Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 21st, 2017, 04:58 AM   #51

bodhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Charlottengrad
Posts: 759

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
New jobs were created but not as many as were lost. Just look at how the average number of work hours has dropped over the last century. The whole point of improved productivity is that you need less man-hours to produce the same thing. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether a family can be supported on these reduced work hours.
Is it a bad thing to have less working hours? I have 39 working hours per week, as per the tariff contract in my industry, and am in the Top 20% income-wise in my city. I come from a working class family, so far I'm the only family member not having a "working class"-job (however, I had a few of those in the past working in construction and on assembly lines). My dad and brother both work in the metal industry, both have less education than me. But both earn better than me. This is due to the fact that in Germany in the metal industry the employers and the union have a tariff contract which defines the wage for any given task as well as the weekly hours. In the 80s/90s the weekly hours were fully compensated (eg. no wage change) reduced to 35 per week. Volkswagen voluntarily reduced the weekly hours to 30 or 32 hours peer week, again fully compensated. The wages in this industry even for assembly line jobs are very good and enough for a family to live off.
Also, a family to live of the wage of one working member is inefficient for a society IMO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
Yes but not as many as are lost. The ratio of workers compared to non-workers has been dropping for decades and shows no sign of turning around.
This might be true fir the US, not so sure for other developed countries, Germany for example. And why is that bad though? As long as people are working and can support themselves? And if jobs doesn't pay enough for people to support themselves than why have them at all? In Germany we have more open positions than unemployed people. However, the unemployed people do either not have the need qualifications or they simply do not want to work. Due to the welfare state they still can have a decent life (speaking of personal experience here). I think a strong welfare state can be an incentive to better pay - 'cause otherwise people have the option of not working for only slightly less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
I also believe that this is the likely result of increased automation but there will be a transitional period involving a lot of fire and blood beforehand. Automation is happening far too quickly for us to smoothly transition into a new economy. If we don't destroy ourselves during this period of turmoil then what arises afterwards could be very good.
Agreed, the transition will be very interesting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
How are the masses to become aware of "the universal declaration of human rights"? I think we have an intellectual war going on in the US and those who stand for liberty and responsibility are loosing.
Well, I think the masses are quite aware. There is a rising amount of people not agreeing with these rights being universal though.
And yeah, there is an intellectual war going on. Not just in the US but in all developed countries. I think it is mainly a last stand of the 19th/20th ideologies, a backlash against the speedy liberalisation of the last 30 years. A transition phase which will be painful but ultimately result in a better society (I'm a string believer in Leibniz' idea of "the best of all possible worlds").

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
The rich have power, the poor do not. The US is going through a period of encouraging power and walking over those who do not have power. This may be as innocent as the mentality of affluence that has risen since the second world war and the development of the middle class? Before WWII we did not have the mentality of affluence and few people earned enough to pay income taxes. Things have changed a lot since WWII.
I strongly disagree. The people have the illusion that the rich have power and the poor do not. In reality it's the other way around. Once that illusion breaks down, well, look at the French revolution or the Russian one. Never ends well for the rich. It is in their interest to either hope that never happens or enable the poor to be well enough of to not come up with ideas. And I trust that most of the rich are smart enough to realise that point a) is rather unrealistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
In Oregon, there were so many natural resources and so few people, the revenues from the resources covered all expenses. Today we have shifted from reliance on revenues from resources to reliance on income taxes.

Our consciousness has changed and our population in the West is much larger. We no longer look at our land and forest and think there is plenty for everyone. Instead of welcoming newcomers because we need more people, we realize we are in a struggle against each other for everything desirable. If government does not protect public land, it will be gone. Our failure to protect land for low-income housing means there will be none in the future.
You make in a later post a very good point that I very much agree with, so my answer there will largely be my answer here as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Your faith in AI terrifies me. I think our liberty is very important and I wish everyone believed that and stood ready to defend it.
I do not think liberty exists. Bottomline liberty means making free decisions for oneself. IMO liberty is an illusion resulting from our consciousness. Most decisions we make are unconscious and we come up with a conscious explanation afterwards. We have a very limited amount of decision not predisposed by nature (genes, hormones, these things) and by nurture (eg. with that values we are imbued by growing up, outlook on life and so on). We are not making free decisions. We are never free. So, why not exchange nature/nurture to something that can do it better? At least in some part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
I regret everyone having education for technology instead of liberal education. Maybe liberal education would raise our concern about our liberty?
I agree with you. Today's education has too much of a focus on vocation than on educating people to be responsible citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
That is a nice way of avoiding the reality that income taxes are communism and that we have a had a shift in who supports our government. Paying taxes with our labor can hardly be considered capitalism.
If we want to have a strong state that regulates all that needs to be regulated that state needs money. Income tax is the easiest most effective way to do that. However, I think most income taxes are flawed and the income from work is higher taxed than income from capital in most systems it the biggest flaw of all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Well, Bill Gates said something I find favorable. I have been opposed to his influence on education that I think is too focused on technology.
While I disagree with him often, I think he is one of the few people today that people should really listen to when he says something. Listen and think about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
That past has very little to do with the present. Oh well, our resources are finite and when they are exhausted it will be interesting times.
You think too small. Our resources are not limited to this planet. Maybe not even to this solar system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
And of what use will humans be? Your idea of heaven appears to be my idea of hell. Have you ever wondered if you are as useless as tits on a bull? Spend some time volunteering in a homeless shelter and think about the benefits of not having a job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Do you really think a reality that can function without humans will be good for humans? Again I will say, spend some time volunteering a homeless shelter and think about the benefits of not having a job. It is not just money that these people do not have.
Well, if the humans will be of no use ... maybe there will be no humans anymore. I wrote in my first post that I fancy the idea of AI being the next step in evolution. I meant that.
Alternatively, a basic income via for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
And what is good about that paradise?
No worries. No worries about sickness, about work, about the future. The freedom to do what you want to do - which probably means for most people spending most of the times in some virtual reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
Sufficiently intelligent robots would have no trouble over-riding our "cut-off switch" for one that is under their own control. Even if they couldn't, it is ridiculously easy to exploit the human element. The simplest is to threaten harm to the controller's loved ones: "give me the control codes: or your children die." Humans are always going to be the weakest point in any security system.

Asimov explored lots of different worlds where AI and robots did most of the work. Read about his Solaria. Automated labour combined with declining fertility rates mean that there is a real possibility that this could be our own world.
Yeah, Asimov saw things that can only be clearly seen now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
I do have some arguments to your points here. I am in favor of a strong reliance on science for shaping our opinions of the human condition. What makes us different from each other? What are the values of our differences?

A goal of democracy is not equality because we are as different as the gods, and each one has value. However, a goal of democracy is equal opportunity. At the very least that means adequate nutrition and equal education for all up to about grade 8 and then perhaps separate education for vocations or college is a good thing? Some would say equal opportunity also means diverse neighborhoods and avoiding clumping people together in rich and poor neighborhoods.

Obviously, a government needs to play a strong role in setting the conditions of equality, because there cannot be equal opportunity without governing for it. I don't think that is impossible.
There is nothing I do not agree with in there. Good post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
I love debating with you. For me, the purpose of arguing AI is determining human value and what does paradise mean? And most importantly, does our liberty have value? If we want liberty, I think we need to establish some protections. Education for liberty means education for good moral judgment and is the first thing we must do to protect our liberty.

An Indian seer and poet said. "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal, and therefore, completely effective in crushing individual liberty and power." We defended our democracy against that in two world wars and then we imitated Germany in every significant way. The facts do not get people's attention so we remain unaware of major change. At the moment it really doesn't matter if AI is in charge or not, because we have already given up our liberty and responsibility for self-government. But AI catches people's imagination and makes it possible to discuss our liberty.
I don't think moral judgements are a good thing. Morals always lie in the eye of the beholder. Islamistic extremists have morals. As does the typical NY-investment banker. Who decides which moral code is the right one?

Which liberty and responsibility did you personally give up?


Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Refer back to my explanation to rvsakhadeo. The subject of AI control is really a matter of our liberty and we are failing to protect our liberty from the Borg that is already in control. Our military does not depend on so much on our sons willing to go to war, and the rest of us manning the industry that a major war requires, as it did in the past world wars, and it is no longer under our control. Our military depends on our economic support of it, and if we understood that, we might think differently about the economic decisions.
It's a good and a bad though. More machines in war means less dead people. It also means the hurdle to go to war is lowered.
Your last sentence is what I meant with the poor factually having the power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Speaking of thinking of economic decisions, that is what this thread is supposed to be about. It has occurred to me, maybe people are not on topic because they do not know the different economic systems.

This looks like a better way to understand our economic choices. The following is from this site https://www.intelligenteconomist.com...-of-economies/
Problem with economic theories is that they very abstract and always describe an ideal market. But there is no such thing, so they are all equally wrong since their basic premise "the ideal market" does not exist. They are still a helpful tool that can help us understand the markets but IMO they are a bad foundation for an ideology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Personally, I think all natural resources should be publically owned, and managed by private contractors who can be replaced as our elected representatives can be replaced. Water, electricity, phone and internet service, all being publically owned utilities. In every neighborhood, there should be housing reserved for low-income people sufficient enough to house all the low-income people upon whom our standard of living depends.
Completely agree with this. All basic needs (and yes, access to information and communication is one) should be accessible to all. Easiest done by making them publicly owned. However, publicly-owned utilities are always run way worse than privately owned ones. Analysing the publicly owned utilities in Germany is part of my job and there are a few decently run but most are just awful compared to their private competitors. Question is if "we" are ready to accept and live with that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
Democracy has limitations. For it to work you need a high level of education among the voters - otherwise they will vote for demagogues who promise to give the people what they want right now rather than what is in the best long-term interest of the country. It also requires compulsory voting; otherwise a candidate only has to rally his special interest group to get elected. It also requires a strong anti-corruption watchdog to stop the process being influenced by bribes and political "donations".

Businesses can't be democratic. The owner of the business the only person risking his fortune so he/she should be calling all the shots. A good business owner is open to suggestions from employees as to how to improve the business but the final decision needs to be made by the owner.
Great post. I'm very much for a) compulsory voting and b) a "voting test", eg. a test designed to test the voters understanding of the decision he/she is making. Only the votes of the people who passed the test count. Nobody gets informed who passed. Of course that would not be a true democracy anymore.
bodhi is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 21st, 2017, 05:04 AM   #52

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 2,603

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
Is it a bad thing to have less working hours?
I already said that it depends on whether a family can be supported on that income. There are many in the US who have two or more jobs and are still struggling to make ends meet. Personally, I am currently comfortably supporting my family on 30 hours a week because I have no debt and own my own house.

Quote:
This might be true fir the US, not so sure for other developed countries, Germany for example.
Are there enough workers in Germany to support all the non-workers? Its declining national debt suggests that there are.

Last edited by Dan Howard; December 21st, 2017 at 05:21 AM.
Dan Howard is online now  
Old December 21st, 2017, 07:53 AM   #53

bodhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Charlottengrad
Posts: 759

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
I already said that it depends on whether a family can be supported on that income. There are many in the US who have two or more jobs and are still struggling to make ends meet. Personally, I am currently comfortably supporting my family on 30 hours a week because I have no debt and own my own house.
Well, it also depends on an individuals choices as well. If you choose not pursue a good education and amass debt, than I think you should also live with the consequences of these choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
Are there enough workers in Germany to support all the non-workers? Its declining national debt suggests that there are.
Short answer is yes. This has to do with various reasons:
1. Germany is lucky in a way that we did not fully participate in the outsourcing of our production capability in the 90s and 00s (which results that Germany is the only country that exports more to China than it imports).
2. The (often criticised) reforms to our social security and employee market in the early 00s (similar to the ones Germany requested from Greece and others after the financial crises) which lead to real wage decrease of the workers but over time made German workers competitive again.
3. The financial crises also helped because to some degree it resulted in a correction of the productivity of countries that were competing with Germany, as in their productivity pre-crisis was inflated.
4. And of course the low interest rates also help a lot.
5. The EURO helps a lot. If Germany would still have its own currency German products would be way more expensive.

This results in the unique situation that Germany has as many people employed as never before in its history and the lowest unemployment rate since re-unification. I remember pre-crises the DAX (German stock exchange index) was considered as high when it was around 7.000, now it is over 13.000 with a positive outlook. Germany needs a rise in interest rates I think to avoid the German economy over-heating. But unlike the past Germany has no control over this, since the European Central Bank also needs to look after the needs of the other EURO countries which still need low interest rates. Will be interesting to follow the development - and as a German I hope we continue the path of carefully adjusting what we have instead of following every economic trend.
bodhi is offline  
Old December 23rd, 2017, 07:35 AM   #54
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,924
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
Is it a bad thing to have less working hours? I have 39 working hours per week, as per the tariff contract in my industry, and am in the Top 20% income-wise in my city. I come from a working class family, so far I'm the only family member not having a "working class"-job (however, I had a few of those in the past working in construction and on assembly lines). My dad and brother both work in the metal industry, both have less education than me. But both earn better than me. This is due to the fact that in Germany in the metal industry the employers and the union have a tariff contract which defines the wage for any given task as well as the weekly hours. In the 80s/90s the weekly hours were fully compensated (eg. no wage change) reduced to 35 per week. Volkswagen voluntarily reduced the weekly hours to 30 or 32 hours peer week, again fully compensated. The wages in this industry even for assembly line jobs are very good and enough for a family to live off.
Also, a family to live of the wage of one working member is inefficient for a society IMO.




This might be true fir the US, not so sure for other developed countries, Germany for example. And why is that bad though? As long as people are working and can support themselves? And if jobs doesn't pay enough for people to support themselves than why have them at all? In Germany we have more open positions than unemployed people. However, the unemployed people do either not have the need qualifications or they simply do not want to work. Due to the welfare state they still can have a decent life (speaking of personal experience here). I think a strong welfare state can be an incentive to better pay - 'cause otherwise people have the option of not working for only slightly less.



Agreed, the transition will be very interesting.




Well, I think the masses are quite aware. There is a rising amount of people not agreeing with these rights being universal though.
And yeah, there is an intellectual war going on. Not just in the US but in all developed countries. I think it is mainly a last stand of the 19th/20th ideologies, a backlash against the speedy liberalisation of the last 30 years. A transition phase which will be painful but ultimately result in a better society (I'm a string believer in Leibniz' idea of "the best of all possible worlds").



I strongly disagree. The people have the illusion that the rich have power and the poor do not. In reality it's the other way around. Once that illusion breaks down, well, look at the French revolution or the Russian one. Never ends well for the rich. It is in their interest to either hope that never happens or enable the poor to be well enough of to not come up with ideas. And I trust that most of the rich are smart enough to realise that point a) is rather unrealistic.



You make in a later post a very good point that I very much agree with, so my answer there will largely be my answer here as well.



I do not think liberty exists. Bottomline liberty means making free decisions for oneself. IMO liberty is an illusion resulting from our consciousness. Most decisions we make are unconscious and we come up with a conscious explanation afterwards. We have a very limited amount of decision not predisposed by nature (genes, hormones, these things) and by nurture (eg. with that values we are imbued by growing up, outlook on life and so on). We are not making free decisions. We are never free. So, why not exchange nature/nurture to something that can do it better? At least in some part.



I agree with you. Today's education has too much of a focus on vocation than on educating people to be responsible citizens.



If we want to have a strong state that regulates all that needs to be regulated that state needs money. Income tax is the easiest most effective way to do that. However, I think most income taxes are flawed and the income from work is higher taxed than income from capital in most systems it the biggest flaw of all.




While I disagree with him often, I think he is one of the few people today that people should really listen to when he says something. Listen and think about it.



You think too small. Our resources are not limited to this planet. Maybe not even to this solar system.






Well, if the humans will be of no use ... maybe there will be no humans anymore. I wrote in my first post that I fancy the idea of AI being the next step in evolution. I meant that.
Alternatively, a basic income via for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax



No worries. No worries about sickness, about work, about the future. The freedom to do what you want to do - which probably means for most people spending most of the times in some virtual reality.




Yeah, Asimov saw things that can only be clearly seen now.



There is nothing I do not agree with in there. Good post.




I don't think moral judgements are a good thing. Morals always lie in the eye of the beholder. Islamistic extremists have morals. As does the typical NY-investment banker. Who decides which moral code is the right one?

Which liberty and responsibility did you personally give up?




It's a good and a bad though. More machines in war means less dead people. It also means the hurdle to go to war is lowered.
Your last sentence is what I meant with the poor factually having the power.



Problem with economic theories is that they very abstract and always describe an ideal market. But there is no such thing, so they are all equally wrong since their basic premise "the ideal market" does not exist. They are still a helpful tool that can help us understand the markets but IMO they are a bad foundation for an ideology.



Completely agree with this. All basic needs (and yes, access to information and communication is one) should be accessible to all. Easiest done by making them publicly owned. However, publicly-owned utilities are always run way worse than privately owned ones. Analysing the publicly owned utilities in Germany is part of my job and there are a few decently run but most are just awful compared to their private competitors. Question is if "we" are ready to accept and live with that.




Great post. I'm very much for a) compulsory voting and b) a "voting test", eg. a test designed to test the voters understanding of the decision he/she is making. Only the votes of the people who passed the test count. Nobody gets informed who passed. Of course that would not be a true democracy anymore.
I replied to your post a couple of days ago and somehow knocked over my cup of coffee that sits next to my keyboard and when I jumped to save my keyboard, deleted my post, and by I was out of time to rewrite it. Maybe that is best. Perhaps I can summarize my thought.

The US and Germany share much in common and what is really important it's similar geography and climate. Of course, many Germans migrated to the US blending their notions with ours and this has had strong political ramifications.

It is my understanding the Prussians transformed Germany into a Military Industrial Complex when they took control of Germany following the 30 Years War. The Prussians centralized education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purpose. They also applied Prussian military bureaucracy to the citizens, and in the US this is what makes Social Security possible. And I could go on about why this militarization of a good thing. Germany took care of its citizens as well as military men have taken care of those who served with them in war. They were the first to have a national pension plan, workers compensation, and a national health plan.

The US adopted the German order of bureaucracy, the education, national pension plan and workers compensation, but for some reason stopped short of universal medicine. This happened in stages so it is sort of like salt water from the bay getting into the fresh water. We can not date the exact moment of the transition. However, we can know during the great depression, people thought fascism was the solution to our economic problems, and that is basically what Roosevelt and Hoover gave us, along with social security and workers compensation.

Not until 1958 did the US replace its domestic education with the German model of education for technology. Again, a problem pinpointing when what was done. In 1917 the US plugged into education for technology because it was totally unprepared for the war that required technology, and thanks to the Prussians, Germany was fully prepared for the war that demanded technology. But because that technology was still low and the US didn't really get its military purpose, the US perceived its defense depended on patriotic citizens, so it only added technical skills like typing and mechanics to education and focused on teaching what our democracy is about and why it must be defended, until the 1958 National Defense Education Act. The political, economic and social ramifications of this change in education are huge.

We should be fully aware that past president Eisenhower embedded the Military Industrial Complex in the US. This increased the degree of using merit hiring and this is both good and bad. It led to replacing the Greek and Roman philosophers with German philosophers. The education component of the military-industrial complex was devastating with the greatest ramifications.

As the Prussians had done, we destroyed our national heroes and began praising efficiency. We stopped transmitting our culture, and education for good moral judgment and left moral education to the church. A huge mistake! We have destroyed our family order and loyalty to our family and neighbors, and now have military order above all of us and we have centralized everything else around the military, industrial complex. We might see how we have divided ourselves between conservatives and progressives? This division is our new civil war.

May I repeat income taxes are a communist idea? This has family ramifications. The homemaker did a lot more than clean house and do the shopping. The homemaker was focused on the care of the home, freeing the man to advance his business or career. She took care of everyone, including relatives and neighbors needing help without charge. She was in charge of relationships, giving us a society fit for human beings, and in no danger of AI taking over. She stood against the impersonal beast that is devouring us today. Now she is part of the beast, part of the Borg, and what we want for our children is a good place in the Borg. The mechanical society we defended our democracy against in two world wars.

When it comes to democracy, Germany is perhaps doing a better job of realizing democracy than the US. It was never as imperial as the US, and I think it learned something when everything went wrong. I understand Germany has more democratic industry than the US, that still has autocratic industry and the division of income that goes with that. Autocratic industry, the authoritarianism of imperialism, and dominated by Christians. We are in trouble. Oh and the fascism? That is that autocratic government attempting to control the autocratic industry, that is privately owned, but controlled by government, so that makes controlling government an essential part of owning an industry. , Of course, the Military Industrial Complex is more focused on the military industry than say the health and education for citizens in a democracy. When Germany prepared for wars, it also slashed domestic budgets and gave its citizens full employment by building its military.

Last edited by athena; December 23rd, 2017 at 07:48 AM.
athena is offline  
Old December 27th, 2017, 02:04 AM   #55

bodhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Charlottengrad
Posts: 759

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
I replied to your post a couple of days ago and somehow knocked over my cup of coffee that sits next to my keyboard and when I jumped to save my keyboard, deleted my post, and by I was out of time to rewrite it. Maybe that is best. Perhaps I can summarize my thought.
Well, thanks for still replying. Hope you had nice holidays.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
The US and Germany share much in common and what is really important it's similar geography and climate. Of course, many Germans migrated to the US blending their notions with ours and this has had strong political ramifications.

It is my understanding the Prussians transformed Germany into a Military Industrial Complex when they took control of Germany following the 30 Years War. The Prussians centralized education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purpose. They also applied Prussian military bureaucracy to the citizens, and in the US this is what makes Social Security possible. And I could go on about why this militarization of a good thing. Germany took care of its citizens as well as military men have taken care of those who served with them in war. They were the first to have a national pension plan, workers compensation, and a national health plan.
Well, there are some inaccuracies here. Prussia did not take control over Germany post the 30s years war. It didn't even exist then, only it's predecessor Brandenburg, and that would have been way to weak to take control. Prussia rose to power in the 18th century but post-Napoleon was competing with Austria-Hungary for dominance in the German sphere. Which was settled by war between these two and their respective supporters amongst the German states in the early 1860s. This would lead to a German unification (as a German I must say this was a big mistake) excluding Austria. So, Prussian control over the German sphere earliest existed in the 1860s and ended in 1918 - also some of it lingered until 1946. So, 50 to max 90 years.
Education is not even centralized today. Education is state and not federal business. That it should be is a big discussion point in German politics today.
German social security practises have not much to do with the military but all with the rise of communism/socialism and especially social democracy (the social democratic party is the oldest party in Germany, under various names around since 1863) as well as the rise of strong unions. Bismarck wanted to limit their influence by giving the workers what the communists/socialists/social democrats and unions promised: social security. This worked very well for a while.
Bureaucracy was influenced by the militarisation for sure but on the other hand, Switzerland and Austria have pretty much the same bureaucracy as Germany but no Prussian influence. So, I'd say the influence of the militarisation there was limited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
The US adopted the German order of bureaucracy, the education, national pension plan and workers compensation, but for some reason stopped short of universal medicine. This happened in stages so it is sort of like salt water from the bay getting into the fresh water. We can not date the exact moment of the transition. However, we can know during the great depression, people thought fascism was the solution to our economic problems, and that is basically what Roosevelt and Hoover gave us, along with social security and workers compensation.
You think the US since Roosevelt is fascist? Do I get that right? Because the US during that time was far away from fascism even compared to its lighter versions like Franco's Spain. I think that word is used way to loosely in the US.


Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Not until 1958 did the US replace its domestic education with the German model of education for technology. Again, a problem pinpointing when what was done. In 1917 the US plugged into education for technology because it was totally unprepared for the war that required technology, and thanks to the Prussians, Germany was fully prepared for the war that demanded technology. But because that technology was still low and the US didn't really get its military purpose, the US perceived its defense depended on patriotic citizens, so it only added technical skills like typing and mechanics to education and focused on teaching what our democracy is about and why it must be defended, until the 1958 National Defense Education Act. The political, economic and social ramifications of this change in education are huge.
The education in the US is way, way more similar to the UK than Germany. Germany has a dual vocation training system that does not exist in the US and is one reason for Germany's economic success.
Germany's focus on education for technology is also a more recent development, until like 30-40 years ago sciences and engeneering while highly regarded were seen as inferior to the humanities. It was different under the Nazis but that changed back afterwards. Nowadays humanities are mostly seen as useless - as are social and economic sciences btw.
Germany wasn't prepared for WW1 because of its education but because it was preparing for that war for nearly 30 years. Europe was a powder keg for decades before it exploded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
We should be fully aware that past president Eisenhower embedded the Military Industrial Complex in the US. This increased the degree of using merit hiring and this is both good and bad. It led to replacing the Greek and Roman philosophers with German philosophers. The education component of the military-industrial complex was devastating with the greatest ramifications.

As the Prussians had done, we destroyed our national heroes and began praising efficiency. We stopped transmitting our culture, and education for good moral judgment and left moral education to the church. A huge mistake! We have destroyed our family order and loyalty to our family and neighbors, and now have military order above all of us and we have centralized everything else around the military, industrial complex. We might see how we have divided ourselves between conservatives and progressives? This division is our new civil war.
Well, you can't replace Greek and Roman with German philosophers because those can't be understood without the foundation of Greek/Roman philosophy - and all those philosophers in the Middle Ages and Early Modern times.
The Prussians didn't need to destroy anything. We had no national heroes because there was no such thing as a German nation. The Prussians tried to create national heroes (Otto I., Barbarossa) and sagas (Nibelungen).
The second world war embedded a military-industrial complex in the heart of US economy. That is true. It also lead to a militarisation of sort. That is a problem. And one impossible to solve as long as their is a need for a military.
Family in itself has no value - emotions and stuff put aside. It fulfils certain roles in society. But who says these roles can't be fulfilled by others? For me, for example, the role of family (mine lives fairly far away and I see them maybe 1-3 times are year) is fulfilled by close friends. A chosen family. This is a common model here (Berlin).
So, as long as the roles "family" fulfils in society is taken over py other parts of society I don't think its breakdown is a big deal.
Morals are weird thing and most of the time quite hypocritical. I don't see the point of praising "family-based values" when this was also the time the morals allowed racism and sexism as the norm.
There was always a division between progressives and conservatives - the American Civil War could be seen as progressives (moving towards anti-slavery/pro-federal state) vs. conservatives (the status quo). Both are needed. One to push forward with advancement, the other ones to question it and slow it down. Nowadays advancement is just so fast that progressives barely can keep up and when conservatives have formulated their questions they are already outdated. This makes the division maybe bigger but it's been there all along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
May I repeat income taxes are a communist idea? This has family ramifications. The homemaker did a lot more than clean house and do the shopping. The homemaker was focused on the care of the home, freeing the man to advance his business or career. She took care of everyone, including relatives and neighbors needing help without charge. She was in charge of relationships, giving us a society fit for human beings, and in no danger of AI taking over. She stood against the impersonal beast that is devouring us today. Now she is part of the beast, part of the Borg, and what we want for our children is a good place in the Borg. The mechanical society we defended our democracy against in two world wars.
Income tax is not a communist idea. It existed in various forms in various societies long before communism. However, even if, what's bad about it?

Well, before modern feminism there two spheres, the private and the public one. The private one belonged to women, the public one to men. However, this limits both. What about women who were better suited for the public one? And men that were better suited for the private one? What about gay people? What about trans/intersex people? Where do they fit in in such a society? We haven't replaced this "dual system" yet, just broken up its borders. This is where a lot of our societal problems come from I think. Over time it will be replaced and that is a good thing.

Also, this is a weird view on women and men for me. So, men cannot be good at social relationships and need support to advance their careers? Women cannot be good at careers? This sounds like Mad Men and as fun as that show was, as a man I'm happy to live now and not having to live with the pressure and burden to be the sole provider for a family.

I think one of the problems in our societies is that we are valuing everything via money. If something has no monetary value, it has no value.


Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
When it comes to democracy, Germany is perhaps doing a better job of realizing democracy than the US. It was never as imperial as the US, and I think it learned something when everything went wrong. I understand Germany has more democratic industry than the US, that still has autocratic industry and the division of income that goes with that. Autocratic industry, the authoritarianism of imperialism, and dominated by Christians. We are in trouble. Oh and the fascism? That is that autocratic government attempting to control the autocratic industry, that is privately owned, but controlled by government, so that makes controlling government an essential part of owning an industry. , Of course, the Military Industrial Complex is more focused on the military industry than say the health and education for citizens in a democracy. When Germany prepared for wars, it also slashed domestic budgets and gave its citizens full employment by building its military.
You mean the German Empire was never imperial? We had actual colonies - albeit having not many and not for long.
Sorry but the US with all its flaws is far, far removed from fascism.

You've got it the wrong way around. Every time Germany build its military it had to go to war. Otherwise, it would have ended bankrupt. Germany in its warring times is not a good economic role model.
bodhi is offline  
Old December 27th, 2017, 04:18 AM   #56

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,829

I had given some statistics of the parameters of Indian economic progress in the thread on American standard of Living and Development. But I now think that this is the thread for such statistics.
As most of you might be knowing, India's first Prime Minister J.L.Nehru was a ' left of the centre ' socialist having been enamoured of Stalin's Soviet Union and its way of economic progress. So he started off setting up heavy industries in the state sector ( aka ' Public Sector ' ) and controlled the entry of the Private Entrepreneurs by imposing a policy of ' Industrial Licensing ' under which the private sector was allowed to establish industries by first obtaining requisite industrial licenses.
No wonder the Public Sector enterprises soon ran into huge losses and at the same time encouraging corruption.
In the 1990s, we had as our Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, a very pragmatic and intelligent man, who soon liberalised the economy, abolished the Industrial License system. Industrial progress was rapid thereafter.
From May 2014 we have Narendra Modi as our P.M. who has further liberalised our economy and we are doing quite well, though much remains to be done. We have now a ' Mixed Economy ' system which is definitely not a leftist system. The Planning Commission which used to prepare and propose grand five year plans of development without setting out how they are to be executed, has been abolished.

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; December 27th, 2017 at 04:21 AM.
rvsakhadeo is online now  
Old December 27th, 2017, 05:08 AM   #57

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,829

In the last week of April 2007, India joined an elite club of nations with a trillion dollar economy. It became the 12th member of this group. Today the Gross Domestic Product on nominal basis is 2.4 trillion U.S.dollars and it ranks 6th in the world. In terms of Purchase Power Parity the GDP is something around 9.4 trillion U.S.dollars and on that basis it ranks 3rd in the world.
The ' Sensex ' being the Bombay Stock Market index of some select scrips, climbed from 14000 in January 2007 to 20000 in October 2007. Today it is around 32000.
While the industrial house of Tatas purchased the British Luxury brands Jaguar and Land Rover in an all cash bid, in June 2008; Japanese company Daiichi Sankyo purchased the Indian pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy in the same month for reported 2.5 billion U.S. dollars for a 35 % stake.

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; December 27th, 2017 at 05:37 AM.
rvsakhadeo is online now  
Old December 27th, 2017, 05:31 AM   #58

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,829

Because of its huge population the estimated nominal per capita annual income in 2017 is around 1800 U.S.dollars whereas, on purchase power parity, it is around 7000 U.S.dollars per capita per annum in 2017. Figures are readily available on Wikipedia and pertain to end of March 2017.
Some negatives now.
We had 58 % of our population in 2011, as per World Bank estimates, living on less than 3.1 U.S.dollars per day !
Our exports were of the order of 275 billion U.S.dollars by end of March 2017 whereas our imports were 374 billion dollars in the same period.

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; December 27th, 2017 at 05:50 AM.
rvsakhadeo is online now  
Old December 27th, 2017, 06:10 AM   #59

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,829

We have a labour force of 520 million ! It is bigger than the populations taken together of many nations in the world. The unemployed number around 5 % on a national basis. 4.9% of urban population is unemployed whereas it 5.1 % in rural areas.
rvsakhadeo is online now  
Old December 27th, 2017, 07:11 AM   #60

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,829

India is expected to overtake the People's Republic of China's ( PRC's ) import of Liquefied Petroleum Gas ( LPG ), in this month of December 2017. It is expected to import 2.4 million tonnes of LPG in December 2017 as against the PRC import of 2.3 million tonnes.
rvsakhadeo is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
compare, economic, systems



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why do we compare ourselves with other people? The Alchemist Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 11 April 8th, 2015 06:44 AM
Let's Compare Pontius Pilate solx Ancient History 10 September 25th, 2014 04:07 AM
Socio-economic systems and evolutionary theory in the study of history GoodsJL New Users 7 July 14th, 2013 03:42 PM
the economic and social systems xenocid3r History Help 1 December 12th, 2009 07:56 AM
differences in latin american societies and economic systems chrisjames0812 Ancient History 1 October 2nd, 2008 11:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.