Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

Economies: Extractive vs. Inclusive

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: Economies: Extractive vs. Inclusive
Post by Tenshinai   » Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:22 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Donnachaidh wrote:You do realize that your argument in this section is basically "computers are so complex that it's hard for a small company to compete" right?


Then i think you missed something on reading.

Complex has nothing at ALL to do with it.

Donnachaidh wrote:The fact is it's fairly easy to get the parts and chips. The hard part is the soldering due to the size of the chips. You can quickly and relatively inexpensively get a small number of custom circuit boards too. The challenge is that most components are surface mount, not through-hole which means it's difficult to hand solder them.


That´s part of the problem, but it´s still nowhere near the primary reason for not doing it commercially.

2 sides of it, software and hardware.

Nowadays, either you make the hardware be compatible with one of the major software types, or it almost certainly wont sell. And unlike when Apple started, trying to write your own software today for a brand new computer? Uh, not realistic no.

Linux is the (relatively) easy choice to be compatible with... Except that then you also compete with the whole regular PC market.
*bummer*

And there the true problem comes into play, it´s (almost?) impossible to piece together hardware that has an edge, the selling point that makes it worth choosing over a regular PC or a "common" mid or highend specialised system. Because competing with those on pricing is just not going to happen.

And that´s actually before even taking into account the problem that is hyper cheap imports.

I know someone who built his own miniature super computer in his closet in the early 90s, doing the same today? Easy, and much cheaper.

But buying already existing PC parts is going to get you more performance for the same money, and drastically more performance for the same TIME spent.

Just can´t beat massproduction without a very good reason, and when much of the massproduction is done in low cost countries, you´re just so far from commercially viable that it´s not even funny.

Just over the few years my brother did it commercially in the late 80s, he noticed this trend clearly, one of the reasons he dropped it, just those few years had reduced margins far too much.
Top
Re: Economies: Extractive vs. Inclusive
Post by Tenshinai   » Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:58 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

DDHv wrote:...

In an extractive economy, there is no incentive for most people to use part of current production to increase future production. In fact, that could summarize what "Why Nations Fail" is pointing out. Do you think a company (like Apple) could have started in a garage or spare room in, say, Stalinist USSR :?: Or any other extractive economy :?:


In another example turning your question over, why not look at the so called space race?

Where USA used a planned economy style project to beat the highly competitive market style economy Soviets.

And no, that´s not an incorrect statement or mistake. USSR had several construction bureaus competing with each other over who got the contracts, while the US project ran as a planned economy.

Just as a caution against making assumptions.
Top
A simpler way to look at it
Post by DDHv   » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:16 am

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Stumbled across another way of looking at the basics. There are market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The first succeed on product and price. The second succeed by gaming the system. WNF is pointing out how policies determine which is favored. When market types are favored, the general population is helped a lot, and the rich are helped a little. You get new rich, who have earned their riches. When the political type is favored, the "top" people with contacts are favored. And the already rich get much richer, without the poor gaining much.

DWs Safehold and Honorverse series show examples of both.

Guess which one is better for us?

An example of a political is Carlos Slim, the Mexican magnate.

What the next big opportunity for market entrepreneurs will be is unpredictable! Sometimes it is a better organization pattern.

BTW, for investors, the US birth rate is way down. Suggest avoiding toy companies & other toddler and young children types. We already have bubbles to contend with, don't need to get involved in sure poor performers. PS Harry Dent's books are worth study, but be sure to check the copyright date to compare with real world results correctly.
Last edited by DDHv on Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!
Top
Readings & complex vs complicated
Post by DDHv   » Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:05 pm

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Worth Reading.

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2 ... c-version/

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/ ... n-economyq

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2 ... are-state/

BTW, good computers are complicated, but not complex. They are constrained, if properly designed. Now software, in spite of all the attempts to constrain it, can become very complex.

Complicated or simple.
Complex or simplex.
Four different concepts. Any sufficiently constrained system can be complicated, not complex. A simple system, if it has all the requirements, can be complex. Search on "sandpile simulation."

Solid complexity theory has only become possible with the development of inexpensive computing, since the constraints are much lower. Even then, it is only possible to predict patterns, not details, when a complex system goes critical.

Preventive action is possible, usually by reducing the interconnectedness. This is why ski resort operators use dynamite when the snow is becoming avalanche critical - they get smaller avalanches more frequently, and can pick the time to set them off.

An extractive economy is best for the extractor.
An inclusive economy is best for his descendants :!:
Few extractors are smart enough to see this :cry:

One liner - under socialism, people wait for bread. Under a free market, bread waits for people.
Last edited by DDHv on Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:15 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!
Top
Re: Economies: Extractive vs. Inclusive
Post by umbrarchist   » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:27 am

umbrarchist
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:45 am

Here is a hilarious bit of techno-economics.

Why Do Computers Depreciate?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shapiro/ ... iw2007.pdf

But economists are technological morons.

There is no discussion of passive backplane computers. If most of the machines had been designed with a standard passive backplane then they could have been easy and inexpensive to upgrade.

Instead millions of good metal cases and power supplies have been thrown away and now we have lots of cheap plastic cases produced.

But the paper contains lots of complicated math.

Even if the African elephant goes extinct I will still have more respect for elephant poachers than economists.
Top
Current Extractive actions
Post by DDHv   » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:42 am

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Things worth reading keep showing up. So I'm editing more to keep the number of posts down.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/09/2 ... seizes-it/ :twisted:

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ ... e-n1910082

These are some examples of how an extractive economy can work. The WNF book points out that unless the people WORK at keeping political control, the big shots move toward the extractive paradigm.

BTW, this kind of situation isn't new. I remember reading about when a man's land was grabbed in the 1800s. All the neighbors showed up at the auction, and refused to raise the (former) owner's minimum bid.

Know what is going on in your area, who is responsible, and keep them honest! Hope the woman gets an honest judge :!:
Last edited by DDHv on Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!
Top
General - innovation
Post by DDHv   » Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:30 am

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Tenshinai wrote:
DDHv wrote:...
In an extractive economy, there is no incentive for most people to use part of current production to increase future production. In fact, that could summarize what "Why Nations Fail" is pointing out. Do you think a company (like Apple) could have started in a garage or spare room in, say, Stalinist USSR :?: Or any other extractive economy :?:


In another example turning your question over, why not look at the so called space race?

Where USA used a planned economy style project to beat the highly competitive market style economy Soviets.

And no, that´s not an incorrect statement or mistake. USSR had several construction bureaus competing with each other over who got the contracts, while the US project ran as a planned economy.

Just as a caution against making assumptions.


The innovations on getting into space occurred in the first half of the twentieth century. Big shot types like to develop what is known, not seek for real innovations.

Unexpected jumps in an economy don't come from developing what is already known. When something innovative and disruptive turns out to actually work you get major changes. One possibility at present is in food production: intensive gardening and aquaponics have had the pioneering work done, and can increase productivity quite a bit. Better yet, most of the needed investment is labor, not capital. When the people who could develop these are too poor for even the little needed, they won't get done. An inclusive economy allows us little shots to have enough to try out ideas, and if they don't work, we are the only ones hurt, because we aren't "too big to fail!"

Most modern supercomputers do not use one very fast processor. They have multiple less capable processors put together in a manner that allows handling large amounts of data without getting choked by input limitations. The problem with an extractive economy is data choke due to the centralization. An economy isn't a speed of calculation problem, it is a handling all the information problem.
Last edited by DDHv on Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!
Top
Innovation: Seawater Greenhouse
Post by DDHv   » Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:14 pm

DDHv
Captain of the List

Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:59 pm

A londoner has worked out a way to grow vegetables in low lying deserts near seas.

Search on: Seawater Greenhouse

Also, urban farming is growing:

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/news/indus ... ize-europe

Anyone remember the Motie cities? It has been estimated that with modern methods, such as aquaponics, it would be possible to grow all the vegetable needs in many cities, using rooftop areas. This would work better with one story buildings built for the needs, tho.
Last edited by DDHv on Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!
Top
Re: Economies: Extractive vs. Inclusive
Post by Imaginos1892   » Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:35 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

One more thing economists need to learn: buying and selling the same things over and over again does NOT create value! It doesn't matter if it's gold, stocks, houses or tulip bulbs.
-----------------
If you laid all the economists in the world end-to-end, they would all point in different directions.
Top
Re: Economies: Extractive vs. Inclusive
Post by Starsaber   » Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:19 pm

Starsaber
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:40 am

Imaginos1892 wrote:One more thing economists need to learn: buying and selling the same things over and over again does NOT create value! It doesn't matter if it's gold, stocks, houses or tulip bulbs.
-----------------
If you laid all the economists in the world end-to-end, they would all point in different directions.


Or more relevantly given our current economy: oil. Price speculators increase price without adding any value.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...