Richard Stallman on his experience in Cuba(blogs.computerworld.com)
blogs.computerworld.com
Richard Stallman on his experience in Cuba
http://blogs.computerworld.com/stallman_on_cuba
66 comments
> when businesses have too much power is that they corrupt those watchdogs
It's called Regulatory Capture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
It happens all the time. The vast majority of regulation ends up doing nothing more than giving the existing large competitors in a space a tool to keep out new entrants and smaller, scrappier competitors.
One of the reasons that the software industry is do dynamic is because it's not regulated.
It's called Regulatory Capture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
It happens all the time. The vast majority of regulation ends up doing nothing more than giving the existing large competitors in a space a tool to keep out new entrants and smaller, scrappier competitors.
One of the reasons that the software industry is do dynamic is because it's not regulated.
An illustration of this point is that in the UK the regulations for electricians, and building contractors in general, actually promotes small companies. They're usually either a two-man team or a father-son op. In fact the largest I ever saw was a three man team, which was a two-man team with one of their sons.
The point is, is that the regulations actually keep the income evenly disbursed. Essentially everyone is earning between £60,000 and £100,000 a year depending on what you do and how well you do it. However, when you work for a company (companies seem to exclusively do large businesses like factories and the few that don't have very bad reps) you earn much less, some get paid between £40,000 and £60,000. You, of course, get you tools paid for but they're a one time purchase, I mean our most expensive piece of equipment was a £1,000 tester and it has a 10 year warranty on it, so there is literally no incentive to go with one of those companies.
The companies actually run a scam, they hire people who aren't certified electricians, which is perfectly acceptable and legal. However they'll never train them to be certified, they just use already-certified electricians to certify everyone's work is done correctly. Again this is unfair on the certified electricians because if anyone screws up and he doesn't catch it, he's liable and that can include a prison sentence if someone dies from shoddy work.
My point is that regulation can be used in many ways. Big business takes over the regulators, but when used effectively a regulator can actually promote smaller business and stop economic pyramid schemes forming (AKA big business, people work for minimum wage so that the people at the top can earn over a million a year).
The fact that software isn't regulated is a good thing right now. There's lots of competition and there's self-regulation going on. There's lots of virus' out there, but if you stick to the sites certified by Microsoft and don't go on any sites that google suggests may be harmful to your computer, then you're largely to be fine. However, if companies like Google and Microsoft weren't providing some form of assistance to users, then I believe the software industry would need regulation, which would probably kill millions of blogs and social websites.
The point is, is that the regulations actually keep the income evenly disbursed. Essentially everyone is earning between £60,000 and £100,000 a year depending on what you do and how well you do it. However, when you work for a company (companies seem to exclusively do large businesses like factories and the few that don't have very bad reps) you earn much less, some get paid between £40,000 and £60,000. You, of course, get you tools paid for but they're a one time purchase, I mean our most expensive piece of equipment was a £1,000 tester and it has a 10 year warranty on it, so there is literally no incentive to go with one of those companies.
The companies actually run a scam, they hire people who aren't certified electricians, which is perfectly acceptable and legal. However they'll never train them to be certified, they just use already-certified electricians to certify everyone's work is done correctly. Again this is unfair on the certified electricians because if anyone screws up and he doesn't catch it, he's liable and that can include a prison sentence if someone dies from shoddy work.
My point is that regulation can be used in many ways. Big business takes over the regulators, but when used effectively a regulator can actually promote smaller business and stop economic pyramid schemes forming (AKA big business, people work for minimum wage so that the people at the top can earn over a million a year).
The fact that software isn't regulated is a good thing right now. There's lots of competition and there's self-regulation going on. There's lots of virus' out there, but if you stick to the sites certified by Microsoft and don't go on any sites that google suggests may be harmful to your computer, then you're largely to be fine. However, if companies like Google and Microsoft weren't providing some form of assistance to users, then I believe the software industry would need regulation, which would probably kill millions of blogs and social websites.
> The companies actually run a scam, they hire people who aren't certified electricians, which is perfectly acceptable and legal. However they'll never train them to be certified, they just use already-certified electricians to certify everyone's work is done correctly. Again this is unfair on the certified electricians because if anyone screws up and he doesn't catch it, he's liable and that can include a prison sentence if someone dies from shoddy work.
You may not like the choice that those certified electricians are making, but they clearly prefer it to their alternatives (such as running a two person shop).
Me - I see a significant cost savings. I don't care about certificates. I care about output and cost.
Note that regulatory capture actually isn't specific to big biz. It's often implemented by mobs of small biz trying to reduce competition. In the US you can see this in hair cutting and interior design. It sounds like electricians have done the same in the UK.
You may not like the choice that those certified electricians are making, but they clearly prefer it to their alternatives (such as running a two person shop).
Me - I see a significant cost savings. I don't care about certificates. I care about output and cost.
Note that regulatory capture actually isn't specific to big biz. It's often implemented by mobs of small biz trying to reduce competition. In the US you can see this in hair cutting and interior design. It sounds like electricians have done the same in the UK.
Certainly possible, but the difference is is that regulatory capture by small biz creates an even playing field and can prevent dominance, however when big biz does it you end up with few choices and extreme difficulty.
I mean this is quite an ironic example of regulation in big business. I mean look at the Big Three in automobile manufacturing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufactu.... Now which one did I mean?
Look at what happened in the UK, the companies were making an inferior product (not many British car enthusiasts would agree, but I've managed to have a look in a few of the old cars and motorbikes and they're shoddy. Some old British bikes had the serious problem that they'd drip oil in front of the driving wheel). What happened? Well all three became one, that one became nationalized, that one ended up getting handed between multiple companies before being renamed to the Rover brand and ultimately ended up as part of Ford. Who won out in the UK for vehicles? All the more efficient foreign ones.
What's happening in the US? Well Ford seems pretty stable despite the crisis. Chrysler says they seriously doubted they'd make it past 2009 without outside help. GM was planning to merge with Chrysler, however now GM is up shit creek without a paddle and are hoping subsidies will help them survive. If Chrysler and GM get significantly weakened, well Ford will likely buy them out. Can anyone see where this could potentially go?
I think the serious problem with big biz, is that when there's problems an entire industry can move to a different country. The only US owned car manufacturer in 10-20 years could be Tesla motors probably only because a bunch of silicone valley guys understand the importance of competition.
I mean this is quite an ironic example of regulation in big business. I mean look at the Big Three in automobile manufacturing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufactu.... Now which one did I mean?
Look at what happened in the UK, the companies were making an inferior product (not many British car enthusiasts would agree, but I've managed to have a look in a few of the old cars and motorbikes and they're shoddy. Some old British bikes had the serious problem that they'd drip oil in front of the driving wheel). What happened? Well all three became one, that one became nationalized, that one ended up getting handed between multiple companies before being renamed to the Rover brand and ultimately ended up as part of Ford. Who won out in the UK for vehicles? All the more efficient foreign ones.
What's happening in the US? Well Ford seems pretty stable despite the crisis. Chrysler says they seriously doubted they'd make it past 2009 without outside help. GM was planning to merge with Chrysler, however now GM is up shit creek without a paddle and are hoping subsidies will help them survive. If Chrysler and GM get significantly weakened, well Ford will likely buy them out. Can anyone see where this could potentially go?
I think the serious problem with big biz, is that when there's problems an entire industry can move to a different country. The only US owned car manufacturer in 10-20 years could be Tesla motors probably only because a bunch of silicone valley guys understand the importance of competition.
> Certainly possible, but the difference is is that regulatory capture by small biz creates an even playing field and can prevent dominance
Except in practice this form merely creates inefficiency that the rest of us get to pay for.
Regulatory capture works to the advantage of the incumbents vs the rest of us, independent of the characteristics of the incumbents.
Me - I don't care about the incumbents, big or small. I see no reason why they should get govt's thumb on the scale.
Except in practice this form merely creates inefficiency that the rest of us get to pay for.
Regulatory capture works to the advantage of the incumbents vs the rest of us, independent of the characteristics of the incumbents.
Me - I don't care about the incumbents, big or small. I see no reason why they should get govt's thumb on the scale.
> In the US you can see this in hair cutting and interior design.
On a tangent, the story behind SuperCuts is quite fascinating. A 6'8" former truck driver who had a mid-life crisis and enrolled in beautician school. Page 182/250
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4870487/Conversations-withMilliona...
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Supercuts-I...
On a tangent, the story behind SuperCuts is quite fascinating. A 6'8" former truck driver who had a mid-life crisis and enrolled in beautician school. Page 182/250
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4870487/Conversations-withMilliona...
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Supercuts-I...
Good article. RMS has an honest take on Cuba.
Open source can lead to other freedoms - some good discussion of software freedom.
"DT: I've editorialized that U.S. companies should be allowed to compete in Cuba. What's your position on that?
RMS: I really don't care. From my point of view, business issues are minor in comparison with issues of human rights and general well-being. "
"DT: I've editorialized that U.S. companies should be allowed to compete in Cuba. What's your position on that?
RMS: I really don't care. From my point of view, business issues are minor in comparison with issues of human rights and general well-being. "
Business freedoms lead to human rights and general well-being. Having a thriving private economy gives people choice over their profession. Increased wealth means people have more choice over their lives. Cuba legalized the private purchase of cell phones and computers in 2008, but most people are far too poor to buy one. If that were to change, it would be a clear improvement in Cubans' lives.
Let us not forget the legions of Cubans who have risked their lives on makeshift rafts to find a better life in the United States.
Let us not forget the legions of Cubans who have risked their lives on makeshift rafts to find a better life in the United States.
While it is true that increased wealth means that people have more choice in their lives, it does not necessarily follow that business freedoms lead to general well-being or to what is normally understood as human rights. As a matter of history, there have been very many places and times where business was relatively unrestricted, while labor and political activity were tightly regulated, and where the wealth from business failed to improve the lots of most of the population.
Current examples of some of these tendencies might include Dubai, Singapore, and some parts of mainland China. Examples in the past include Chile under Pinochet, Nazi Germany, and at times, ancient Rome. Places at risk include London.
Current examples of some of these tendencies might include Dubai, Singapore, and some parts of mainland China. Examples in the past include Chile under Pinochet, Nazi Germany, and at times, ancient Rome. Places at risk include London.
If you wanted to pick a warning example, you could have done much better than Singapore.
Singapore was a third-world country when the current ruling party took over in the mid-60s. Today, it has a higher per capita GDP than the United States, and three times that of neighboring Malaysia.
In the dark days of the 60s, Singapore was threatened by the communist plague sweeping over Southeast Asia, racial tensions and riots, and hostile neighbor states. The fact that it survives and thrives today is remarkable.
Yes, its government violated "human rights" along the way. In the 60s it aggressively persecuted communists, forbid their literature, and drove communist labor movements out of the country. This offends our Western sensibilities, but it did allow Singapore to avoid the fate of Vietnam and Cambodia. Was it worth it? I think the citizens of Singapore, both then and now, would say "yes".
In most circumstances I am a Western liberal. But I refuse to follow any ideology blindly to the point that it leads me to advocating catastrophe.
Today, Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world. It is regularly ranked by international organizations as one of the 10 least corrupt, often beating the United States. Maybe its people are lacking "human rights", but their quality of life is matched by few peoples of the world, and none in Southeast Asia. The fact that it appears to be an example for the China "communists" gives me hope for the future of that country.
Singapore was a third-world country when the current ruling party took over in the mid-60s. Today, it has a higher per capita GDP than the United States, and three times that of neighboring Malaysia.
In the dark days of the 60s, Singapore was threatened by the communist plague sweeping over Southeast Asia, racial tensions and riots, and hostile neighbor states. The fact that it survives and thrives today is remarkable.
Yes, its government violated "human rights" along the way. In the 60s it aggressively persecuted communists, forbid their literature, and drove communist labor movements out of the country. This offends our Western sensibilities, but it did allow Singapore to avoid the fate of Vietnam and Cambodia. Was it worth it? I think the citizens of Singapore, both then and now, would say "yes".
In most circumstances I am a Western liberal. But I refuse to follow any ideology blindly to the point that it leads me to advocating catastrophe.
Today, Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world. It is regularly ranked by international organizations as one of the 10 least corrupt, often beating the United States. Maybe its people are lacking "human rights", but their quality of life is matched by few peoples of the world, and none in Southeast Asia. The fact that it appears to be an example for the China "communists" gives me hope for the future of that country.
From the quotes you put around the phrase "human rights", am I to understand that you don't think human rights really exist, or that they aren't rights, or something?
Have you moved to Singapore yet? You seem to be pretty enthusiastic about it. I did not mean to say that it is an example of all of the bad things that can coexist with business freedom, just some of them.
As far as per-capita GDP goes, Singapore has the major advantage that it's 100% urban. I suspect that Malaysia's per-capita GDP would be a lot closer to Singapore's if you only considered downtown Kuala Lumpur.
I think the major problem in Vietnam and Cambodia was that they had a civil war, and as usual, the people who had power after the war were military leaders. In Vietnam things got a lot better after the war; in Cambodia, things got a lot worse, as they often do. (In fact, Cambodia is almost uniquely bad in the history of the world, as far as I know; there are lots of instances of conquering armies killing 50% or 100% of a conquered people, but I don't know of any others where they killed more than 50% of their own population.)
In both Cambodia and Vietnam, the civil war was made much worse by a US invasion. Maybe you think the same thing would have happened to Singapore? I suspect that they had an equal chance of ending up like Thailand, or urban Malaysia, or other countries in the area; and it's not clear to me that aggressively persecuting Communists made a civil war less rather than more likely.
Have you moved to Singapore yet? You seem to be pretty enthusiastic about it. I did not mean to say that it is an example of all of the bad things that can coexist with business freedom, just some of them.
As far as per-capita GDP goes, Singapore has the major advantage that it's 100% urban. I suspect that Malaysia's per-capita GDP would be a lot closer to Singapore's if you only considered downtown Kuala Lumpur.
I think the major problem in Vietnam and Cambodia was that they had a civil war, and as usual, the people who had power after the war were military leaders. In Vietnam things got a lot better after the war; in Cambodia, things got a lot worse, as they often do. (In fact, Cambodia is almost uniquely bad in the history of the world, as far as I know; there are lots of instances of conquering armies killing 50% or 100% of a conquered people, but I don't know of any others where they killed more than 50% of their own population.)
In both Cambodia and Vietnam, the civil war was made much worse by a US invasion. Maybe you think the same thing would have happened to Singapore? I suspect that they had an equal chance of ending up like Thailand, or urban Malaysia, or other countries in the area; and it's not clear to me that aggressively persecuting Communists made a civil war less rather than more likely.
>"I suspect that they had an equal chance of ending up like Thailand, or urban Malaysia, or other countries in the area; and it's not clear to me that aggressively persecuting Communists made a civil war less rather than more likely."
The Thais and Maylays were with Singapore in taking aggressive anti-communist actions in the 1960s. None of the countries that escaped communism approached the Western liberal ideal of political freedom. They were bare-knuckled pragmatists. They were all scared of what happened in China and wary of the imperial ambitions of the Soviets.
However, only Singapore pursued a transparent, capitalistic society with strong property rights and rule of law. The difference in outcomes is telling.
>"Have you moved to Singapore yet? You seem to be pretty enthusiastic about it."
If I were a resident of Southeast Asia, Singapore would be my #1 place to live. As is, I like the United States just fine.
>"As far as per-capita GDP goes, Singapore has the major advantage that it's 100% urban."
This was a huge disadvantage in the early years. Singapore had no raw materials, little farmland, and a per capita GDP of about $500. They had to import everything and often ran into hostility from neighboring countries that tried to prevent them from using trade routes, or even accessing water supplies.
A unique combination of shrewd leadership and aggressive capitalism grew their economy to the point that they had leverage in negotiations with their neighbors. Their destiny as the business hub of Southeast Asia was never a given.
>"From the quotes you put around the phrase 'human rights', am I to understand that you don't think human rights really exist, or that they aren't rights, or something?"
I put quotes around "human rights" because I don't think they are as easily defined as some people assume. I also don't think they are the end-all of politics, as Western liberals often suppose. I would certainly be willing to trade small infringements on human rights for large increases in the standard of living.
This is the point where many people would call me a "fascist" and run away.
I would be willing to bet that the average Singaporean is happy that their government made the choice to restrict press freedoms and prevent a communist revolution in the early years, considering how things have turned out.
The Thais and Maylays were with Singapore in taking aggressive anti-communist actions in the 1960s. None of the countries that escaped communism approached the Western liberal ideal of political freedom. They were bare-knuckled pragmatists. They were all scared of what happened in China and wary of the imperial ambitions of the Soviets.
However, only Singapore pursued a transparent, capitalistic society with strong property rights and rule of law. The difference in outcomes is telling.
>"Have you moved to Singapore yet? You seem to be pretty enthusiastic about it."
If I were a resident of Southeast Asia, Singapore would be my #1 place to live. As is, I like the United States just fine.
>"As far as per-capita GDP goes, Singapore has the major advantage that it's 100% urban."
This was a huge disadvantage in the early years. Singapore had no raw materials, little farmland, and a per capita GDP of about $500. They had to import everything and often ran into hostility from neighboring countries that tried to prevent them from using trade routes, or even accessing water supplies.
A unique combination of shrewd leadership and aggressive capitalism grew their economy to the point that they had leverage in negotiations with their neighbors. Their destiny as the business hub of Southeast Asia was never a given.
>"From the quotes you put around the phrase 'human rights', am I to understand that you don't think human rights really exist, or that they aren't rights, or something?"
I put quotes around "human rights" because I don't think they are as easily defined as some people assume. I also don't think they are the end-all of politics, as Western liberals often suppose. I would certainly be willing to trade small infringements on human rights for large increases in the standard of living.
This is the point where many people would call me a "fascist" and run away.
I would be willing to bet that the average Singaporean is happy that their government made the choice to restrict press freedoms and prevent a communist revolution in the early years, considering how things have turned out.
> "The Thais and Maylays were with Singapore in taking aggressive anti-communist actions in the 1960s. None of the countries that escaped communism approached the Western liberal ideal of political freedom."
What do you think about the pre-civil-war human-rights records of Vietnam and Cambodia? Do you think they were more protective of political freedom before the wars than Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia?
> "If I were a resident of Southeast Asia, Singapore would be my #1 place to live. As is, I like the United States just fine."
I think infringements on human rights are less unpleasant in theory than in practice; maybe if you spend some time living there, you might have a more nuanced point of view about it.
> [Urbanity] "was a huge disadvantage in the early years." [economically]
Nearly all of world economic development during the 20th century was urban, if you measure by GDP. In industrialized countries, cities have been richer than the country for centuries — as long as there have been industrialized countries. It's true that cities can't be self-sustaining, but that seems to be an advantage when it comes to economic development.
> "I would be willing to bet that the average Singaporean is happy that their government..."
The average inhabitant of almost any country is happy about almost everything their government has done, especially a while back, and they would have been happy about their government doing the opposite if it had done the opposite.
What do you think about the pre-civil-war human-rights records of Vietnam and Cambodia? Do you think they were more protective of political freedom before the wars than Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia?
> "If I were a resident of Southeast Asia, Singapore would be my #1 place to live. As is, I like the United States just fine."
I think infringements on human rights are less unpleasant in theory than in practice; maybe if you spend some time living there, you might have a more nuanced point of view about it.
> [Urbanity] "was a huge disadvantage in the early years." [economically]
Nearly all of world economic development during the 20th century was urban, if you measure by GDP. In industrialized countries, cities have been richer than the country for centuries — as long as there have been industrialized countries. It's true that cities can't be self-sustaining, but that seems to be an advantage when it comes to economic development.
> "I would be willing to bet that the average Singaporean is happy that their government..."
The average inhabitant of almost any country is happy about almost everything their government has done, especially a while back, and they would have been happy about their government doing the opposite if it had done the opposite.
One final point in response to your urban thesis: the difference in the standard of living in downtown Singapore and downtown Havanna.
I wasn't trying to claim all urban areas were equal, just that the economic development that has happened has happened primarily in the cities.
I'm still interested in your answers to my questions.
I'm still interested in your answers to my questions.
Perhaps you should read this article, "How Singapore Rigs its Elections." It's only showing up in Google Cache right now, and I have to wonder why. The rest of Knife Tricks is still up. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:xcGwQS3twnsJ:knifetricks...
People should not have to live in fear of criticizing their government.
People should not have to live in fear of criticizing their government.
Chile is one of the best South American countries. It has a lot less poverty than its more socialist neighbours. Here is a quite from WP:
> Currently, Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[5] Within the greater Latin American context it leads in terms of human development, competitiveness, quality of life, political stability, globalization, economic freedom, low perception of corruption and comparatively low poverty rates.[7] It also ranks high regionally in freedom of the press and democratic development.
During the Pinochet era the economy grew and created a stable base for the current day Chile. The economic policies of Chile has not changed course from the Pinochet era.
> and some parts of mainland China
China is screwed up and has many problems. When you compare China now with China pre-1978 you will see that people are a lot richer and more well off than they were then.
> Singapore
Compare Singapore with its neighbour Malaysia. Singapore has a high GDI and a lot less social problems than most other countries.
> Currently, Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[5] Within the greater Latin American context it leads in terms of human development, competitiveness, quality of life, political stability, globalization, economic freedom, low perception of corruption and comparatively low poverty rates.[7] It also ranks high regionally in freedom of the press and democratic development.
During the Pinochet era the economy grew and created a stable base for the current day Chile. The economic policies of Chile has not changed course from the Pinochet era.
> and some parts of mainland China
China is screwed up and has many problems. When you compare China now with China pre-1978 you will see that people are a lot richer and more well off than they were then.
> Singapore
Compare Singapore with its neighbour Malaysia. Singapore has a high GDI and a lot less social problems than most other countries.
So all the torture, repression, and extreme poverty during the Pinochet era was worth is huh? And there HAS been socialist change since Pinochet. I can't believe you'd hold Chili under Pinochet up as an example of what to do. Good lord.
"So all the torture, repression, and extreme poverty during the Pinochet era was worth is huh?"
I never said that the oppression during Pinochet's term was right. What I said was that Chile's macro-economic policy was right. The economic growth under Chile was better than the inflation under Allende. Even critical things such as infancy mortality rate was a 4th under Pinochet as it was under Allende.
“And there HAS been socialist change since Pinochet. “
From WP:
The implemented economic model had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down.[1] Successive governments have continued these policies for a quarter century.
Chile has the 8th highest economic freedom in the world – this shows that a lot of policies are still the same.
I never said that the oppression during Pinochet's term was right. What I said was that Chile's macro-economic policy was right. The economic growth under Chile was better than the inflation under Allende. Even critical things such as infancy mortality rate was a 4th under Pinochet as it was under Allende.
“And there HAS been socialist change since Pinochet. “
From WP:
The implemented economic model had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down.[1] Successive governments have continued these policies for a quarter century.
Chile has the 8th highest economic freedom in the world – this shows that a lot of policies are still the same.
"Business freedoms lead to human rights and general well-being"
Business freedoms are also a consequence of other rights, like the right to property. They are nice, but not required.
Business freedoms are also a consequence of other rights, like the right to property. They are nice, but not required.
Depends on what he means by business issues.
A very good argument can be easily made that a fiat currency is a necessary but not sufficient element in modern well-being.
Prior to fiat currencies there was a fixed amount of gold, and every coin in your pocket was a coin out of someone else's pocket.
Imagine a fixed number of software copies, a gold based currency is a lot like DRM for money.
Further more you can easily argue that making health care part of employer compensation (as is common in the US) leads to less well-being then making it a separate (in Europe often nationalized) good.
Those are two business issues with a direct impact on general well-being, and that's just off the top of my head.
A very good argument can be easily made that a fiat currency is a necessary but not sufficient element in modern well-being.
Prior to fiat currencies there was a fixed amount of gold, and every coin in your pocket was a coin out of someone else's pocket.
Imagine a fixed number of software copies, a gold based currency is a lot like DRM for money.
Further more you can easily argue that making health care part of employer compensation (as is common in the US) leads to less well-being then making it a separate (in Europe often nationalized) good.
Those are two business issues with a direct impact on general well-being, and that's just off the top of my head.
You're wrong on the fiat-money/gold standard point. You're forgetting about the price level. Any given economy can be run on any given supply of money, the prices and currency denominations just need to adjust. A gold standard doesn't transform an economy into a zero-sum game.
Pure fiat money has been functioning in the West since only 1971 when Nixon suspended the dollar's conversion to gold as a prelude to a rather shitty decade in terms of economic performance. Fiat currency has been tried plenty of times over the last few centuries; it was never a stable monetary regime. Our experiment with fiat is new and bold, and as yet unproven. If it turns out to be successful, it would be the first time.
Pure fiat money has been functioning in the West since only 1971 when Nixon suspended the dollar's conversion to gold as a prelude to a rather shitty decade in terms of economic performance. Fiat currency has been tried plenty of times over the last few centuries; it was never a stable monetary regime. Our experiment with fiat is new and bold, and as yet unproven. If it turns out to be successful, it would be the first time.
What happens if new value is added to the economy?
Perhaps I've just discovered a cure for the common cold. The same amount of money is now chasing a bigger pot.
Suppose lots of people pay me for my cure, and I just save all the money, what happens to the restaurant down the road?
Also fiat currencies predate Nixon, the paper contracts between members of the Hanseatic League can be thought of as a form of fiat currency.
Perhaps I've just discovered a cure for the common cold. The same amount of money is now chasing a bigger pot.
Suppose lots of people pay me for my cure, and I just save all the money, what happens to the restaurant down the road?
Also fiat currencies predate Nixon, the paper contracts between members of the Hanseatic League can be thought of as a form of fiat currency.
The same amount of money chasing fewer goods leads to deflation - each unit of currency can buy more goods. When this occurs due to an increase in productivity, such as in the example you describe, deflation can accompany economic growth.
Deflation was paired with economic growth in the United States under the gold standard for about 30 years at the end of the 19th century.
This was a good recent article on a related topic. Selgin is a well-known monetary economist:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/09/00014/
Deflation was paired with economic growth in the United States under the gold standard for about 30 years at the end of the 19th century.
This was a good recent article on a related topic. Selgin is a well-known monetary economist:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/09/00014/
From the article:
After all, technology was improving, so goods cost less to produce. Why shouldn’t prices reflect that reality?
When it's cheaper and easier to pull MORE gold out of the ground, that's not strictly speaking a fixed money supply.
When Rome (the empire) dumped a whole bunch of new found (stolen) gold on Rome (the city) that caused inflation too.
If your money supply is growing - it's growing.
Now if you have far too lose a monetary policy and you're inflating the money supply way too much and way too fast, that can be disastrous.
But if Alan Greenspan had found a way to convert led into gold, we would have gotten the real estate bubble even with a gold standard.
When it's cheaper and easier to pull MORE gold out of the ground, that's not strictly speaking a fixed money supply.
When Rome (the empire) dumped a whole bunch of new found (stolen) gold on Rome (the city) that caused inflation too.
If your money supply is growing - it's growing.
Now if you have far too lose a monetary policy and you're inflating the money supply way too much and way too fast, that can be disastrous.
But if Alan Greenspan had found a way to convert led into gold, we would have gotten the real estate bubble even with a gold standard.
Yes. The sudden discovery of an easily-mined gold supply has the same function under a gold standard economy as the central bank expanding the monetary base in a fiat economy.
In practice, gold supplies tend to be more predictable than central banks.
In practice, gold supplies tend to be more predictable than central banks.
How are the random deposits of a heavy metal in the earth's crust more predictable then central banks?
The last major expansion of the Eurasian gold supply was in the 1500s and 1600s, due to the looting of the Americas, and I think it roughly tripled the amount of gold in circulation. There has never been an event since the advent of gold-as-currency that multiplied by ten the amount of gold in circulation within a century, but that happens to almost every fiat currency almost every century. Predicting which decade it happens in is tricky, though.
I think using a fiat currency is probably a good idea, though.
I think using a fiat currency is probably a good idea, though.
I am not so sure predicting when a fiat currency will be inflated is tricky.
The money supply and interest rates being econ 101.
And thinking of hyper inflation, where does that usually happen?
Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, the Weimar Republic - if a bad government wants to screw you, a gold backed currency won't save you. Does anyone think someone like Mugabe wouldn't just change the rules to do what ever he wants?
Besides, even that Money as Debt movie explains that gold is easily manipulated and thus volatile, so not good as a currency.
The money supply and interest rates being econ 101.
And thinking of hyper inflation, where does that usually happen?
Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, the Weimar Republic - if a bad government wants to screw you, a gold backed currency won't save you. Does anyone think someone like Mugabe wouldn't just change the rules to do what ever he wants?
Besides, even that Money as Debt movie explains that gold is easily manipulated and thus volatile, so not good as a currency.
Billions of dollars are won and lost on Wall Street everytime the Fed meets. If it were as easy as you say to predict the actions of the central bank, this would not be the case.
How many times to the daily fluctuations of wall street affect the rate of inflation or an average person's life?
I believe there's been at least one major stock market crash that has not led to a recession.
I believe there's been at least one major stock market crash that has not led to a recession.
Except he hasn't.
Under the gold standard, there is a feedback loop allowing the market to control inflation (that is, people can invest more or less in mining technologies/companies).
To some extent, this feedback loop also exists in a central banking system; it's far from being as efficient.
Under the gold standard, there is a feedback loop allowing the market to control inflation (that is, people can invest more or less in mining technologies/companies).
To some extent, this feedback loop also exists in a central banking system; it's far from being as efficient.
Under the gold standard, there is a feedback loop allowing the market to control inflation
Why would one want to control inflation? Inflation does not have anything to do with economic health, does it? http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/jubi2000.htm
below 40% inflation per year, 'there is no evidence that inflation is costly'. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a 'slippery slope' there is no evidence that one increase in inflation causes further increases. Thus 'the focus on inflation ... has led to macroeconomic policies which may not be the most conducive for long-term economic growth.'
Why would one want to control inflation? Inflation does not have anything to do with economic health, does it? http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/jubi2000.htm
below 40% inflation per year, 'there is no evidence that inflation is costly'. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a 'slippery slope' there is no evidence that one increase in inflation causes further increases. Thus 'the focus on inflation ... has led to macroeconomic policies which may not be the most conducive for long-term economic growth.'
if [...] you're inflating the money supply way too much and way too fast, that can be disastrous.
Why?
Why?
The average person can't hedge their savings/income etc against hyper inflation fast enough.
Usually people just flee to the most convenient hard currency, like the US dollar, then every pay check is a race to convert it before its value drops.
But a lot of those paychecks are not inflation indexed.
Basically hyper inflation makes it impossibly hard to preserve any kind of liquid or semi-liquid wealth.
You can only hope to have all our wealth in things like real estate or perhaps gold. Although dry beans, rice and salted bacon are probably better then gold. You can't eat gold, and I'm not sure you can trade it for food in some of the worst parts of Zimbabwe.
Usually people just flee to the most convenient hard currency, like the US dollar, then every pay check is a race to convert it before its value drops.
But a lot of those paychecks are not inflation indexed.
Basically hyper inflation makes it impossibly hard to preserve any kind of liquid or semi-liquid wealth.
You can only hope to have all our wealth in things like real estate or perhaps gold. Although dry beans, rice and salted bacon are probably better then gold. You can't eat gold, and I'm not sure you can trade it for food in some of the worst parts of Zimbabwe.
Good point - business issues and quality of life are not mutually exclusive.
But for me, I interpreted the statement as "When business issues and quality of life issues are in conflict and you have to choose one over the other, I choose quality of life issues". Maybe I misread.
But for me, I interpreted the statement as "When business issues and quality of life issues are in conflict and you have to choose one over the other, I choose quality of life issues". Maybe I misread.
From the article:
So I said, "Cuba has an important resource - lots of people who have never learned to use Windows. And here you are, destroying that resource, gratuitously. If you are not ready yet to switch these clubs so that they teach people free software, at least you should shut them down until they can."
Does he say this seriously? I've seen people using this kind of hyperbole when in a partisan environment to have a laughs. But I have no clue from the article that this is humorous.
So I said, "Cuba has an important resource - lots of people who have never learned to use Windows. And here you are, destroying that resource, gratuitously. If you are not ready yet to switch these clubs so that they teach people free software, at least you should shut them down until they can."
Does he say this seriously? I've seen people using this kind of hyperbole when in a partisan environment to have a laughs. But I have no clue from the article that this is humorous.
If the cost of using Linux is less than the cost of using Windows, but the cost of ripping out existing Windows and re-training users is large enough to overwhelm the gain, then a population that uses neither but could learn Linux is at an advantage.
You're assuming that learning a PC operating system is an end in and of itself. It isn't. People in the real world use computers to get stuff done. For a Linux-using population to have an "advantage" you first need to know what they want to accomplish, then you need show how it can be done more quickly and easily on Linux, which is where the Linux house of cards comes tumbling down. This is not "year zero" of the Linux desktop.
You might have had a point half a decade ago. Nowadays it's pretty easy to get stuff done on Linux.
You might have had a point if you knew what goal the Cubans were trying to accomplish before you were all "rah rah Linux".
Choose the right tool for the job.
Choose the right tool for the job.
Nearly all the professional applications (engineering, finance, accounting, etc.) only run on Windows (or Mac OS X for the design stuff).
They can learn to write software to replace these so-called professional applications.
This is an advantage for Linux over Windows? Buying Windows and all the software needed and dealing with any technical issues will be far cheaper than developing the software again in every scenario. People use computers for work, not to use computers.
For most countries, that is plausible, but not for Cuba.
We're talking about Cuba here. Buying Microsoft software is simply not an option anytime in the next few years; it's illegal under US law for Microsoft to sell to them. Or are you talking about the $1 needed to burn a CD with an unlicensed copy of the Microsoft software on it?
In the case of proprietary software from other countries, from companies that are willing to risk US trade sanctions, Cuba still has to pay for the licenses from its very limited foreign exchange reserves, acquired from its very limited exports of about US$220 per capita per year.
Cuba has about 11 million people, 20% under 14, which means 160 000 of them graduate from high school every year. If its leadership thought software was a priority, they could train the top 3% of each graduating class in software development, roughly the same fraction as programmers in the US work force, about 5000 people. If they were at all successful in this, then starting in 2013 or so, Cuba would have at least a few hundred good hackers every year.
Let's say that one average software developer can replace US$150 000 per year of software consulting services or licensing costs from abroad. (Outside of Cuba, they're paid US$50 000 and billed out to clients at twice that, but aren't as efficient as somebody local who already has both the hacking skills and the domain knowledge.) Under those assumptions, each graduating class provides software that would have cost US$750 million per year to purchase from abroad, if purchasing it from abroad is even possible.
Cuba's total imports are about US$7 billion per year. So in 2022, the value produced by these programmers each year would exceed Cuba's entire current imports. And that's with only 50 000 programmers out of 11 million people. A more aggressive program would convert 3% of the entire population to software development, or 300 000 people.
So it's quite likely that, for Cuba, developing software internally would be far cheaper than trying to buy it abroad.
Of course, the value produced by programming is very hard to predict, as is the success of an educational initiative, as are international politics.
We're talking about Cuba here. Buying Microsoft software is simply not an option anytime in the next few years; it's illegal under US law for Microsoft to sell to them. Or are you talking about the $1 needed to burn a CD with an unlicensed copy of the Microsoft software on it?
In the case of proprietary software from other countries, from companies that are willing to risk US trade sanctions, Cuba still has to pay for the licenses from its very limited foreign exchange reserves, acquired from its very limited exports of about US$220 per capita per year.
Cuba has about 11 million people, 20% under 14, which means 160 000 of them graduate from high school every year. If its leadership thought software was a priority, they could train the top 3% of each graduating class in software development, roughly the same fraction as programmers in the US work force, about 5000 people. If they were at all successful in this, then starting in 2013 or so, Cuba would have at least a few hundred good hackers every year.
Let's say that one average software developer can replace US$150 000 per year of software consulting services or licensing costs from abroad. (Outside of Cuba, they're paid US$50 000 and billed out to clients at twice that, but aren't as efficient as somebody local who already has both the hacking skills and the domain knowledge.) Under those assumptions, each graduating class provides software that would have cost US$750 million per year to purchase from abroad, if purchasing it from abroad is even possible.
Cuba's total imports are about US$7 billion per year. So in 2022, the value produced by these programmers each year would exceed Cuba's entire current imports. And that's with only 50 000 programmers out of 11 million people. A more aggressive program would convert 3% of the entire population to software development, or 300 000 people.
So it's quite likely that, for Cuba, developing software internally would be far cheaper than trying to buy it abroad.
Of course, the value produced by programming is very hard to predict, as is the success of an educational initiative, as are international politics.
It's completely serious. Stallman thinks the social harm done by proprietary software licenses is greater than the good done by the ability to use the software. Do you think that's an unreasonable or laughable position?
The consequence that it is better to close down the clubs than to let them encourage proprietary software usage is almost inescapable given the above premise.
The consequence that it is better to close down the clubs than to let them encourage proprietary software usage is almost inescapable given the above premise.
Like most of us, I discovered programming using proprietary software (namely MS-DOS and QBASIC), and if an intolerant idiot tried to prevent me from using those tools, he would have been hit by a (then) heavy keyboard.
(by the way, the case against using BASIC is certainly stronger than the case against using proprietary software.)
(by the way, the case against using BASIC is certainly stronger than the case against using proprietary software.)
Yeah, I probably would have felt the same way. On the other hand, it's fortunate that five-year-olds don't generally decide major public policy issues; I can remember a lot of things I felt similarly passionate about at the time.
It is unreasonable.
Just imagine the amount of wealth that has been created in the past couple of decades by using proprietary software.
Though one could argue the same could have been done with free software, he's saying (as you paraphrase) that it's better to have no progress at all than to have progress at the cost of using proprietary.
Just imagine the amount of wealth that has been created in the past couple of decades by using proprietary software.
Though one could argue the same could have been done with free software, he's saying (as you paraphrase) that it's better to have no progress at all than to have progress at the cost of using proprietary.
I do not think Stallman is saying that it is better to have no progress; he is saying that using proprietary software is un-progress, a kind of regression. I did not paraphrase his statements in the absurd fashion that you claim I did, and I would like you to retract that claim.
The consequence that it is better to close down the clubs than to let them encourage proprietary software usage is almost inescapable given the above premise.
1) cuban boys discovering hacking in computer clubs
2) something I'm too stupid to understand
3) clubs should be shut
Good work!
1) cuban boys discovering hacking in computer clubs
2) something I'm too stupid to understand
3) clubs should be shut
Good work!
He certainly is serious. But as long as his ridiculous totalitarian/communist ideas only apply to software, he's mostly harmless.
HN, wtf. Stallman is many things but would never, ever be "totalitarian/communist." Who is voting this troll up? Come on, this is supposed to be a hacker site.
He even talks about regime change in Cuba to open up.
He even talks about regime change in Cuba to open up.
That's not what I'm talking about.
Stallman declared he'd rather see computer clubs closed than using Windows. He wants to convert (I'm quoting the article) the "important resource" (read: people 'unspoiled' by Windows) to free software (just like Che Guevara who went to Africa to convert people unspoiled by capitalism to the ideal of communism).
So I rest my case: as far as software is concerned, he is a totalitarian.
Stallman declared he'd rather see computer clubs closed than using Windows. He wants to convert (I'm quoting the article) the "important resource" (read: people 'unspoiled' by Windows) to free software (just like Che Guevara who went to Africa to convert people unspoiled by capitalism to the ideal of communism).
So I rest my case: as far as software is concerned, he is a totalitarian.
> That's not what I'm talking about.
Yes, you are.
> Stallman declared he'd rather see computer clubs closed than using Windows.
Your paraphrasing is out of context and switches meanings. I am not going to even quote as you conveniently didn't quote that paragraph.
> He wants to convert (I'm quoting the article) the "important resource" (read: people 'unspoiled' by Windows) to free software
Yeah, so? He wants Free Software. Nothing new.
> (just like Che Guevara who went to Africa to convert people unspoiled by capitalism to the ideal of communism).
This is a very pathetic and childish hyperbole. You are the equivalent of the Fox News crowd for software.
(That's a hyperbole pun.)
Yes, you are.
> Stallman declared he'd rather see computer clubs closed than using Windows.
Your paraphrasing is out of context and switches meanings. I am not going to even quote as you conveniently didn't quote that paragraph.
> He wants to convert (I'm quoting the article) the "important resource" (read: people 'unspoiled' by Windows) to free software
Yeah, so? He wants Free Software. Nothing new.
> (just like Che Guevara who went to Africa to convert people unspoiled by capitalism to the ideal of communism).
This is a very pathetic and childish hyperbole. You are the equivalent of the Fox News crowd for software.
(That's a hyperbole pun.)
I think he just forgot "unamerican"
My god, it's amazing to see the vitrol here. It looks like a lot of people don't like mixing their politics with their software.
I think Stallman's $1M grant from the MacArthur Foundation has given him a rather skewed idea about how economics works for most people even in the US, let alone the rest of the world.
I thought it was a surprisingly good interview until I got to that bit. The unnecessary 4 Freedoms rant should have tipped me off I suppose.
"Well, they were probably a bit surprised, because they never thought about these things in these terms. But now I'm in touch with somebody who has converted one youth club to use free software, and he's now talking with the people who run the other youth clubs in his region, trying to convert them. So something's finally getting done."
Notice the religious terminology. The Church of Emacs, eh.
edit: Is it possible to use bold here?
Notice the religious terminology. The Church of Emacs, eh.
edit: Is it possible to use bold here?
No, you no can has bold.
Italics are allowed because they allow you to annotate emphasis without making the text stand out more than normal -- you only notice it inline. Allowing bold would lead to asshats writing like Jeff Atwood.
Italics are allowed because they allow you to annotate emphasis without making the text stand out more than normal -- you only notice it inline. Allowing bold would lead to asshats writing like Jeff Atwood.
I wouldn't mind if there was a limit (maybe as few as 3) on the number of words you can make bold. Or a percentage of your post, or something. Now that I think about it the same solution could be used to support blockquote (ex: max 2 blockquotes in a post + other restrictions). After all the argument against implementing it was that excessive use of quoting is often bad style.
I think it's pretty ridiculous not to support useful features just because 1% of people might misuse it.
I think it's pretty ridiculous not to support useful features just because 1% of people might misuse it.
[deleted]
I think Stallman's views tend towards the extreme but I have to agree with this one.