ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
I don't know if someone decides to pimp this thread back to the top periodically or if someone just starts over, but a couple of things always happen:
1) The central premise is always characterized as promoting one religion over others on the left
2) The selective time window is always ignored on the right
The premise is that it is good for capital formation for there to be tension or outright conflict between church and state.
The premise overgeneralizes non-Western societies as universally theocratic in their conceptions, and our conversations have revolved around Islam as a stand-in for the non-Western world.
Similarly, as we devolve in this direction, we lose the point that it is specifically because of the rise of state power in the West (as distinct from church power) that the West got rich.
To point 2: the present question is whether in 100 years, there will be similar threads around the world on "Why Did the East Grow Rich?" In a couple hundred years, will it be one of those historical curiosities... "You know, there was a time that America actually controlled a lot of world commerce..." Sort of like we talk about Holland now.
If there is one lesson in history as a broad field of study, it is that no system is forever; when an ascending system stagnates, it will then decline.
Capitalism's got a short 500-year or so history. It coincides with the rebellion against the ruling religious structure of Europe and the consolidation of nation-states. This weakening of the Church was the enlightenment in many ways. So the OP has some merit.
However, it doesn't hurt to suddenly conquer a couple of brand new continents, and through your technological edge, re-conquer the rest of them, for all intents and purposes (as the "guns/germs/steel" hypothesis maintains.)
We're at what looks like the end of a seemingly insurmountable technological edge on the part of the West, and some are saying that the Capitalist model is at its end as well. We're standing here dumbfounded and rightly quite worried about what may come next. Or -- capitalism may not be at the end of its run, and we, like so many before us, are magnifying in our own eyes the events of our times.
In the 30s and 40s, the Grand Bargain saved this country. In the 1860s, it was precisely the triumph of technology that made inevitable the victory of the morally justified, federalist North over the morally bankrupt, regionalist/"state's rights"/slaveholding South. It was the completion of the formation of American Nationalism, much as Italy and Germany were finally truly becoming nations about that same time. In the 1950s and 1960s, we began the inclusion of minorities and women into the mainstream, reinvigorating us again (in the U.S.)
What comes next? I'm staying on the hopeful side, personally. Over on the "475:1 thread" there's an interesting graph. In the course of quibbling over whether the ratio is truly 475:1, or more like 200:1 (which I take it is okay...?) B5 posted a graph showing the comparative income gaps among a sampling of corporate-hosting nations, including the main European economies, France and Germany...and also including the U.S.
That's the graph that matters. The theory that the single most important asset of every corporation walks out the door and into his rolls at 5:00 has led to a skewed capitalism in America, skewed beyond belief, in fact. Beyond that, shortsighted "day trader" expectations of investment returns make capital formation and exploitation problematic.
So long as we preserve pension funds, however, this last might be partly counterbalanced. Here's the thing: healthy pension funds invest to match their long-duration obligations. You can't day-trade for long-run returns, and you're less likely to try to ride waves. You know you owe X in 40 years, for instance, and if you have to invest in 100 startups, 99 of which lose money and 1 of which provides a 120-1 return, you do it.
As America ages, that means -- so long as we continue to fund such plans -- there will be money staying on the table for long-term development.
Not a bad idea, if you think about it. Just wool-gathering at 6:30 in the a.m, don't mind me.
Off to work,
PFnV
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
I don't know if someone decides to pimp this thread back to the top periodically or if someone just starts over, but a couple of things always happen:
1) The central premise is always characterized as promoting one religion over others on the left
2) The selective time window is always ignored on the right
The premise is that it is good for capital formation for there to be tension or outright conflict between church and state.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of the whole thread. That was the premise in the OP.
Quote:
The premise overgeneralizes non-Western societies as universally theocratic in their conceptions, and our conversations have revolved around Islam as a stand-in for the non-Western world.
Similarly, as we devolve in this direction, we lose the point that it is specifically because of the rise of state power in the West (as distinct from church power) that the West got rich.
Is state power greater under a democratic government or under a monarchy?
Quote:
To point 2: the present question is whether in 100 years, there will be similar threads around the world on "Why Did the East Grow Rich?" In a couple hundred years, will it be one of those historical curiosities... "You know, there was a time that America actually controlled a lot of world commerce..." Sort of like we talk about Holland now.
The flattening of the world does not negate the premise that certain cultural differences explain the divergence. if anything the adoption of western institutions in the East confirm the premise.
Quote:
If there is one lesson in history as a broad field of study, it is that no system is forever; when an ascending system stagnates, it will then decline.
The OP is about the rise. Decline is separate, no?
Quote:
Capitalism's got a short 500-year or so history. It coincides with the rebellion against the ruling religious structure of Europe and the consolidation of nation-states. This weakening of the Church was the enlightenment in many ways. So the OP has some merit.
However, it doesn't hurt to suddenly conquer a couple of brand new continents, and through your technological edge, re-conquer the rest of them, for all intents and purposes (as the "guns/germs/steel" hypothesis maintains.)
Does it answer how they were able to conquer those continents?
Quote:
We're at what looks like the end of a seemingly insurmountable technological edge on the part of the West, and some are saying that the Capitalist model is at its end as well. We're standing here dumbfounded and rightly quite worried about what may come next. Or -- capitalism may not be at the end of its run, and we, like so many before us, are magnifying in our own eyes the events of our times.
In the 30s and 40s, the Grand Bargain saved this country. In the 1860s, it was precisely the triumph of technology that made inevitable the victory of the morally justified, federalist North over the morally bankrupt, regionalist/"state's rights"/slaveholding South. It was the completion of the formation of American Nationalism, much as Italy and Germany were finally truly becoming nations about that same time. In the 1950s and 1960s, we began the inclusion of minorities and women into the mainstream, reinvigorating us again (in the U.S.)
What comes next? I'm staying on the hopeful side, personally. Over on the "475:1 thread" there's an interesting graph. In the course of quibbling over whether the ratio is truly 475:1, or more like 200:1 (which I take it is okay...?) B5 posted a graph showing the comparative income gaps among a sampling of corporate-hosting nations, including the main European economies, France and Germany...and also including the U.S.
I was just asking for accuracy in the 475:1 thread. I also don't buy those numbers, and considered it the responsibility of the OP to find the right ones. I think I already made it pretty clear that I think that executive comp is a serious problem in the U.S.
That's the graph that matters. The theory that the single most important asset of every corporation walks out the door and into his rolls at 5:00 has led to a skewed capitalism in America, skewed beyond belief, in fact. Beyond that, shortsighted "day trader" expectations of investment returns make capital formation and exploitation problematic.
I think there is a problem with the current "public company" paradigm. (As PR has often said). I love private companies like SAS. IMHO, their CEO has it exactly right:
Goodnight says it's pressure from Wall Street to please shareholders by delivering rising quarterly earnings that has poisoned the corporate well.
"There's no possible way I can tell you what my earnings are going to be to the penny each quarter," he says. "There's only one way to get there to the penny -- you have to cook the books."
...
"Given the stuff that's going on right now in corporate America, I don't want to be labeled as a public CEO," says Goodnight to his employees. "I want people to know I don't have to cheat and lie and all that stuff."
...
SAS thrives by shunning conventional wisdom. While many companies treat employees as annoying necessities, Goodnight regards his as the best investment he ever made.
"You know, I guess 95 percent of my assets drive out the front gate every evening," says Goodnight. "It's my job to bring them back."
Now their business requires a certain amount of creativity, so it makes sense to use incentives. For work that is standardized, such incentives actually make things worse. We know this from social science research:
The mid 1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta. They had deployed all the right incentives. All the right incentives. They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles. Well compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure it came in on budget and on time. A few years later another encyclopedia got started. Different model, right? Do it for fun. No one gets paid a cent, or a Euro or a Yen. Do it because you like to do it.
Now if you had, just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, And said, "Hey, I've got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia. If they went head to head, who would win?" 10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth, who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.
This is the titanic battle between these two approaches. This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation. Right? This is the Thrilla' in Manila. Alright? Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, versus carrot and sticks. And who wins? Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout. Let me wrap up.
There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And here is what science knows. One: Those 20th century rewards, those motivators we think are a natural part of business, do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive. The drive to do things for their own sake. The drive to do things cause they matter.
And here's the best part. Here's the best part. We already know this. The science confirms what we know in our hearts. So, if we repair this mismatch between what science knows and what business does, If we bring our motivation, notions of motivation into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe, maybe we can change the world. I rest my case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa
So long as we preserve pension funds, however, this last might be partly counterbalanced. Here's the thing: healthy pension funds invest to match their long-duration obligations. You can't day-trade for long-run returns, and you're less likely to try to ride waves. You know you owe X in 40 years, for instance, and if you have to invest in 100 startups, 99 of which lose money and 1 of which provides a 120-1 return, you do it.
I hope not!
Anyway, back to the OT. I posted the video of this, but maybe you didn't get a chance to watch it. I'd be interested in hearing your feedback, given your familiarity with Locke.
Killer 'apps': the ideas that propelled the west to world domination
1.Competition: In the 15th century, China was the most advanced civilisation in the world, while Europe was a backwater. But then things changed and by the late 18th century Adam Smith could observe that China had been "long stationary". What happened? Ferguson argues that Europe's fragmented political structure led to competition and encouraged Europeans to seek opportunities in distant lands. The increasingly insular China, by contrast, stagnated.
2. Science: The 16th and 17th centuries were the age of science, with an extraordinary number of breakthroughs occurring. This revolution was, Ferguson writes, "by any scientific measure, wholly European". In the Muslim world, clericism curtailed the spread of knowledge, while in Europe, aided by the printing press, the scope of scholarship dramatically widened. Ultimately, breakthroughs in science led to improvements in weaponry, further cementing the west's advantage.
3. Property: Why did the empire established by the English in north America in the 17th century ultimately prove so much more successful than that established by the Spanish in south America a century earlier? It was, Ferguson contends, because the English settlers brought with them a particular conception of widely distributed property rights and democracy, inherited from John Locke. This proved a far better recipe for success than the Spanish model of concentrated wealth and authoritarianism.
4. Modern science: According to Ferguson, modern medicine was the west's "most remarkable killer application". Western medical advances in the 19th and 20th centuries increased life expectancies across the world, including in the colonies. The French in particular, largely thanks to a lofty conception of their imperial mission, brought significant improvements to public health in western Africa, developing effective vaccinations for diseases such as smallpox and yellow fever.
5. Consumption: The west's dominance of the rest of the world was not only achieved by force; it was also, as Ferguson shows, achieved through the market. The industrial revolution in 18th and 19th century Britain created a model of consumerist society that has proved irresistible, as shown, for example, by the way that the western style of dressing has swept the globe. Yet there's a paradox: how was it that an economic system designed to offer infinite choice has ended up homogenising humanity?
6. Work ethic: As Max Weber noted a century ago, Protestantism was a form of Christianity that encouraged hard work (and just as importantly, Ferguson adds, reading and saving). It isn't a coincidence, he says, that the decline of religion in Europe has led to Europeans becoming the "idlers of the world" (while the more religious US has remained hard-working). Interestingly, Ferguson also argues that China's embrace of hard work is partly because of the spread there of Protestantism.
9Likes
Re: Why Did the West Grow Rich?
Linear Mode
