Kenya in Crisis

[aimeecc]

But if the glazier doesn't have any money to buy the bread that the baker is making in his new oven (vice having his window fixed), how does the baker make more money?
I am not an economy major, or minor, or even taken on class. However, I do believe that war can jump-start the economy. Long term wars are a drain...
Also, there is a large idea that war drives technology. New technologies are funded during war time to find solutions. Often (although certainly not always) these technologies have dual-use, and benefit the population as a whole.
BTW, the 'internet' was developed with DoD $s. Joint venture between universities (who needed the money to develop) and the DoD, who need the invention.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

But if the glazier doesn't have any money to buy the bread that the baker is making in his new oven (vice having his window fixed), how does the baker make more money?

The oven maker can now afford to put a new room on his house and calls the glazier for that. At least, thats the theory. And they can both buy bread.

Originally Posted by aimeecc

I am not an economy major, or minor, or even taken on class. However, I do believe that war can jump-start the economy. Long term wars are a drain...

Any government spending spree can kick-start an economy. It can be on war or roads or schools. With roads and schools, they continue to deliver benefits after the initial spending, but war is unlikely to do that (unless the war annexes some juicy natural resources or something).

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Also, there is a large idea that war drives technology. New technologies are funded during war time to find solutions. Often (although certainly not always) these technologies have dual-use, and benefit the population as a whole.

War has driven technological advance, it is true. Advances in flight, computers, and antibiotics are clear examples of dual-use* technologies developed during wars.
However, this is not the only way to encourage technological advance.
I'm going to plagiarize my mate's PhD here and contrast DARPA with Japan, Inc.
DARPA takes government money and develops military technology. These sometimes have dual-use spinoffs, but not always. This creates a situation where to stimulate spending on these products, the only really effective way is to go to war. See previous posts about how war spending is wasteful.
Japan, Inc. takes a smaller amount of government money, gets the corporation together and plans a new wave of purely consumer products and the standards and protocols for them. This results in the economy being stimulated by consumer demand, which creates a feedback loop. Oh and doesn't kill so many people.

Originally Posted by aimeecc

BTW, the 'internet' was developed with DoD $s. Joint venture between universities (who needed the money to develop) and the DoD, who need the invention.

No! That was Al Gore!



*typed "duel-use" hehehe

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The oven maker can now afford to put a new room on his house and calls the glazier for that.

The oven maker can now spend same money and labor to develop better ways of making that bread. The resulting productivity in bread means everyone prospers. It means the glazier may have to spend money, work harder to be educated; to operate that new bread making technology.

Notice that the human is not central in economics. The human is required to adapt to change. He must learn - get educated; or be unproductive - an enemy of the economy and punished with less money. But again, what does sound byte logic fear? Innovation - change - constant education - smarter workers - an economy viewed from the perspective of its products rather than its people. That means happier, wealthier, and more prosperous people.

Notice that I have just attacked the logic of extremist liberals and extremist conservatives simultaneously. Why? Because both are enemies of the moderates - the smarter people who can see the larger picture rather than worship sound byte reasoning.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

But if the glazier doesn't have any money to buy the bread that the baker is making in his new oven (vice having his window fixed), how does the baker make more money?

Your reasoning also proves that featherbedding makes a wealthier economy. If a product results in higher profits, then we must employ more people to make the same product. That means more workers with money in their pocket.

Whereas featherbedding means more people have incomes (temporarily), it also means productivity decreases. More people to produce same. Decreased productivity means more jobs lost in this industry and in other industries. But that loss of jobs is not obvious when using sound byte logic.

Reality: how do we create more jobs? We make the same product with less people every year. How if we are laying off workers? Because more productivity in any one industry means more new products from that industry, more sales and markets, and other new industries. All create many more productive jobs. Sound byte logic concludes otherwise.

Demonstrated is whether one uses common sense without experience (then assume less workers mean less jobs), OR takes a larger (and more complex) perspective to see the bigger picture. What creates more productive jobs? Doing every job with less people every year. What is the only thing that does that? Innovation.

Do we smash more windows to create a wealthier and more productive economy? Yes, when using Rush Limbaugh logic - common sense without experience and fundamental knowledge. If we suddenly have windows that never need replacement (innovation), then the glazier does new jobs that actually are productive - such as manufacturing windows that don't break. But that means the glazier must also keep getting educated. Why? Innovation means constant change - constant learning - another factor that sound byte logic both ignores and fears.

That change results in more wealth, more jobs, better standards of living, more new products and industries, etc for everyone.

Why does Rush Limbaugh logic disagree? Because Rush Limbaugh logic is based in fear of change - the status quo - no innovation. When the glazier is no longer needed, then resources are now available to develop other innovations. Notice the perspective. Don't view economics from the workers perspective. That would be silly and futile. View the bigger picture - the only thing that matters - the product.

The only way to make a wealthier economy is (and has always been) doing same work with less people, eliminating a need for jobs that maintain the status quo, and create jobs that result in something useful. What is the fundamental principle that underlies all these 'wealth creating' functions? Innovation. Innovation is not created by war or by glaziers replacing existing windows. Both jobs mean more money moving - but fewer products created. That is called inflation. Inflation means more temporary jobs today with a much larger loss of jobs tomorrow. Both jobs also mean more stifled innovation.

What I have posted contradicts sound byte economics because the real world is more complex. Sound byte economics spins wars as good for the economy - using the same spin that also proved Saddam had WMDs.

What "can jump-start the economy"? Wars? Of course not. Innovation does that. Others so little appreciate innovation as to instead credit war. If it takes a war to create innovation, then the economy has a cancerous problem with bean counters stifling innovation.

Why does it take a new gun to invent a disk drive? It does not. But sound byte logic spins such myths for the same reasons that people believe featherbedding creates more wealth. Guns result in spin off technologies such as disk drives only where spin rationalizes it.

Those who can be convinced that more guns mean disk drives are the same mentalities that Rush Limbaugh preaches to. People who know only by using sound byte logic - the 'I feel this is true' logic. The real world is more complex. 'I feel this is true' logic proves that both featherbedding and wars are productive. Neither advances mankind in direct contradiction to hype and spin.

The only thing that creates wealth for that glazier is innovation. The resulting productivity increase means fewer workers make the same product. That means more jobs for everyone. Spin reasoning cannot deal with such complex realities. Spin reasoning therefore proclaims wars and featherbedding as good for the economy.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

BTW, the 'internet' was developed with DoD $s. Joint venture between universities (who needed the money to develop) and the DoD, who need the invention.

Now let's add the additional facts forgotten by spin. Packet switching was a concept long understood by innovators. A technology stifled by large corporations such as AT&T and IBM whose top management 'knew' it would not work. Fortunately somewhere in DOD, someone saw the innovation worth exploring since their attitude was product oriented - not a bean counter attitude. AT&T and IBM were both becoming dominated by business school graduates who view innovation only in dollars and on spread sheets. A problem that continues so long that the French now own the Bell Labs and IBM computers do not serve communication functions.

BBN was created because of 'innovation fear' created by large companies such as AT&T and IBM. Somehow the frustration suffered by packet switching innovators gets forgotten in a story told by those who want 'positive' spin rather than dirty reality.

DOD only provided monetary resources after corporate America repeatedly denied innovation. Spin forgets that part of the story.