08:28:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Re (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              melo, Dauphin

              In short, it's better to plan for human nature than to change it. The chances of success improve.

              This is a great point. You want systemic solutions in which the incentives of all parties tend to make the aggregate situation better, not worse. If you set up the incentives correctly, you can avoid "tragedy of the commons" situations and promote healthy civilizational growth.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Thu Jan 20, 2011 at 10:31:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site