Blogcritics Comments on Iran Redux

Comment by alessandro on Iran Redux

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:47:00 EST

Les, #144 interesting. Taxes have indeed increased but that's a result of government interventionism. Yes, from what I read economic times back then seemed more fluid however on the other hand our standard of living is unquestionably higher and unemployment is lower. Yin and Yang dude, yin and yang.

Comment by bliffle on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:57:47 EST

troll: "...why these bright people hadn't documented the process in the first place..." That's easy. Because management kept demanding they fix problems and meet unrealistic schedules rather than wasting time documenting. Nobody reads those documents anyhow, they're always out-of-date and don't correspond to current conditions. You were probably the first person to express interest.

Comment by Les Slater on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:01:41 EST

troll, "Finally it limit[s] the pool of those that could apply their intelligence to the problem." This is an enormous efficiency issue. Intellectual efficiency. Productivity. The human spirit itself. There are in so many fields where an individual has such a stature no one dare think critically of what he pontificates. A good example in this thread is Milton Friedman boosting the absolutely ridiculous (except maybe as a cute trick to blind gullible 10th graders), 'I, Pencil'. A fuckin' Nobel Prize winner in ECONOMICS, no less! Sheesh! This is just an example of the mediocrity that so many have sunk to. People are not used to thinking critically. The priesthood, those that society ordains, those that relegate the rest to sheep. Les

Comment by troll on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:04:24 EST

Les - I found the same to be true of many of the 'subject matter experts' that I dealt with not only those engineers - frequently at no small expense to the business or go'ment agency that employed them ...but one can hardly blame them for acting in their own best interest I guess

Comment by Les Slater on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:40:33 EST

troll, "...he had 'kept his notes to himself ' to ensure his position as a well paid priest in the temple." I found this true of the majority of the electronics engineering profession. They, of course, were a 'highly educated' priesthood. It turned out that much of the mumbo jumbo was nothing more than obscufation. This had a number of interesting effects. Of course, one was to maintain the priesthood, and their 'worth'. Another was to make it difficult for them to design things, especially if the new deviated much from incremental enhancements. Finally it limited the pool of those that could apply their intelligence to the problem. Les

Comment by Les Slater on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:23:53 EST

Silver Surfer, "...the slight downward cycle never quite wipes out the upward cycle, so you just don't lose - provided of course that you don't sell. The equity in the home increases..." "...the prime motivation for investing in bricks and mortar is simply having a place to call your own. Of course with stocks ans shares, if you don't sell, you don't lose. Same with housing." So it might seem. I've been around for a long time. I do see how this is evolving. I REMEMBER back in 1948 when a common worker would be able to buy a house. The price of a modest house might be two years wage of the one worker in the household. Taxes were low and savings were high. After saving for the down payment one could get a 20 year mortgage at a 6% interest. The payment amounted to under 14% of HIS wage. Now, let's get into some more modern times. A family has a total income of $40K manages to get a home for 200K and 100% finance it for 30 years at 6%. Their payments would amount to 36% of their gross income and typical real estate taxes another 13% for a total of 49%. This trend turns home 'ownership' into slavery to the banks. Les

Comment by troll on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:56:42 EST

Franco - I'm sitting in the middle of a snow storm and you've worked hard trying to communicate...so you deserve a story: in my wayward youth I spent some time as a systems analyst 'gunslinger'...one assignment that I took on was a job for Bell Labs designing training for them the problem that they faced was in their old long lines system which had been pieced together as needed by brilliant engineers based on nonstandard uses of equipment which by the time I came along had begun to fail with increasing frequency due to basic wear and tear what the labs wanted was a program to teach employees how to repair the equipment when it broke down naturally a big part of my job depended on interviewing 'subject matter experts' - the (by then quite old) guys who put the system together in the first place - and one question that I wanted to learn the answer to was why these bright people hadn't documented the process in the first place... this question usually elicited sheepish looks and tales of 'those heady days building the system' before there were standards for documentation and when they 'had to make whatever they had on hand work' etc etc until one day I was sitting with three different broken pieces of long lines each of which seemed to have served the same function in the system (which function was not implied as a use in the specs for any of them) - and one of those old geezers...whose response to my question was that he had 'kept his notes to himself ' to ensure his position as a well paid priest in the temple the implication of these interviews was clear and I reported to my project manager that the cost effective approach would be to replace they system...naturally they shot the messenger - but a couple of years and a bunch of bucks later Ma Bell agreed get it - ?

Comment by Silver Surfer on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:45:00 EST

Les writes: "Have you been paying any attention to economic news of late? That 'real' real estate, is falling in value". The thing is Les, in Oz, and I assume the story is the same in America, if you hang on to your place and keep paying the mortgage the price eventually goes up as real-estate prices always move in an up-down cycle. However, the slight downward cycle never quite wipes out the upward cycle, so you just don't lose - provided of course that you don't sell. The equity in the home increases, and in America you are lucky enough to have low interst rates (ours are now 8 per cent) and can write off your interest as a tax deduction (we can't). Not that much different to the stock market, but with less greed involved as for the average punter, the prime motivation for investing in bricks and mortar is simply having a place to call your own. Of course with stocks ans shares, if you don't sell, you don't lose. Same with housing. The problems only arise when the buyer can't keep paying the mortgage at the agreed rate. Yet it's amazing how flexible the banks and the non-bank lenders are when it comes to renegotiating the loan or allowing for deferment of payment in genuine circumstances. Beacuse in the long run, no one wants to lose, and no one really wants to put anyone out on ths street if there's another way round it. This is just another piece of wall st bullshit that is easily solvable with a (little) bit of government help. When you think about the military budget of the US, the amount needed is dead-set fucking peanuts. And as for the falling dollar: an overinflated currency once again created by greed on Wall St. The fall in the dollar takes it to just about where should have been these past 10 years, and is the (minor) correction we all had to have. Of course, I'm happy as the $A is now at near paritywith the greenack, which gives me great rates when I'm travelling. Selfish, maybe, but now all you bastards know exactly how it feels - especially when you travel to Europe :)

Comment by troll on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:52:34 EST

[over production of labor and its associated recession]

Comment by troll on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:49:56 EST

please explain the efficiency of the destruction of commodities (and the value [derived from labor] embedded in them) to maintain price please explain the efficiency (and the 'half full' nature) of the overproduction of labor its associated recession Franco - it is not surprising that you see the existing relations as based on eternal fundamental psychological laws...you are quite literally living the bourgeois dream as is evidenced even in your chosen proof structure: you assume as axiomatic and timeless what is to be demonstrated and then spend your time explaining how the 'real world' proves your point - contradictions therefore are explained away as necessary and a dream it is what you neglect is the fact that everything has a history - nothing never changes there is cause for hope that the suffering required by today's capitalism is not a necessary condition of human existence ...I understand that you don't 'grok' my meaning - so I suggest that you write me off as crazy

Comment by Dave Nalle on Iran Redux

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:14:23 EST

Pressure from 'markets' amounts to everyone in the financial community agreeing that it's a good idea. As for the declining value of that property, do the math. If someone buys a $150K house on credit and makes payments for a typical period of about 2 years with a 30 year note, even if the terms aren't rapacious, they've already paid about $20K in interest. Values haven't dropped more than about 10% nationwide, so if the houses are foreclosed on, they still retain more than enough value to make up the loan amount with the interest included. And if the loan is front-loaded or includes PMI or the buyers were paying on two loans with an 80/20 then the banks got even more money out of the deal over and above whatever they can sell the house for. Now I realize the Austin area isn't typical, but around here, as fast as houses are getting foreclosed on they're getting resold for about the same price as they sold for originally sometimes even a little more. So the banks pocket all the interest, plus the value of the resale. For the loan crisis to be a real crisis we'd need to have a lot of property standing empty for a prolonged period and basically unsellable. In most of the country that's not the case, in fact new construction is still going on. Dave

Comment by Les Slater on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:31:18 EST

"This isn't a case of government forcing the international banks to back up the regional banks..." Correct, it is more like the banks forcing the government to back THEM up. If the fed action undermines the currency then it will oblige the treasury to print more money. Ultimately it is the government subsidizing the banks. "...it's entirely voluntary." No, it's been enormous pressure by the markets not to let the current liquidity crisis grow into a full blown monetary crisis and a collapse of the economy.

Comment by Les Slater on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:46:25 EST

"As for collateral, what about all that property that banks loaned money on? It's pretty damned real." Have you been paying any attention to economic news of late? That 'real' real estate, is falling in value. An investment grade loan assumes a revenue stream from the borrower at an expected rate. The ones that bought these debt obligations are finding out that they have been sliced and diced and otherwise disguised to make them appear much more sound than they ever were. The value of this paper, in reality, depended on the real estate bubble continuing to inflate. That was quite foolish and many bankers have been caught with their pants down. No, those inflated property values were never real.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:27:32 EST

Les, as a libertarian I'm all for banks managing their money as they see fit. This isn't a case of government forcing the international banks to back up the regional banks, it's entirely voluntary. And if you think it's just some goofy scheme to give away money, that seems pretty unrealistic. Banks don't do things out of pure altruism. As for collateral, what about all that property that banks loaned money on? It's pretty damned real. Dave

Comment by Les Slater on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:06:53 EST

Dave, "There's nothing more sinister, after all, than banks lending money to other banks." There is a concern that the 'liquidity' crisis may also be an insolvency crisis. Nobody knows how much bank's assets are really worth. The reason is that some assets are not trading at all (hense no MARKET value) because everyone is worried that they will be holding the bag when these assets are valued much lower than they are on the books for. Banks have been reluctant to go to the fed to borrow funds for fear that it will be seen that they are in trouble. This just continues the liquidity crisis. What the fed, in conjunction with much of the West's central banks, are doing is to pledge funds that can be drawn on, TOTALLY ANONOMOUSLY, while using assets that have NO MARKET VALUE as COLLATERAL. The fed is preaching transparency while cloaking who might be insolvent while bailing them out. Loaning with NO REAL COLLATERAL is in reality just pumping money into an institution that is broke. It is part of the privatization of profits while socializing losses. Dave, you of all people, as a libertarian, ought to be ashamed of yourself for supporting such a scheme. Les

Comment by STM on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:51:29 EST

Yeah, geez, they've never done it before ... why start now. Oh, wait ...

Comment by Franco on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:48:49 EST

#130 — troll Franco - my comment concerned the inefficiency of production based on competition I am going to have to disagree with you on this one troll. As alessandro puts it, it,s what makes us humans tick and advance. When a company is operating in the competitive free market place, is it a selfish greedy isolated and inefficient island all to itself? That is impossible because each individual company has to purchase materials or services from other companies who are competing for their business too. The outside services each company uses from other companies competing for its business must also offer highly efficient products and or services to get this business. The average small business uses the outside services of more then 20 other companies to run efficiently. Out of those 20 there are many more competing to become one of the chosen 20 who service a company. A company is going to choose the most efficient outside provider in can to meet its needs. Remember too that the 20 companies selected as outside service providers, each also has 20 companies servicing each of them and so it goes. 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 etc. Now if one of the 20 companies on the select list of suppliers grows inefficient and a bit indifferent to it customers needs resulting from the fact that they themselves have no direct competition in which to loose your business, then you suffers this indifferance which is an inefficient drag on your company. If it's a critical drag of your overall efficiency and you can not find a local competitor to switch to, you may have to invest the money to incorporate that outside service inside your company yourself. If you want to be successfully in a free and competitive market place with your product or service you have to be highly efficient managing that product or service in every step of the process because your competitors are doing the same thing. You have to get the very maximum of products produced out of every piece of raw material. Your products must be transported to market in the most efficient and cost effective way you can, and you have to be able to handle returns and or replacements efficiently on your products should they be found defective. If your fail to compete efficiently at any step it all comes out of your ass, not the states. For those who fear competition, I can see why they do not like this system. The majority of the American people are not afraid to compete. Competition is keen and it is the driving forces that you must yourself display and prove to your customers that they will increase their own chances for success in using your product or service, and when they trust you with that import service, then you must shut up and prove it to them. This is neither rocket science nor a diploma hanging on the wall. If you want to be successful in free market economics (capitalism) and have more business then you ever wanted then get in your customers' face and efficiently service them to death. I guarantee they will positively respond. A centrally planed state economy and market place will NEVER generate that kind of drive for efficiency. Look at he US Postal service, one of the governments most efficiently run enterprise and compare it to FedEx and their competitor DHL. They both run circles around the Post Office even though the Post Office has learned from them and tries to compete with them, thy can not reach that lever of efficiency, and you don't see FedEx and DHL employees shooting each other. You mentioned overproduction and recession are not unfortunate side effects of capitalism - they are essential features Yes they are, but your only looking at the negative of this event, thus seeing the glass of water half-empty. The pendulum always swings back into growth. Nothing is a constant in business, or the weather, or life itself, and that is how it is, how it should be, and it is where competition excels. Additionally, under a socialist state plane economy and market place the same would apply but even much worse as the incentive to be efficient becomes flaccid when someone else is footing the bill like the state.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:11:39 EST

There's nothing more sinister, after all, than banks lending money to other banks. The BASTARDS! Dave

Comment by alessandro on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:58:52 EST

Troll: Oh really? It's a duck eh? How so? I'm stunned at such an assertion. It goes against....aw forget it. Of course, it depends what type of innovation we're speaking - I'm assuming product/economic? And there are many lenses to look at this from but competition and curiosity my friend is what makes us humans tick and advance. #128: STM, you go girl. #120 - Les, I don't know if you mean they are using this as a means to smooth interest rates or you see something more sinister at work?

Comment by troll on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:46:37 EST

Franco - my comment concerned the inefficiency of production based on competition not how 'rational' it is for co-owners to work together alessandro - it's a canard that innovation requires competition

Comment by Les Slater on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:30:32 EST

I'm surprised nobody commented on my #120. This is serious folks!

Comment by STM on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:15:11 EST

The whole of the British Empire was about opening trade opportunities, even in the lost American colonies before the British really had a concept that what they were heading towards was empire. Their main interest was always trade, not glory. They weren't perfect by a long shot, and we all know that. And to describe the British as anything but a war-like race would be wrong in the extreme. They caused plenty of bloodshed and misery in their quest to turn a profit. However, upon the dismantling of that empire, in an age of ne whope, what was left (mostly) were stable and prosperous societies. And the foundation of the freedoms upon which they were built came from out and out capitalism. One of those, Malaysia, is a beacon for how an islamic state can function (despite some hiccoughs) and it has one of the world's highest standards of living - forget about just in Asia. Others, including the one I live in, and despite the many ills we'd like to see addressed, shine as a light of hope in a world of darkness. How is America any different, really? Americans may kid themselves that their corporate machinations don't constitute empire, but they'd be wrong. It doesn't fly the Stars and Stripes at every far-flung outpost of its empire, but America is as imperialist as its English-speaking predecessors of the two centuries before. There's a corporate HQ of just about every major US company flying the flag of American capitalism on every far-flung continent. Americans would also be kidding themselves to believe they aren't as war-like or as arrogant - in a different way - as their British cousins. But let's hope that the legacy America leaves in this sometimes ill-conceived and misbegotten adventure is at least a measure of stability and prosperity - not just for America, BTW, but for the nations it has conquered. Conquered. Tough word to hear, that, if you're American, but it's true. There are ways to conquer and ways to conquer, but the outcome is always the same. Hamburger imperialism is imperialism nevertheless. Freedom is a McDonald's on every second street corner, if you susbcribe to the American ethos of empire. In the case of the anglo nations, though, it's always tempered by the hope and the belief that what it replaces is something better than went before. Let's not collapse on the fallback position that America and its "cronies" are responsible for all the world's ills. They are responsible for the least of them even if they ARE responsible for some of them. Tell me with a serious face that an American-backed regime in Iraq is worse than a regime that thought it OK to put people feet first into paper shredders, remembering that it's not Americans who are blowing up their own people in market places. However, in exporting our shared belief in "democracy" (in the modern sense), it's important to remember that our brand of democracy isn't always what people want or need. And Iran, a democracy, whether we like it or not, is a classic case in point. Talking might be the best option right now. Gunboat diplomacy didn't work a century ago, and it doesn't work now.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:06:35 EST

The biggest problem is that finance capital is quite removed from any connection with progress. They use armies to threaten, or even attack, their competitors or keep their markets and sources of raw materials to their advantage. I think the idea that this is caused by the capitalists is a stretch, as is the idea that this is anything new. Cornelius Vanderbilt bombarded Managua with the cannon on his private warship in the 1850s. It's all about getting fair access to markets and resources. No one likes to be arbitrarily denied opportunity. This has historically lead to trade wars and then shooting wars which at times result in conflagrations. Some capitalist win, others lose. Out of it though, capitalism recovers to go through the cycle again. Meanwhile enormous human suffering and death. In the very short run. In the long run the result when the international capitalists win is the modernization of economies, growth of opportunities, increased wages, better quality of life and ultimately prosperity. South Korea started as a western 'project' state and went through a rough period of war and chaos, but 40 years later it was a model of modernization and economic success and a power in the world. Dave

Comment by alessandro on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:45:06 EST

Capitalism can possibly use some "cleansing." There's certainly much that has been written and said about this. I'd rather work with the system to fix it than go against it.

Comment by Les Slater on Iran Redux

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:26:11 EST

Franco, "You have been part of some very interesting work." A lot more interesting than I've been able to relate in a few paragraphs. I've been very fortunate. There's been a lot of luck but much of it because I aggressively went after it. "I like capitalism and I am trying to understand why you don't." I still marvel at what capitalism can do some times, even now in the midst of some of its most corrosive tendencies. Capitalism did have its glory days, and its glory moments, to ignore them would leave you dull and without any sense of what humanity can accomplish. I am presently reading 'City of the Century- the Epic of Chicago and the Making of America' by Donald L. Miller. I'm in the middle of the story of Armour and Swift and the development of the meat packing industry. How could anyone not marvel? Even with its brutal exploitation of workers, the industry represented an enormous positive development for society, progress. The story goes through the late 19th century. I do not believe that capitalism's ability to productively organize labor has been subsequently surpassed, or even maintained that level. I consider 1898 the year that capitalism shifted from industrial to financial. The likes of Armour and Swift did want to make money, and they did, plenty of it. But they also had a vision, from the start, of society's needs. That is what they primarily addressed with their ambitions. The separation of the two was inconceivable. Today some industries start this way, but sooner or later, serve only the interests of maintaining profits, at the general impediment of progress. Microsoft is a good example of this. I jokingly say that their main poduct is the increasing of entropy. The biggest problem is that finance capital is quite removed from any connection with progress. They use armies to threaten, or even attack, their competitors or keep their markets and sources of raw materials to their advantage. This has historically lead to trade wars and then shooting wars which at times result in conflagrations. Some capitalist win, others lose. Out of it though, capitalism recovers to go through the cycle again. Meanwhile enormous human suffering and death. The stage of world capitalism now has more similarities to the '30s than other periods. It is in a severe, and increasing, crisis. On this post we are, more or less calmly, discussing the use of nuclear weapons, either by, or against Iran. These things are more openly justified by the defenders of capitalism. Les