Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you saying that Kid and that head of the Patent Office have the same intelligence with respect to the future?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
No real need. I pointed out that a large portion of that "incarcerated" workforce was incarcerated for non-economic crimes (hence economic conditions don't particularly influence their criminality, unless you want to argue capitalism leads to rape and child molestation too).

Given that the current unemployment rate, though fairly bad, is actually less than the peak rates for the last two recessions, you'd have a hard time correlating incarceration rates for economic crimes (factor in length of sentencing, etc.) to the state of the economy in the last 20 years.

Just to give you guys a little taste. A study by Merva and Fowles found that a one percent increase in the unemployment rate results in a 6.7% increase in homicides, a 3.4% increase in violent crime, and a 2.4% increase in property crimes.

That's enough though and I won't say anything else about it in this thread.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And I'd rather see them get real job skills, although I also favor a two tier system for prisoners. One a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" for the dangerous and hardcore offenders, and the other a real attempt at rehab, with job training, useful job skills, education, counseling, and a bunch of other touchy-feely stuff like that.

Well, this would be best, but then you have all the conservatives whining that we're rewarding people for committing crime, and I just didn't feel like getting into that argument.

JohnT, I'm looking for the statistics. As I rwote previously, I heard this on NPR a week or so back.

In the mean time, from CNNMoney:

Miranda is not alone. According to government labor statistics, 4.8 million individuals are underemployed. That's on top of the 8.7 million counted as unemployed and looking for jobs, not to mention the 4.2 million non-working who don't bother.

With discouraged workers alone, the UE rate jumps to at least 9%. Factor in underemployment, and it's probably close to 10.5%.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Your doing the same thing MtG is doing. Why would we need individuals to save money for research? All we have to do is pay scientists the same way we pay everyone else.

Paying scientists is a small part of research costs. Infrastructure, specialized machinery and manufactured goods, supplies, all cost more than the payroll of your scientific personnel. Non-science support people cost a bunch as well, and you have to support multiple lines of research without knowing the results, if there will even be results.

So even in your system, you have to suck out a lot of resources from somewhere, and throw them at doing science, with no knowledge of the end cost or end result.

(Unexpected veer to the left)

Unlike Imran and a lot of the real right wingers, I support heavy levels of public funding for basic research, because there is a lot of it that can't translate into a market motive in a reasonable time frame. I think the best model of reseach is a mix of public and private (profit driven or subject interest driven) funding.

[chequita guevara]

From the Detroit Free Press.

Real unemployment rate worse than 6%

Statisticians skip over frustrated job seekers
May 30, 2003

BY ADAM GELLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK -- The nation's unemployment rate has edged up to 6 percent while Michigan's is 6.6 percent, but frustrated job seekers, shoulder-to-shoulder with so many others who recently lost work, are convinced the numbers miss something.

They're right, experts say.

The national unemployment figure, based on the government's monthly survey of 55,000 households, counts only those people who have made an effort to look for a job in the last four weeks.

It does not count the substantial number of Americans who have gone back to school because they can't find a job or those who have taken a part-time job for much less pay. It does not include people who, unable to find work, have set themselves up in their own businesses, many as home-based consultants.

And it does not count people who have become so demoralized that they've just given up looking.

If all those people were included, economists and the Labor Department's own figures say, the figure would be about 10 percent of the workforce.

"Right now the unemployment rate isn't telling the full story," said Jared Bernstein, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based research group.

Economists don't dispute the way the government collects data. They say the household survey is careful and accurate, but that it defines unemployment so narrowly it is easy to misinterpret.

For example, in April, the last month for which the government released data, 8.8 million people were counted as unemployed. That figure did not include 4.8 million people who work part time but want a full-time job, up about 600,000 from the previous year.

In addition, the survey found another 1.4 million people who want to work are available and have looked for a job in the last year. But because they haven't looked in the last four weeks, they weren't counted as unemployed.

That group includes about 437,000 people deemed discouraged -- those who have given up looking. That figure is up from 320,000 a year ago.

According to the government's formula, if people lose a job and just give up looking "then you just disappear altogether. You're not in the labor force anymore," said Sophia Koropeckyj, an economist with Economy.com, a research firm in West Chester, Pa.

The government does publish a broader alternative unemployment rate, albeit one that gets limited attention. In April, that figure, which is not seasonally adjusted, was 9.8 percent, down from a high of 11 percent in January.

That compares to a recent low of 6.3 percent in October of 2000, when the traditional unemployment rate stood at 3.9 percent.

The growth in the population of those who are available to work but not working or looking reflects the current economy but also points to long-term trends, economists say.

(emphasis added)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Paying scientists is a small part of research costs. Infrastructure, specialized machinery and manufactured goods, supplies, all cost more than the payroll of your scientific personnel. Non-science support people cost a bunch as well, and you have to support multiple lines of research without knowing the results, if there will even be results.

So even in your system, you have to suck out a lot of resources from somewhere, and throw them at doing science, with no knowledge of the end cost or end result.

I don't really see your point. Sure research will be expensive, just as it is now.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Jack_www


First off comparing Spain to Soviet Union is like comparing a 2 cylinder car to a V-6. I mean if you are going to start comparing countries lets compar the United States and the Soviet Union shall we?

Ok.

Who lead who in technology?

USSR.

Who lead in standard of living?

USA.

Who lead in quality of healthcare?

USSR.
2:1
Have a nice day.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Now, research is mostly funded by voluntary contributions of capital. I can invest in it if I want, or I can choose not to.

Under your system, there would need to be a conscious decision to the effect that you're going to take X resources from the standard of living of everyone, to fund this undirected, unpredictable, and probably (in most projects) pointless effort by these bourgeoise intelligentsia types.

So first, how much do you **** over the common working man to pay these researchers and for what projects?

Second, do you go for high talent scientists and support people (who include people like me you'd deem subservice, dangerous, and who have nothing but contempt for your system), or do you go for mediocre scientists who are party hacks?

The USSR also splendidly illustrated how to screw up that issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Saying the USSR led in technology .

Man, and they say the US has propaganda .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Serb
USSR.

In technology? I see they've got great drugs in Russia still. Or is it just Vodka? The USSR was so patheticaly far behind in so many different areas of technology, it's a joke.

Health care is debateable, especially if you factor in things like state imposed health risks a la pollution in Chelyabinsk, and radiological and chemical exposure hazards in the Soviet nuclear navy and Strategic Rocket Forces.

At best , USA 2 USSR 0, tie 1 depending on criteria.

[Velociryx]

So basically, if I start my own business from home, using the communist-preferred numbers, I'm "unemployed." and if I have a job, but want a better one, I'm "unemployed."

Riiiiight.

::shakes head in disbelief at the lengths people will go to in order to make a situation look worse than it is::

Serb: Let me guess: The 'net, the genome project, the personal computer, cellphones, and every other major innovation of the last 30-years, the west stole from russian prototypes, right?

I gotta hand it to the communist crowd though, they'll go to about any length to attempt to make the case for the virtues of "their" system.

You guys really, truly believe that all you gotta do is take control of the wealth of the nation (never mind all the killing that'll involve, we know you don't like to talk about that part), put some honchos in charge of deciding what to make, and in what quantity, and magically, it all just sorta rolls together, huh?

I'm sorry to say that nobody here can hold a candle to the talent that's tried (and failed) previously, and yet you guys think you got all the answers, huh?

I think I'll stick to what we KNOW works, rather than the smoke and mirrors....

-=Vel=-

[Serb]

Who launched first sattelite?
Who launched first spaceman?
Wha had the biggest missile?
Who had the biggest nuke?
In some other...hmmm...minor technologies USa may had a slight superiority.
But just admit guys our **** was always longer.
Mtg, it's 8:46 here. I don't drink vodka so early.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So basically, if I start my own business from home, using the communist-preferred numbers, I'm "unemployed." and if I have a job, but want a better one, I'm "unemployed."

Typical Vel, deliberately misinterpreting things to suit his ideology.

The US government publishes these numbers. Not me.

You start a business at home, you're employed. If you have a job but want a better one, you're employed. If you have a part-time job but want full-time work you are underemployed.

[alva]

Who launched first sattelite?
Who launched first spaceman?
Wha had the biggest missile?
Who had the biggest nuke?
In some other...hmmm...minor technologies USa may had a slight superiority.
But just admit guys our **** was always longer.:d
Mtg, it's 8:46 here. I don't drink vodka so early.

Probably any system can achieve greatness shortterm, it's keeping it up that's hard (wow, way to many unintented pun )

[Velociryx]

Oh goody! Yes! Let's whip 'em out and compare, shall we?

Space, he says:
1st Satellite - Russia
1st Spaceman - Russia
1st probe to another planet - US
1st semi-permanent space station - US
1st Lunar Landing - US
1st Orbiting telescope - US
1st Reusable spacecraft - US

As to missile SIZE....who cares? The size of the missile has little to do with its accuracy, and both sides had a sufficient NUMBER of nukes to ignite the atmosphere (I'd call that a draw, at best).

It's pretty easy to win a race that the other side doesn't know it's in, but it's also painfully clear to see who took the lead soon after....

-=Vel=-