Kamal R. Prasad
Usenet User
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
The Snot Report....its a biggie this time !
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
> Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> >
> > From: BMJ (parametric_equation@yahoo.com)
> > Subject: Re: The Snot Report....its a biggie this time !
> > View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
> > Original Format
> > Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> > Date: 2004-11-28 09:00:00 PST
> >
> > I am having problems with google usenet posting. I hope it reaches the
> > intended audience correctly.
> >
> > regards
> > -kamal
> > p.s:- I may not posting much till I can get the problems resolved at
> > my end.
> >
> > R. Martin wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >>One of the main characters in the movie said "Who cares about Sputnik?
> > >>We've got rock and roll." Unforutnately, that attitude hasn't changed
> > >>much over the years.
> > >>
> > >><snip>
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, Sputnik did give science and technology a funding burst. One
> > > might argue its value, but it happened. The burst came about because
> > > the leaders saw Sputnik as a threat from an enemy that needed to be
> > > countered.
> >
> > Sputnik was never a threat to americans -any more than the earth
> > simulator by NEC is.
> >The threat wasn't the satellite per se, of course, but the nuclear
> >warhead delivery capability that the launch vehicle implied. And
> >yes, that WAS a threat, and if you don't think so you should read
> >some history of the Cuban missle crisis and how close we came to
> >Armageddon. The NEC simulator isn't a threat. When did I ever
> >imply that it was? As a meteorologist I find it an amusing waste
> >of machine cycles, like many (but not all) such projects, but it
> >isn't a threat.
>
> For every scientific achievement, there is a dual-use application.
>That is an unsubstantiated, overgeneralized assumption, but even if
it
>is true I still don't feel threatened by the Earth Simulator.
It is true for satellite systems, optics, computers and a lot of
hi-tech equipment. Its even true for biological products.
> Lots of countries can hit a missile at India, but the question on my
> mind is what they will get besides nuclear pollution by doing so? The
> cuban missile crisis was a result of the cold war, meaning the
> russians wanted to gain an edge in the on-going war.
>Yes, so why wasn't that a threat, or at least understandably
>perceived as a threat? (Or have I lost the thread of the argument?
If you had a political agreement not to attack -it wouldn't have been
a threat. The fact that there was a political conflict meant that
sputnik was another weapon in the arsenal. A significant development
on Russia's part [which probably s already ahead of the US in space
technology] would not be a threat -because of a political
understanding.
>You did write "Sputnik was never a threat to americans -any more than
>the earth simulator by NEC is", or am I mistaken?)
FYI -the US has export control restrictions on most computers of the
same rating as the earth simulator. The computers are restricted for
export on the grounds that they can be used to build ICBMs. You can
consider either of those a threat to the US -if you really want an
excuse to do so. But the reality is that one of the prime users of
supercomputers in India is the meterological bureau which does its
best to help farmers [who constitute 65% of India's labour].
>
> > Americans are obsessed with notions of
> > superiority and that is why they consider it a threat.
> >Please don't generalize.
> Alright. But it is US govt. policy to maintain a pre-eminent position
> in science and technology.
>I live in the U.S., I'm a scientist in the U.S., and I find your
>assertion dubious based on the funding levels appropriated by the
>government for science, the respect (or rather lack of respect)
>with which scientists are regarded in the administration, etc.
>Of course, I'll grant that there may be a disconnect between policy
>and the actions needed to implement it effectively.
The govt has a policy alright -to maintain pre-eminent position. But
the way the position is maintained does not necessarily have anything
to do with providing people like you with good jobs. Its something to
do with a rat race to maintain a lead, eg:- if a theological state
like Iran develops nuclear weapons/enrichment facility, you bomb the
facility. If a poor but democratic country like India develops space
technology, you put economic and tech restrictions to prevent them
from coming up. If a country like Japan develops a supercomputer,
since neither of the previous techniques will work -you fund companies
within US with taxpayer money to come up with something better.
> Its as if some other country making
> progress in S&T is akin to posing a threat to the US citizenry.
>
> > The way I look
> > at it, a scientific achievement by another country is as much an
> > achievement as one by the US.
> >As a scientist, so do I.
> Alright. I meant if I were you, I would appreciate the russians'
> achievement.
>
> >
> > >Along with it came an overhaul of the educational system. Regrettably,
> > >that same overhaul brought along with it the present collection of bogus
> > >theories and fruit-loop ideologies that have undermined what it was
> > >supposed to accomplish.
> >
> > I hope you haven't forgotten Ricardo and his theory of comparative
> > advantage -which is perhaps what offshoring is all about.
> >I have not forgotten it, but I try to ignore it and most other
> >blather from economists.
>
> Its not blather. Its plain economics.
>They are the same thing in a majority of cases. I highly recommend
>_Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences_ by
>Steve Keen (www.debunking-economics.com). Ricardo comes off better
>than most economists, but Keen shows that neoclassical economics
>(which is the type almost universally taught these days) is built on
>a foundation of sand consisting of internal contradictions and often
>vague definitions, some of which go back to Ricardo and further. One
>economist who does come off well in Keen's analysis is Sraffa, but
>you've probably never heard of him. I hadn't seen his name in any
>econ literature I'd read before Keen.
Here is the deal -anything made in the US is going to cost more
because the workers paid to do the job have a higher cost of living
aka min. wage to deal with.
> If another country can produce
> cheaper & better goods -it makes sense to let them do that job, and do
> something which you are better at(Im not sure what that would be for
> americans right now). No country has been able to change that basic
> law as yet.
>Just because some economists believe it doesn't make it a basic law.
:-)
Name one country that enabled inferior industry to survive/prosper
without paying for it dearly via taxpayer money?
>
> >
> > America's leader today do not view globalization as a
> > > threat. They either view it as positive, or they have sold out
> > > intellectually to the economists or sold out literally to big money
> > > contributors (e.g. big business) who view it as positive. Nothing
> >
> > Much as a patriotic president or businessowner may want, he cannot
> > change the fact that somethings are better/cheaper made outside than
> > inside the US -and that is what the customer will opt for.
> >Not if the customer is sufficiently brainwashed.
> Yeah -ford & gm must be having a tough time painting the american flag
> on their cars to help them compete with Toyota and Honda.
>The French lost wine sales over not supporting the U.S. in Iraq, and
>that can not, IMO, be viewed as a fundamentally hostile act (IOW I
>don't buy the "if you're not with us, you're against us" idea). If
They didn't lose anything with their hostile act -and FYI french wine
is already more expensive than that from most other countries.
>Japan did something to tick off enough Americans badly enough, yes
>Toyota and Honda sales would be hurt. And the government can crank
>of the propaganda machine to make sure at least some Americans get
They can't do anything to provide more value for money to the customer
-with that. You can levy tarriffs or bar companies from selling
products in the US, but that comes at the expense of the customer -and
does not do anything to improve the quality of the american product,
which is perhaps what you should be aiming for.
>ticked off. It managed to convince a majority of Americans that
>Saddam had vast stock piles of WMD (and at last check the majority
>of Americans still believe it despite the lack of evidence).
Doesn't matter if they believe it or not. The US govt has a tough time
believing that they are not in a quagmire -and that is what matters.
>
> >
> > > will be done until it is viewed as a threat, and preferably from
> > > some specific enemy. If bin Laden could be linked to globalization
> > > WalMart would be buying American in a minute, if for no other reason
> > > that some smart competitor would run an ad implying that WalMart
> > > supports global terrorism.
> >
> > If the USD wasn't an inflated currency, then chinese goods wouldn't
> > have had an advantage.
> >Now you're ignoring economics. The Chinese are artificially
> >manipulating the yuan, just like the Japanese did with the yen for
> >a while. It ultimatley backfired on the Janpanese (I just read
> >that chapter of _Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial
> >Speculation_ last night). It may backfire on the Chinese.
>
> The USD is inflated against just about every other 3rd world country.
>Well, let's face it, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the
>U.S. economy, most economies in the third world are simply in
>awful shape (almost by definition) so of course the dollar is
>strong compared to those currencies. A more complete picture is
Do you know what Purchasing power parity is? Im referring to that.
>painted by how those third world currencies compare to the
>currencies of other major economic powers and how the dollar
>compares to the yen, euro, etc. I don't follow third world
>currency markets, but the dollar has tanked vs. the yen and euro
>lately.
It has fallen wrt to the Indian Rupee too.
> India is 1 of those countries, and offshoring is a result of that
> inflated currency. The chinese have pegged their currency to
> *DISSUADE* currency speculators from playing havouc and not to gain an
> unfair advantage.
>LOL.
Fact. You just cannot beat the pricing of Indian labour -thanks to our
lower cost of living (in dollar terms).
> [I don't represent them -but that is my conclusion
> from the facts on hand]. Since 1994 to 2004, the US economy has gone
> up and them come down, and so has its currency vis-a-vis other
> non-pegged currencies. If they had wanted an unfair advantage, they
> could have allowed their currency to depreciate when other currencies
> were depreciating wrt the USD.
>
> > If they don't want to use their inflated
> > currency -then why have it inflated in the first place? Its like
> > saying you want to manufacture counterfeit currency -but not put it
> > into circulation.
> >But what does that have to do with my point?
> It has something to do with hoping walmart doesn't stock chinese
> goods.
snip
> You have an inflated currency precisely to buy more imported
> goods with fewer dollars.
They don't tell me what they are doing in high councils of government,
so I don't know if that is true or not. AFAIK I have not stated an
opinion on that topic one way or another. Are you a member of Federal
Reserve Board or an Undersecretary of the Treasury? If so I'll accept
Im not.
will reply later for the rest if possible.
regards
-kamal
your statement, otherwise I think you are just conjecturing. Either
way, it doesn't matter to me in an intellectual sense, and I can't
control the economic sense other than to spend my money as I see fit.
> If the currency hadn't been inflated,
> imported goods would automatically be expensive and not stocked at
> price-competitive stores like walmart.
Even if what you say is true, I doubt if exchange rates account
for most of the price difference. WalMart would still sell cheap
goods, maybe just not as cheap, because that is its business model.
Much of its advertising is centered on that (Always Low Prices,
Another Price Rollback, etc.). And WalMart would still use its
purchasing power to blackma...errr...drive a hard bargain to make
suppliers cut prices to the bone. ;-)
>
> > >That would require a long-term vision beyond the end of the next
> > >financial quarter. It would also mean being more concerned about
> > >maintaining or improving financial circumstances beyond simply
> > >increasing share prices.
> >
> > If you had to be a fortune 500/walmart CEO, how would you deal with
> > the situation?
> >I would never be in that situation, any more that I'd be elected
> >President. If I were, I'd run the company according to my philosophy,
> >which I've expounded in part here over the years. That includes
> >honest, ethical dealings and communications with employers, stock
> >holders, customers, etc., which is why I'd never make it to CEO in
> >99% of companies. :-)
>
> If you can provide more shareholder value, you have a good chance of
> being the CEO.
But shareholder value and how to provide it is a complicated subject,
more complicated than most shareholders (and IMO most so called
"stock analysts") think. They wouldn't want to hear my ideas and
would never consider trying them, hence I'd never be given a chance
to be a CEO to prove them.
> There is no way you can replace a 1$ chinese product by
> a $10 american one, and retain either the cost conscious customer base
> or make as good a profit as walmart does currently.
That's exactly the thinking that would prevent anyone from ever
making me a CEO. Thank you for proving my point.
>
> > >
> > > Interestingly, I think it can be argued that rock and roll did as
> > > much to "defeat" Communism as the space race or anything else.
> > >My point was that having rock and roll made more important issues such
> > >as the potential threat represented by Sputnik appear irrelevant. Just
> > >look at how many people are plugged into their portable CD players or
> > >iPods and have their heads full of music, but don't do anything else.
> > >It's as if nothing else matters, an audio form of soma (to borrow the
> > >term from "Brave New World").
> > >But you're right in that rock and roll did much to defeat the Soviet
> > >Union. One of the reasons that Voice of America was popular behind the
> > >Iron Curtain was its jazz program. Listeners over there couldn't get
> > >enough of it.
> >
> > They came out of the horrors of WWII (and one of the reasons the
> > soviet union came into being was to prevent another horror).
> >It came into being out of the horrors of WWI, and it didn't anything
> >to prevent the horrors of WWII because Stalin waa almost as much of a
> >madman as Hitler.
>
> Fine. The cold war started after WWII. They had refugee camps all over
> the country side after WWII, and their economic situation was by no
> means good enough to fight an economic war with the US.
Yes. I never said it was. Are you sure you're reading what I'm
writing, because you seem to be tilting at straw men. Europe and
Japan were probably worse off, yet they became viable economic
competitors to the U.S. Of course, the U.S. helped them and didn't
help the Soviet block, but do you think the Soviet Union would have
won the economic war if it hadn't suffered significant damage during
WWII? Maybe, who knows? But I'm not sure just what point you're
trying to make by even bringing it up.
>
> > United
> > States is a new world country with lots of resources. The soviets
> > never stood a chance in the economic war that happened. They collapsed
> > because of the strain of raising the stakes [and to some extent
> > because of inefficient indusrties]
> >True. I often smile at my more jingoistic countrymen when they
> >expound upon how the nation was made great by the industry and
> >spirit of the people, without admitting we stole a great big piece
> >of some of the richest real estate in the world from the natives.
> >Granted they didn't do nearly as much as we have to exploit it, but
> >if England has sent colonist to the Sahara Desert, would they have
> >made it into the United States of today? Not a chance. It is the
>
> Yes -its a lot to do with resources, but also some to the economic
> model. Some other countries with the anglo-saxxon model have a better
> economy with fewer resources than those that dont subscribe to that
> model.
True, but there is variance. It think the scatter is too large to
definitively ascribe causality, but economists try to do so anyway.
What they publish as data and analyses wouldn't get past the referrees
in the hard sciences, but governments make policy based on it anyway.
Sad...
>
> >national version of the idea of the self-made man which many neo-cons
> >subscribe to, especially when thinking about themselves, without
> >admitting that they (probably) were born into a reasonably well off
> >family which helped them get their start in life, and were helped all
> >along the way by society. Of course, some of that can be said to
> >exist for all citizens, but as it says in _Animal Farm_, some animals
> >are more equal than others.
>
> I believe americans would be better off expecting their leaders to
> provide more jobs, education etc..
Many have quit expecting much from the present leadership. Some
no longer expect much from any leadership.
> than making a pledge to make it the
> greatest nation on planet earth (which is what GWB does).
One can't always take rhetoric at face value, either.
> In India,
> people ask their leaders for more schools not invade countries.
The Indian people get as little of what they want from their leaders
as Americans get from there leaders, or why would India be building
nuclear weapons? Because Pakistan is? Well, then the people of
Pakistan are getting poor leadership, too. IOW there is a lot of
bad leadership in the world, and the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly
on that any more than a lot of other things.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > It
> > > largely collapsed of its own problems, but one of its problems was
> > > that most people in the world (including the USSR) wanted an American-
> > > like lifestyle, complete with rock and roll, which Communism could not
> > > provide. If American leaders had believed their own rhetoric about
> > > the inferiority of the Communist system, the US could have saved a lot
> > > of money spent "fighting" Communism by just being patient and waiting
> > > for the inevitable.
> >
> > They went bankrupt for reasons besides lifestyle /rock-n-roll
> > preferences.
> >Exactly my point, the U.S. just had to be patient and wait for the
> >inevitable. Rock and roll is in part a catch phrase for the consumer
> >
> fine.
> regards
> -kamal
>
> economy that the Soviet system could never supply it's people.
>
Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
12-18-2004 06:01 AM
