Kenya in Crisis

[Undertoad]

For what it's worth, as an amateur economist I agree with tw #132.

Some economists call it the broken window fallacy. Some say that if a baker's window is smashed by a hooligan, it's good for the economy, because it means the window has to be replaced, a glazier gets business and money is moving around. But if the money for that window went instead to, say, a new oven -- not only there is the economic activity of buying the oven, but there is then the ability for the baker to bake more things, be more productive... an advance.

Government can do things that increase productivity - like building bridges, schools, and supercolliders. These things continue to "give back" to productivity long after they're paid for.

It can do things that are actually anti-productive, like bridges to nowhere, ineffective programs, etc.

When it spends with war contractors, it's like spending money with the glazier; building a bomb doesn't actually make you more productive, so in one sense, it's economic activity lost. Of course without defense one has nothing, so it's not like money down a rathole.

[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.

[Sundae]

On the suject of the OT, below is an update from a friend in Kenya. No comment from me on the situation except that any conflict where opponents are ranged on tribal or religious lines is incredibly hard to resolve.

Things have been very interesting here. On the day of the election there was a huge fire in Diani which wiped out hotels/houses/shops etc. so we ran out of basic supplies and then the election violence kicked off and we really began to run out of stuff - bread/milk/eggs/meat/water/gas/phone credit/beer/petrol/diesel, everything really. Lots of tinned soup has been consumed! The problem was that nothing was getting to Mombasa from Nairobi and anything that was getting through was being kept in Mombasa, thank you very much. Went to pick up some friends from the airport about 5 days ago and we drove through this area that's had lots of trouble. The road has melted where they set up tyre blockades and set fire to them, burnt out cars/petrol stations etc. The problem is that at any sign of trouble everyone suddenly gets tribal so people from upcountry who are working at the coast get attacked so that they disappear back upcountry, leaving a job for a coastal tribal person. The main problem is that most people prefer employing upcountry people because the coastal people are lazy! Anyway, saw lots of hilarious sights, including a bus of French tourists being taken to Mombasa airport for an emergency flight with two armed guards at the front of the bus - selfish f*cks - the armed guards would hve been better off protecting Africans who actually bloody live here. Don't believe the hype about tourists being 'trapped' here - anyone could leave at any time they wanted to...

[aimeecc]

I have to laugh. The first part reminds me of going to the grocery store when a hurricane is approaching. I remember as a kid in Houston my mom would have all us kids (theres 8 of us) run around the store with a cart of our own and we'd load it up with anything we could get our hands on. lol

[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 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.

[aimeecc]

War can create innovation. Is it the "right" innovation" No. But it can help economies. I agree not the best way. But it got us out of the depression. There was no return to the depression because the GI Bill was created. Thus returning soldiers didn't over-flood the economy with surplus labor and instead went to college.

Second, how does less workers making a product (and thus workers laid off) mean more jobs for everyone? It means less jobs.

[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

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.

[aimeecc]

Please don't refer to me or my position as spin. I don't 'spin' things, nor do I appreciate the accusation. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you stop refering to people that do not have the same world view as you as stupid. I do not refer to those who disagree with me as stupid. It is a common courtesy that mature people extend to... well, other people they meet that haven't offended them. And as far as I can tell, I have done nothing to offend you. I'm not stupid, nor am I a spinner of facts/truth.

And DoD long provided funding, to multiple institutions looking for the best product.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Second, how does less workers making a product (and thus workers laid off) mean more jobs for everyone? It means less jobs.

I cannot change your perspective. You must do that. If you choose to view myopically, then you cannot see a bigger picture. Howfully you are only 20 years old. Spend the next ten years watching - asking damning questions while being poltiically incorrect - to appreciate how less workers on every product means more jobs. It requires you to stop taking a micro view that completely ignored innovation and that is preached by extremist conservative or liberals. Take a macro perspective to gain (work for) a whole new micro perspective.

If that last paragraph is confusing, then you have that much more work to do.

To see the bigger picture requires what the military calls a strategic objective. I have discussed this strategic objeictive often. Did you grasp the meaning? Currently you questions imply a Private's perspective. I cannot change your grasp with logic that your perspective cannot appreciate. But that reality is observed repeatedly in history. Countries that constantly do same work with less employees therefore have more jobs and must import more employees. That is what happens. Reasons why become obvious by grasping the bigger picture.

[aimeecc]

Thanks for the further insults. Obviously, you failed to grasp my initial comment that I am not an economics major, nor minor, nor even taken an economics class.
I do not see things myopically. Nor am I a Private. For that matter, I am a Major. Working in Policy and Strategy. Thankfully, not related to economics. As I previously stated... I have no education in that field. I'd love to be 20 again and unmake all the mistakes in my life... but I am quiet a bit older than that, with several degrees under my belt. Again, none in economics.
And yes I can see the bigger picture, and frankly I can probably see a bigger picture than you ever will. And no, I do not ignore innovation. I just don't take you view that narrows the scope on when and where innovation can occur.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Please don't refer to me or my position as spin. I don't 'spin' things, nor do I appreciate the accusation. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you stop refering to people that do not have the same world view as you as stupid.

Apparently you are entertaining emotions rather than dealing with the facts. Spin is exactly what is used to promote war as productive to an economy. Spin that is not based in facts or that uses half facts to make a point. You have posted popular urban myths - things justified by spin.

Spin says the Internet was developed by the military because it completely forgets the many others who were first offered the reserach and refused it - IBM and AT&T. Spin forgets to mention how many refused to innovate until finally the DoD came along. There is no way around why that other fact is missing - spin. Whether it is spin or a half fact says zero about aimeecc. aimeecc is does not even exist in (is irrelevant to) a discussion of myths and spin that forgets the frustrations of developing packet switching. aimeecc - did you know a most important part of that story about AT&T and iBM? If not, then you only knew the 'spin' version.

If getting emotional - if you think anything I have posted is insulting - then you don't belong in this discussion. I state bluntly that I am not poltically correct. One must be politically correct for those who entertain their emotions. Everything I have posted goes at politically incorrect and blunt facts. If you see any insult (and none was intended by me) then the insult is totally created in your own perception. Time to reread an only concentrate on principles.

How to read what I posted. The minute you see any insult, then read again to discover how you have completely misinterpreted my post. I make no effort to be 'careful' with anyone's emotions. One need only do that for adults who still need to be appeased. I have no interest in carefully rewording for emotional consideration. There is no insult of anyone in my posts. And they are written without wasting time worrying about emotion. People's emotions are not relevant to adults.

This is economics. The realities of ecomomics will insult those who have confused 'I feel this is true' logic with reality. Its not relevant if those realities make you upset. It's up to you to deal with the facts and to ignore your emotions. No one was insulted by me. That was never my intent. If you saw an insult, you are not reading with the intent of grasping the concepts.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Thanks for the further insults. Obviously, you failed to grasp my initial comment that I am not an economics major, nor minor, nor even taken an economics class.
I do not see things myopically. Nor am I a Private. For that matter, I am a Major. Working in Policy and Strategy. Thankfully, not related to economics. As I previously stated... I have no education in that field. I'd love to be 20 again and unmake all the mistakes in my life... but I am quiet a bit older than that, with several degrees under my belt. Again, none in economics.

All of which says you are taking everything personally where no human emotions should be found.

Did I say you were a Private? The metaphor was obvious. Apparently you are now so emotional as to convert a metaphor into a personal insult. Nowhere did anything say you are a Private or even in the military. Do you grasp the meaning and intent of a metaphor? Why does a metaphor somehow insult you? Why do you jump to that obviously not true assumption?

Nowhere were you or anyone else insulted. Defined were the concepts. Again, any emotion you see is 100% manufactured in your brain. IS that politically incorrect enough for you? Again it is not an insult of anyone. But if you entertain your emotions, then you miss the fact of where those insults are really being generated. With each post, you are apparently becoming as emotional as to now assume the metaphor about Privates (and Generals) applies to you.

You are a Major? A Major what? Asked because what does it have to do with economics?

What does your age and the mistakes made in your life have any relevance to what I have posted? It does not. But again the fact - somehow you have applied your emotions to text that requires no emotion and 100% politically incorrect logic.

aimeecc - you don't belong in this discussion if you are emotional - if you think even one sentence is personal. Please stop seeing insults were zero insults were posted. To do that, apparently, you must go away and calm down. This is economics where many of your posts are popular myth - promoted by spin - not based in how real world economics works. It means you must dispose of those myths - the spin - and take a whole new and larger perspective.

You have a problem with a most basic economic fact. How to create more jobs and wealthier employees? That means the same product every year is performed by less workers. Difficult to grasp if you do not dispose of popular myths - promoted by spin - that claim otherwise.

[lookout123]

aimeecc the best thing you can do for your sanity and your enjoyment of the cellar is add the little muppet to your ignore list in user cp. he'll run out his usual insults and puke up another encyclopedic post (which if you google you'll see has been used dozens of times previously) based mainly on his opinions with cherry picked facts to prove everything he has ever thought is the pure unadulterated reality of life. He'll throw in plenty of barbs about your emotionalism and intellectual capacity and by the end of it you'll be surprised to find out that you have unknowingly had a long standing love affair with GWB and quite possibly may be carrying his secret love child.

so to avoid all that, just put him on ignore. he'll go back to browsing the internet for opportunities to barf an encyclopedia and you can carry on with your life with much less frustration. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will cause him to even question his superiority in any discussion.