Python training time (was)

[Alex Martelli]

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.  Chapter 20 of the book
is entirely about this issue, and one key paragraph is:
"""
It is through confounding the ideas of value and wealth, or riches that
it has been asserted, that by diminishing the quantity of commodities, 
that is to say of the necessaries, conveniences, and enjoyments of 
human life, riches may be increased.
"""

I'm talking about "riches" aka "wealth" in Ricardo's terms -- the
abundance of necessaries, coveniences and enjoyments of human life --
and specifically about those of a *whole nation*.

Brandon seems to think that there is some relevance to this that,
by creating or maintaining some scarcity, certain individuals can
be enabled to capture more "value" ("more money").  Either he has
not studied Ricardo, or he thinks _I_ haven't...

One of Ricardo's examples discusses the possibility of a scarcity
of *water* -- in his times (1820's) a paradox, today anything but
(usable water IS scarce and costly in many places in the world).

If you could create or maintain a scarcity of water, and control
some of that scarce and therefore valuable resource, you, as an
individual, might well profit for it, by diverting larger slices
of the nation's wealth into your pockets; but the nation's wealth
as a whole would inevitably diminish.  You'd get a larger slice
(possibly even larger in absolute terms) of a diminishing cake.

Similarly, professionals since age immemorables have striven and
often succeeded in creating an artificial scarcity of their own
services by restricting entry and practice into the profession
(invariably with the noblest of motives, of course -- ensuring
the public's safety, the quality of professional services, and
so on -- it is, no doubt, just a side effect that this kind of
barriers to entry increases the income of those already in...;-).

Much the same goes for "programming productivity" -- it can be
made artificially scarce, temporarily enriching those who can
command it to the (greater) detriment of everybody else, and
that will invariably be done for the noblest of motives.

Some of us are keener on *growing the pie* for everybody, than 
on appropriating larger slices thereof.  Admittedly, such an
attitude is easier to hold when one has already enough saved
resources set aside to live comfortably, and/or absolutely no
doubt that, whenever more income should be needed, it will be
relatively trivial to obtain it (perhaps by doing some spell at
an unpleasant but highly remunerated skill one has).

But, it IS a choice each person needs to make on their own.  If
you want to artificially maintain scarcity, impoverish everybody
but possibly enrich yourself, then high-productivity tools such 
as Python may be seen as a threat to your prospects -- this may 
explain why some people get so venomonous in their attacks against 
such tools.  If you prefer to increase wealth and reduce poverty
all around, then you should know that increasing the productivity
of all factors of production (labour first and foremost) is really
the only way -- thus, technological developments that lead to
higher productivity, and in particular high-productivity tools
such as Python, should be welcome, embraced, and evangelized.
What kind of world we are going live in, will be in part determined
by the choices made by everybody along this particular axis.


Perhaps a more interesting question would be, what social
arrangements (enforceable by law) would help Adam Smith's
"Invisible Hand" work more expeditiously in ensuring that the
wealth-increasing technologies are ALSO value-increasing in
the not-too-long run (in the long run, we're all dead...:-).

Here, I know Laura and I partly differ.  I agree with Smith
that what allows some groups to capture wealth by impoverishing
everybody are mostly social arrangements that interfere with
the free market: intellectual property laws, limited-liability
corporations (allowing the creation of lumbering giants that
can and do use all sort of tricks to maintain their privileged
position to everybody's detriment), legal sanction of the status
of privileged professional groups and castes.  What we think
of, today, as a "free market", is anything BUT, and rereading
Smith (besides being utterly pleasant;-) is a helpful reminder
of that.  Others may believe that the best answer to the
inevitable distortions of markets by such laws and regulations
is, _MORE_ laws and regulations (the latter, by some unexplained
magic, will NOT be captured and exploited by special interests
and lobbying groups as all the previous ones have always been;-).
But, this is admittedly quite a different issue, anyway.


Alex