 |
| |
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
A few items while I have a few minutes.
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That silver doesn't just stay in the hands of Spanish nobles, but finds its way into the hands of the middle classes, who can then begin buying goods themselves. |
An early example of trickle down? 
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not all capital accumulation, but a critical burst of accumulated capital that allowed/created the conditions for capitalist take off. I want to say W.W. Rostow argued something similar to this (about periods of industrial take-off). That once this take off has begun, economic growth is pretty much sustained. |
This is a reasonable argument to make. I would argue that the critical period for the US was not the ten years prior to the Civil War, but rather the 10 to 20 years after the Civil War. This would make the role of slavery much less consequential both in timing and in magnitude, since the later growth was much greater. More on this below.
Rostow does argue something similar. However there are two critiques of Rostow's argument. First, not all coutries appear to have clearly defined critical periods. Second, the key industries identified by Rostow account for much less output than one would expect. IIRC, production of rails accounted for only 10 or 20 percent of US steel production in the critical period.
quote:
If hyper-exploitation provided the fuel for the initial burst of industrialization/capitalist growth, then we can say that capitalism is based on "slavery and genocide." But in this case, based means the original starting condtions rather than capitalism requires this condition at all times. |
OK, now I understand where you are coming from. Don't necessariliy agree with it, for some of the reasons outlined below, but I understand the argument.
[AS hereby exempts Chegitz from blanket charge of lack of knowledge of economic history. I should have known better.  ]
A couple factors that I dont think have been mentioned yet.
1. As I suggested above, the growth of the frontier after 1865 appears to have been a much greater factor in US economic growth than the contribution of slavery both in terms of the size of the impact and in the timing.
2. Beyond that, another critical factor was the set of policies which enabled the conversion of unoccupied land into productive capital. These include
Homestead Act, provisions of which are still in force today, helped convert undeveloped land into productive farms
Railroad Land Grants, which were actually in-kind loans, helped convert undeveloped land into efficinet transportation.
Morrill Act, successor to Northwest Ordinance, helped convert unoccupied land into schools and universities, which in turn helped develop human capital.
North and Thomas identified a similar set of policies used by the British in the late 1600's and early 1700's, primarily focussed on obtaining industrial know-how and disolving royal grants of monopoly (at least domestically).
3. To the extent that British capital financed American development, slavery was a pretty small factor. What the British earned from India was far greater than anything they earned in the Americas. Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. IIRC, the British East India Company was more profitable than the West India Company and the Hudson Bay Company combined, and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Consider
1. Establishment of the Raj. What Clive and Hastings extorted from local rulers made everybody else look like pikers in comparison. Naked imperialism at its worst.
2. The Salt Tax. Salt was essential for preserving food in a tropical environment, so this was essentially a poll tax on hundreds of millions of people. This was a form of mercantilism.
3. The Cloth Trade. Buy cotton from India at below market prices, sell cloth to India at above market prices, keeping the mills of Lancashire busy and profitable. The ultimate mercantilist policy.
4. Growth of Opium. Opium grown in India was sold in China to cover the trade deficit. Again, another form of mercantilism.
In sum, I would argue that the opening of new lands (which was accompanied by the displacement of native peoples), earnings from mercantilism, and development of efficeint institutions were the most important factors contributing to the rise of capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Last edited by Adam Smith on 23-10-2002 at 00:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I don't think Sava could cut it in computer science. He's in a business program or something horribly inappropriate, IIRC.  |
the more you post, the more you reveal yourself to be full of sh!t...
I was going to DePaul for Computer Science but transferred to the Illinois Institute of Art. They have a Game Art and Design program that I am in. Seriously though, it doesn't matter what you think because you are simply a fool. I tried to have a serious conversation here, but you've turned it into a insult fest.
quote:
but an annoying tendency to rant and completely discount the opinions of other posters who are more intelligent, more experienced, and considerably more mature than you are |
well obviously not you or Asher...
I disagree with DinoDoc, yet I don't discount his opinion... likewise with AdamSmith, and even NeOmega (despite his fundamental lack of moral insight)... but you Sikander, are a troll, just like Asher... I don't bother validating the arguments of flaming horses asses.
I don't like to ignore people because I think that everybody's serious opinion is important, but you two are going to be ignored because you are degenerating this thread into a muck-racking free for all, and I will not be a part of your ignorance any more.
thank you, have a nice day!
Last edited by Sava on 23-10-2002 at 00:44
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sten Sture
Does anyone still care, in this thread, why an equity stake in UAL is worth less than one of the company's planes?
|
Let me see if I can lay this out as simply as possible:
The value of a company is not simply the price of its stock multiplied by the number of outstanding shares. First off, the number of shares outstanding is often not the full equity stake anyway, since the company itself may retain a large chunk of the shares (for various reasons), as is the case with UAL. Second, common stock is not the only form of equity, as preferred shares and convertible debt are also equity positions.
True valuation usually follows one of three techniques, which I won't get into for the sake of brevity: discounted free cash flows, comparibles or dividend discount. There are others, but these tend to be the most common.
Now, specifically in the case of stock value vs. plane value, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First off, you're probably thinking of the new replacement value of one of the planes, not its current market value, although that really doesn't make too much difference in this context. Second, regardless of the value of any given asset (or combination of them), a company (usually) has a significant amount of debt. If you look at UAL's 2001 financial statements, you'll see that while the company has $25.2 billion in assets (of all types), it also has $22 billion in liabilities (of all types). Of course, $3.2 billion isn't the value of the company either, but it's closer than the sum of its shares on the market. Third, the reason why the share price is so low right now is that the market (investors) obviously realize that the company is getting hammered financially - ie. losing money hand over fist - and that the immediate prospects for recovery are low. Ergo, not a great investment at the time being, unless you are hedging that it will turn around somewhere in the future and want to buy in at a low price.
In reality, its more complicated than this, but it gives you an idea.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
I DID say that greed is not just money. Why don't you just admit you were wrong on that argument?
Anything beyond subsistance is a product of greed, and in this society, just about everyone goes beyond subsistance. |
Your statement was that someone doing somehting to feel good is greedy, because you think that feeling good is not part of basic human needs. i think you are wrong there. Wanting to feel good is normal, and hence, not excessive, thus it can't be 'greedy' at all.
quote:
So you believe in the healing power of chiropractors? After all they are professionals that are accredited. And assuming you have no medical background, I assume that you believe what they say as fact? 
Just because someone is an 'expert' in a field, doesn't mean they are correct.
Information is coming out that deficiencies in feeling 'happy' are due to chemical imbalances rather than the amount of social interactions. |
BUt someone who is not an 'expert' is far more likely to be incorrect. I have taken a class on neurobiology, so I know some about all those wonderful chemicals, but doznes of thing affect thier release, re-uptake, production, and so forth. Human beings are socail beings, thus, social interaction has been part of our evolution: look back at Che's smmiling comment.
quote:
That is true that a Euro wide system of trade had sprung up, but the question is how much of the wealth is due to the slave system. One can assert that Spain and England (and to a lesser extent, France) did indeed benefit from the slave trade, but in purely agricultural pursuits. There is a reason that slavery was abolished when countries began to be more industrialized. Industrialization begun the spreading of capital-intensive industries, which did not require the vast amounts of labor before. Industralism flows DIRECTLY from capitalism. Capitalism is all about capital-intensive industries (they are more efficient than labor-intensive industry) and increased technology. Slavery does not really fit in the model, because it is labor-intensive in practice and is basically used for agriculture. |
Cpitalism is about the flow of capital, where the capital comes from is immaterial to what should be done with it, and what the most efficient ways of creating it are. Fine, industry is the best way to create it, but Adam Smith wrote in the 1770's, when industry was nacent, when most wealth was from the products of mines and fields. And early indusry did require vast amounts of workers, aftre all, the factories at up all the displaced farmers and the new borths due to the agricultural revolution of the mid-18th century.
quote:
 True capitalists were also abolishionists. Adam Smith (the Scottish one  ) was a major proponent for abolishing slavery. People should be free to contract for services. The idea that slaves are merely property flys in the face of Capitalism's theorists. There is a reason that Liberalism (in the classical sense) created capitalism. |
Just because the original thinker thinks something means nothing, ask Marx. American capitalism hummed just fine with black defined as commodities. As always, if someone ain't a 'person', then they can hardly enter into contracts.
quote:
So why are we all not in caves, providing for ourselves with hunting and gathering? Because we decided it wasn't enough. We decided that it is better to build up civilizations, and when you move from the cave to the house, economics is all there is. |
Man didn't decide to farm. Man didn't decide to become civilized. These things happened slowly, and over time, not because of somee grand plan. it also does not have to go from hunter to farmer. The peoples of the plains were farmers and gatherers in 1400. By 1700 they were nomadic horsemen. Mankind adapts.
quote:
The ECONOMY is all there is. Just about every election turns on it. Why? Because economics decides who gets to eat and who doesn't. It decides who gets the luxuries and who doesn't.
I think this is one aspect where both che and I agree. Economics is the most important 'problem' for most people. How to feed yourself is a question of economics, first and foremost. |
How I feed myself is a question of economics now, because it has been made an issue of economics, not because it is naturally. I have never seen a book on the economics of the aborigenes, yet they eat. Why, because at a certain level of human development, the whole superstructure of economic 'speak' barely fits. Today, there is enough food to feed everyone in the world: that everyone doesn't eat is not a matter of economics (even if you live on 50 cents a day, you can afford some food) but politics. Political power, many times achieved by wealth but not always, is what regulates what happens and what doesn't happen.
quote:
Gold, silver really had a great effect on Spain right? Mercantalism dictated they horde it and the Kingdom suffered from such inflationary pressure, it nearly killed them outright.
Luxury goods have little to nothing to do with growth. Who really cares about them except the richest of the rich? |
That gold and silver came into spain, eneded in flanders and the netherlands. Spain speant all its money on frivilous things, like wars. Think of Spain as someone who won the lottery and spent it al away. that money doesn't disappear, it goes to the merchants and others there to meet the needs of spain. And since that money, unlike lottery money, ddn't come out of the pool of capital already around, but come from 'thin air', all the better! Oh, and the reason most explorers set off was to get luxuries, since back then, the poor hardly consumed. No one became rich from selling to the poor back in 1500, unlike today.
quote:
Growth comes from technological advancement. Exploration did provide new areas for resources. The growth from exploration was jack compared to the growth Industrial Revolution.
Look at any graph of per capita income from BC up to present day. You'll find a pretty steady curve, that increases in gradation barely in 1500, but starting in 1850, the gradation turns almost vertical in growth. |
A mapmaker in 1490 would have placed Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christ, in the middle of the map. By 1590 they simply could not. A huge discovery like that of the 'New World" is so vast as to force a dynamic change in the ideas of men, it served to destroy older myths and hierarchies. To think that the industrial revolution would have begun in Europe in 1770, with or without the discovery of the Americas, to me seems ludicrous.
You also rgeatly underestimate the vast resources brought back. The amount of gold an silver brought form the americas was so immense that it certainly increased the overall amount of money drastically. I hingly doubt that the system of banks and corporations and so forth, the finantial backbones of capitalism, would have come into being if the European system had not had to deal, and benefited from, the vast growth in the money supply and the chances for great wealth.
You also ignore the immense benefit of new world crops to European health, diet, and population. Corn and potatoes are more productive than weath or barley per the same space. In ecology, the great last-off of human population is a very simple j-curve. At some point the population equilibrium is broken, and since human populations expand exponentialy, once this happens, well, the population goes through the roof. American crops were very imortant in improving the efficiency of agriculture, plus, the agricultural revolution that would provide all the new workers begun bfore capitalism. I may also point out, that the biggest change of all was changes in sanitation, which happened independently of the development of capitalist theory, and the chnages were discovered not by company scientist or so forth- they were discovered like all discoveries before, by interested individuals. So, the immense growth in mankind's numbers came at the same time of capitalism, parallel, not as a result. In fact, the huge boom in population was probably vital to the huge growth of capitalism (more workers, more consumers)
quote:
Of course Capitalism benefited from past systems, but if you think any system DID NOT benefit from past systems you are lying your ass off. If Socialism ever comes into play it will not only benefit from capitalism, but slavery as well. Will that make it evil? No.. it'll be evil for other reasons . |
Oh, id on't doubt it for a second. I am just glad that finaly you agree wih me, that the development of capitalism can't be separated from the system that came before.
The reasons for calling capitalsim immoral are others not these (we have been arguiing a tangent for so long)
Che: I sometimes get excited, but I don't mean to insult anyone. If I wanted to have insulted Adam Smith, I would have. Its simply my rethorical style.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
I am a strict believer of man as a political, not economic, animal.
So, the probem with modern capitalism is not in the theory itself, but in how it interacts with the political side of mankind, and the basic political theories of the day, democracy and nationalism. Capitalism calls for several things that simply are not here, due to poltiics. For consumers to have real choice, they need detailed information about all the competting products. The problem is that the very sellers control the information, so that consumers can hardly get honest and unbiased info, since those that have benefited from the system have a desire to change the system to their further benefit.
I love the example of limiting labor flows. If capital should be free to move anywhere, why not workers? Basically, American companies can send capital to Mexico, but Mexico can't send labor to American companies: why not? Becuase of politics and nationalism. The problem then is an inbalance. By ginoring the basic power of politics, 'economicheads' make recomendations based on an incomplete and biased view of the world, always the great recipe for disaster.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
 |
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So, the probem with modern capitalism is not in the theory itself, but in how it interacts with the political side of mankind, and the basic political theories of the day, democracy and nationalism. Capitalism calls for several things that simply are not here, due to poltiics. For consumers to have real choice, they need detailed information about all the competting products. The problem is that the very sellers control the information, so that consumers can hardly get honest and unbiased info, since those that have benefited from the system have a desire to change the system to their further benefit.
|
>>>Hmm.... but what about actually trying the product? It even goes to durable goods. I won't by a Ford, niether will my brother. No amount of advertising can sway us. We saw how much Ford cares about their Aerostar line when our parents bought one. In fact, any businessman will tell you, word of mouth is the most effective form of advertisement.
Exactly what products or services are you referring too?
My favorite are Insurance Companies. I mean, the corruption got blatantly obvious when insurance began to become mandatory in most States to drive.
Now they want bush to back up their companies, (and seeing how an insurance company simply is a pool of money, they actually are demanding Bush make their company) with 10 Billion in taxpayer money, for terrorism Insurance.
quote:
I love the example of limiting labor flows. If capital should be free to move anywhere, why not workers? Basically, American companies can send capital to Mexico, but Mexico can't send labor to American companies: why not? Becuase of politics and nationalism. The problem then is an inbalance. By ginoring the basic power of politics, 'economicheads' make recomendations based on an incomplete and biased view of the world, always the great recipe for disaster. |
If I am following you here also, then I agree. It is a travesty that Mexicans are good enough to pick our apples and cabbage for $1.84 an hour, they are helping build America, yet they are not allowed to live here, and in fact are sneered at by Joe America as law breakers if they try.
However, once again, our conclusions are different. I have not given up on America yet. We have been given the power to vote, to influence the political side, and to assemble. I for one am going to do everything I can to see that Justice and equality are brought back to America. So I voted Republican. HA HA HA. Of course I only did that cuz I hate gun control, and social engineering. I am a human being and an individual.
So I joined the two-bit Libertarians. But I believe, we will be around until either America shapes up, or until America falls.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Just how low are their standards? You don't know a damn thing about computers from what you've posted on these forums.
And I could have sworn you talked about how qualified you were to talk about economics in another thread since that's what you studied.
But the fact is you're not in computer science. IIA offers a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Game Art and Design. That's not computer science, Sava dear...not even close.
You may as well be going to somewhere like Full Sail and getting a game design diploma...
|
Yeah, I guess the fact that I have been building computers since 1992 doesn't matter, or the fact that I've spent two years at an accredited university taking computer science courses, or the fact that I know C++, java, pearl, some A, html... geez... I guess it doesn't matter than I worked at ww.grainger when I was 17 running and maintaining the network at their branch office in downers grove, IL... I guess it doesn't matter that I worked at Edward's hospital in Naperville being their all purpose computer person; building their computers, setting up their OS's, maintaining their networks... man I sure don't know a damn thing....
compared to some jerk off microsoft fan boy...
I transferred to IIA for two reasons... 1) I hate programming but I love working with 3D art, sound, and other media... DePaul has a terrible 3D art program... IIA has the focus on game design (which is what I want to do)
2) Job placement... IIA has over a 90% job placement rate for graduates with salaries starting at $45k US. The teachers are people who work in the industry; know the industry; and have friends in the industry. DePaul has 0 job placement programs for the gaming industry.
I never said I majored economics, I said I minored in it for a year, which I did... and I don't know how many other times I've said, "I don't know sh!t about business"... ASher, you're an idiot, and you don't bother to read half the stuff I post, do everyone a favor and go play in traffic...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Yeah, I guess the fact that I have been building computers since 1992 doesn't matter |
That's right, it doesn't matter.
quote:
or the fact that I've spent two years at an accredited university taking computer science courses, or the fact that I know C++, java, pearl, some A, html... geez... I guess it doesn't matter than I worked at ww.grainger when I was 17 running and maintaining the network at their branch office in downers grove, IL... I guess it doesn't matter that I worked at Edward's hospital in Naperville being their all purpose computer person; building their computers, setting up their OS's, maintaining their networks... man I sure don't know a damn thing.... |
You can list off all of your knowledge you claim to have, but you've yet to demonstrate any of it here and have actually shown a complete ignorance on almost all computer threads you've posted in.
The fact that you switched out of a real CS course to some artsy course says volumes about just how well you know your stuff.
quote:
I transferred to IIA for two reasons... 1) I hate programming but I love working with 3D art, sound, and other media... DePaul has a terrible 3D art program... IIA has the focus on game design (which is what I want to do) |
You could get a real degree and still do games design, you know. My university offers a BSc in Computer Science with a concentration in Games Design. You've gotta take a whole assortment of art, physics, math, programming, project management, hardware, etc courses. Then again, it's a real degree, not some fine arts degree that would get you laughed out of most big name employer as a game designer.
But it all makes so much more sense now. You're smarter than most other people here, taking a fine arts degree because you couldn't handle a real science degree. 
BTW, programming is only one aspect of computer science. You could get a BSc in compsci with only taking basic programming courses these days. Basically what you're saying to me is you hated the actual science part of Computer Science, and you're more interested in the artsy aspect of it, which you seem to think there's a big future in with lots of room to grow inside a company.
Well if you think that, good luck to you. Have you talked to any real corporate recruiters about what they expect once you graduate? I think you'll be in for quite a big surprise...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
But it all makes so much more sense now. You're smarter than most other people here, taking a fine arts degree because you couldn't handle a real science degree.
|
Yeah, that's why I've got a 3.4 (on 4 scale). It's not the actual degree program I was upset with, its the lack of industry connections. Graduating at DePaul, I'd be just another out of work IT person.
quote:
Well if you think that, good luck to you. Have you talked to any real corporate recruiters about what they expect once you graduate? I think you'll be in for quite a big surprise... |
One of my best friends is a VP at Collective Technologies, a network consulting firm in Chicago. He's been through the industry. He doesn't have any degree, yet he makes 60k plus per year at the age of 26.
A degree is just a piece of paper Asher. Companies don't give have a crap where your degree is from, or what it's in. The care more about experience and knowledge.
I have the experience, I have the knowledge, IIA is going to guide me into the type of job I want (and at about 1/3 of the cost of DePaul).
It's nice that you think you know things, but don't be afraid to listen to people who know what they are talking about.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Yeah, that's why I've got a 3.4 (on 4 scale). It's not the actual degree program I was upset with, its the lack of industry connections. Graduating at DePaul, I'd be just another out of work IT person. |
Really? Just how well do you understand what CS is? IT people don't get CS degrees in general anymore, they get an MIS degree or a diploma from a CC...
quote:
A degree is just a piece of paper Asher. Companies don't give have a crap where your degree is from, or what it's in. The care more about experience and knowledge. |
Companies care about how well you can think, how well you can learn, the diversity of your knowledge and experience, and your leadership/teamworking abilities. When you get a degree in fine arts, most employers will look at the applicants and see someone with a real science degree and someone with a fine arts degree -- I wonder who they think will know their stuff more?
You remind me of the 40 year old computer programmers who insist their 20 years of programming experience is way better than a degree can ever get them. And then they get surprised that they never, or very rarely, get promoted as the new BSc guys get promoted over him.
But obviously IIA has told you that a fine arts degree is just as valuable as a BSc, so who am I to conflict with their marketing?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Yeah, that's why I've got a 3.4 (on 4 scale). It's not the actual degree program I was upset with, its the lack of industry connections. Graduating at DePaul, I'd be just another out of work IT person.
One of my best friends is a VP at Collective Technologies, a network consulting firm in Chicago. He's been through the industry. He doesn't have any degree, yet he makes 60k plus per year at the age of 26.
A degree is just a piece of paper Asher. Companies don't give have a crap where your degree is from, or what it's in. The care more about experience and knowledge.
I have the experience, I have the knowledge, IIA is going to guide me into the type of job I want (and at about 1/3 of the cost of DePaul).
It's nice that you think you know things, but don't be afraid to listen to people who know what they are talking about. |
Who the heck has been feeding you this crap? DePaul has one of the best CS programs in the country. Two, almost everyone I knew in the CS program got a job, even the retarded guy.
A degree may not be important in your twenties, but the lack of one is begining to hurt me now. I've risen about as far as I can go, without a degree. The tech bubble is over, and they want people that can demonstrate stick-to-itiveness, which is what a degree really represents.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-10-2002 19:40
Imran
|