Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (32826)	3/15/2010 6:18:17 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank, not sure this is the place for a discussion about how economics affects us, so I'll try to condense. In the decades before we were born, the world saw the birth of socialism and communism. Meanwhile in the 30's US capitalism underwent a major reset, the purpose of which was to cure its worst excesses. One way to state the case is that capital was constrained by moral and social concepts: what was damaging to the perceived public interest was controlled. On the public interest, generally the formative influences in present economic and political practice are not well known: Nash, Hayek, etc. en.wikipedia.org In the period from the 70's to the 80's and thereafter, US capitalism underwent another reset; to varying degrees, the theories and practices accompanying the reset spread globally. The major chord was economic efficiency. In the process we saw changes that included but were not limited to liberalization of capital markets, deregulation, and globalization. --- Points: [1] Economic orthodoxy varies widely and changes constantly. Those who believe we are experiencing the dawn of new economic reality are ignoring history. Economic beliefs are religions, nothing more. As Krugman pointed out the US golden age is over; we are reverting to older norms, now restored. [2] Do a search for "income equality" and "social democracy" [3] Upstream statements about command economies and social democracies demonstrate that not all nations have adopted the economic theories and public choice practices espoused by the US. Regardless of the wisdom of individual moves, they retain the ability to apply direction and purpose to their economies. Put another way, they are willing to sacrifice some economic "efficiency" for social efficiency. [4] Specifically WRT technology, this means they can "tilt" the economic table in any desired direction. Notwithstanding improved social metrics, they can also choose advances in power generation, high-speed rail, fiberoptics, electrification and so on. In other words, they have not chosen to completely embrace the current US economic orthodoxy; in fact, they have resisted. Thus I call them hybrids. I suggest data is already proving that a middle course is wiser, and that abandoning an economy to an unregulated free market is ultimately self-destructive. Capital is amoral. More, that free-market dynamics cannot adequately address impending scarcities. There more than ever, we'll need a hand on the tiller. Jim