[OT] Re: Python training time (was)

[Jack Diederich]

On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:17:01AM +0000, John Ochiltree wrote:
> <posted & mailed>
> 
> Alex Martelli wrote:
> 
> > Laura Creighton wrote:
> >    ...
> >>> > indeed between a whole nation's impoverishment and enrichment.
> >>> 
> >>> I hate to break it to you, but gratuitous complexity *maintains*
> >>> relationships of power.  Consider lawyers, for instance.  On the open
> >>> market, my C++ skills are worth more money to more people than your
> >>> Python
> >>> skills.  It's going to be quite some time before that picture changes.
> >    ...
> >> I think you are confusing 'getting paid' with 'creating wealth'.
> > 
> > I think Laura is right on the spot, as usual.  Let me elaborate
> > in my own usual (i.e. verbose :-) way.
> > 
> > David Ricardo's "The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation"
> > (not a _pleasant_ read IMHO -- I find Ricardo's style ponderous, the
> > very opposite from the delightful, sparking English of e.g. Adam
> > Smith -- but deep and important) goes into that quite well, IMHO.
> > The whole book is available online, by the way:
> > http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/ricardo/prin/
> > 
> > You'll find the distinctions between "value" on one side, and "wealth"
> > or "riches" on the other (essentially the former meaning "value for
> > exchange", the second "value for use") debated throughout the history of
> > economics -- and often in much more brilliant language -- but never, IMHO,
> > with deeper insight than Ricardo exhibits.> > Alex
<snipped elaboration of the same>
> Alex
> This is the most wonderfully off topic post I've come across. You are a 
> genius to get from a debate about C++ & Python to a debate on value. I 
> salute you.
> 
> BTW I think Marx deals with the topic with far greater clarity than Ricardo 
> or Smith, though Smith's Law of the Cartel is not to be sniffed at.

re: value and welath

I largely agree.  There is a difference between intrinsic value (above 'value')
and commercial value (above 'wealth').  This difference varries from person
to person, if a person 'values' a BigMac at $100 then they must cackle every
time they pay $2 for one at McDonalds.  It would be too expensive for McDonalds
to figure out how much each guy in line would pay for a burger, so by trial
and error they found they make the most money by asking $2 for it.
Some people 'value' it at $100 and gleefully pay $2.
Some people 'value' it at $1 and just don't buy it at all.

Marx's labour theory of value tried to set an absolute scientific standard
[Marx considered himself a scientist] by stating that something was worth
excatly the amount of _human_ labor put into it.  He hedged this a bit
by saying the most efficient amount of human labor, so you couldn't spend
a year making a loaf of bread and say it was worth a year's wages.
One wonders how you 'value' a painting with this system.
Marx's labour theory of value was complete and utter crap, which _NO ONE_,
not even modern day Marxists believe strictly [teenagers and undergrads don't
count in 'no one'].  Poke around the web if you want to find how people have 
tried to update it to keep it alive.
(People do still believe other things Marx wrote with only minor alterations)

There are two ways to deal with the disparity between commercial value and
intrinsic value. One, let some people get a deal (the $100 big mac guy) 
and let others (the $1 guy) forgoe the big mac.  We call this Capitalism.
The other is for a governing body to set the commercial value to what they
determine the instric value is.  We call this Socialism, Marx's recomendation
to the government for determining the intrinsic value is stated above.

Both have big problems when it comes to government.  Governments are always
gamed by some people for their own benefit.  For Socialism this is striaght
forward, the government determines the intrinsic value so just get them to
make a favorable determination for you.  Or if you are in the government
sell a favorable determination.  For Capitalsim, the government doesn't set
prices directly so you need to game the government differently.  This leads
to ...

re: cornering the market

Hayek wrote really good stuff about artificial scarcity.  In a nutshell the
only way to permenantly (where permenant just means a long time) make something
scarce is to regulate it via government.  Usually a law will be passed for
consumer safety or because of a 'market failure' ('market failure' just means
a politician thinks he could have done things better) and a profession will
be regulated.  After a few years the members of a profession end up completely
controlling the government regulating body and make their members happy by
making the profession artificially scarce.
Trucking, Doctors, Teachers, Lawyers, and Copyright are all good examples of this.
[speaking for the US, your country may vary]

Short of government intervention where they threaten to put people in jail
for violating the cartel, it is very hard to keep up artificial scarcity
for any long period of time.  The diamond cartel is arguably the exception,
but they have so many governments in their pocket it gets fuzzy.  They also
bought up or paid off _every single diamond mine in the world_ which is
something not many industries can do.  They're due for a fall soon, if
someone put together a few million in consumer education money to run some
ads DaBeers would be screwed.  If you plan on doing this please let me know
so I can buy stock in Emeralds & Rubies.

-jackdied

ps, just google for any of the above topics.  Opinions and flamewars on all
this stuff abounds on the web.