Our Dream of Freedom

karen3212

Our dream of Freedom,
I was wondering if anyone was watching this show on BBC2 about the results of free market politics. It appears(in US) the rich are much richer, the middle class 1% better off, and the poor much poorer. Apparently the free market ideal was based on game theory, but Nash may have been a little off when he came up with the theory.
I was quite shocked by the information from the documentary, and I was just wondering if anyone had any further information on the whole thing, and if anyone has any ideas on where society goes from here. Also does anyone think that the rest of Europe has followed the US and UK policies, or whether they have conserved more of their regulations on society and on businesses.
Thanks Kar

5uspect

I found the documentary, while interesting, a little deceptive.
One of the main conclusions of game theory when applied to animal survival strategies by Maynard Smyth et al. is that a cheat will always do better off in the short term until the behaviour becomes part of a stable strategy.
So what do we expect when Labour pile on the targets on the NHS? System cheats.

Applying such models to economics without understanding the biology is foolish and is no way to conduct a society. This is why Dawkins had to add a new final chapter to the Selfish Gene -"We Are Not Our Genes".

DadaKopf

There's a very interesting emerging area of study called evolutionary psychology. It tries to untangle the mess that is the debate: nature, or nurture?

In the case of applying game theory to genetics, it's clearly insane to suggest that we are our genes. But we're biological organisms that, generally, strive to reproduce. But, and it's a big 'but', the human body is an entity, but human consciousness is, as Daniel Dennett would say, an "emergent property" of the human organism which is always in communion with its surroundings, but is qualitatively different from differently evolved entities.

This was among the 'shocking new evidence' that challenged the Dawkinsian view of genetics. But I think his 'Unweaving the Rainbow' book puts an end to his mechanistic view of humans.

Ultimately, Adam Curtis' documentary, as all his others, simply try to trace how new ideas are used and mis-used by individuals and groups to strengthen their power over people. And how these ideas, while posing as liberatory ideas or ideologies, enslave people.

Of course, reality is much murkier than the picture he paints. But his concerns are really, really important to me and what I work in.

karen3212

Thanks for replies, but I have an average IQ, and I'm not well read with regard to the various theories. I find it fairly difficult to understand the rplies. Do people think the governments would have understood what the outcome would be?
I also worked part-time in the NHS to earn money as a student in the UK. I remember some of the people I worked with had no sympathy at all for the patients, my answer to motivating the people working in the public service would have been interviews/psychological tests, that might tease out the reasons why people wanted to work for others in the first place. Some were really only there because it was a job, and those people really didn't work hard for patients at all.
Is this why public services were doing badly, if they were, and is this why the government decided to try and motivate people via targets that promoted self-interest.
Sorry if I sound dumb, but I am trying to reason an alternative system.
Kar

5uspect

karen3212 wrote:

I find it fairly difficult to understand the rplies.

Its difficult because you haven't read the theories and had to hear our brief, mangled descriptions of them . May a recommend you read the The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins as a starting point and them maybe move onto Evolutionary Psychology. Something like How the Mind Works by Stephen Pinker or as suggested by DadaKopf something by Dennett. Pinker tends to ramble on a bit and I haven't read Dennett yet so I can't comment. Dawkins writing is excellent. He is really good at getting his point across.
Have a look at Google Print to read a few pages.

karen3212 wrote:

Do people think the governments would have understood what the outcome would be?

Unfortunately, like a lot of economics, the ideas were borrowed from other sciences and simply applied to people. There's a sort of idealism here that seems to ignore the harsh consequence of evolution, survival of the fittest.
The vast majority of all species ever to live are extinct. If you run your economy on such ideas, the rich get richer and the poor suffer.

karen3212 wrote:

Is this why public services were doing badly, if they were, and is this why the government decided to try and motivate people via targets that promoted self-interest.
Sorry if I sound dumb, but I am trying to reason an alternative system.

You don't sound dumb, you do sound compassionate, that something a health service sorely needs.
Maybe if they asked the patients to rate their treatment the staff would appreciate them more?! There's a big problem with correctly and genuinely motivating people. Simply filling out a target sheet seems a lazy way of achieving this. I think good management is key in ensuring that not only do people enjoy their jobs but they do it well. Big Brother constantly looking over their shoulder doesn't motivate.

I think good progress could be made in Ireland with regards to the Partnership agreement. As it stands state employees get a pay increase regardless of performance. Surely the money would be better spend rewarding those that worked hardest. Rather than punish useless workers, reward good workers. From what I've heard from friends in teaching its not conductive to putting in extra effort when you know the lazy auld fart teaching Irish down the hall just lets his pupils do their homework and gets the same pay rise. Of course now we're back to the question of gauging performance.

DadaKopf wrote:

This was among the 'shocking new evidence' that challenged the Dawkinsian view of genetics. But I think his 'Unweaving the Rainbow' book puts an end to his mechanistic view of humans.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Evolutionary psychology treats the human mind as a complex neural network, a sophisticated parallel computer. A machine that can be predicted and understood. In Unweaving the Rainbow Dawkins simply attempts to show that there is beauty in science and tries to dispel the cold harsh view of science in the world.

DadaKopf wrote:

Ultimately, Adam Curtis' documentary, as all his others, simply try to trace how new ideas are used and mis-used by individuals and groups to strengthen their power over people. And how these ideas, while posing as liberatory ideas or ideologies, enslave people.

Thats true. he shows quite clearly how ideas are misused. I did feel that he glossed over the facts a bit.

DadaKopf

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Evolutionary psychology treats the human mind as a complex neural network, a sophisticated parallel computer. A machine that can be predicted and understood. In Unweaving the Rainbow Dawkins simply attempts to show that there is beauty in science and tries to dispel the cold harsh view of science in the world.

I'm basing my understanding of evolutionary psychology on this article. At a seminar I was at, it was presented as a theory that attempts to understand the complex interrelations between biological systems and their environments and the Mind.

Anyway, I wonder whether this discussion is veering towards philosophy than political theory. Personally, I'm extremely uncomfortable discussing these theories in relation to politics, and the topic of this thread.

5uspect

True enough. Sorry for drifting off topic.
Hopefully I'll get time to read that article later on today.

silverharp

I think the cause and effect was confused when the prog was talking about the class system in the UK it ignores the computer revolution that rewards brain power over physical labour. Free markets are nothing new and existed in the 19thC and given that globalisation is increasing this restricts the power of gov to tax the rich and companies excessively so wealth does concentrate at the top but not for the reasons the prog gave.

DadaKopf

I think you're confusing and conflating a lot of stuff there. So-called 'developed markets' are prioritising 'immaterial labour' over 'physical labour' - that's not just a 'knowledge economy', but also an economy based on producing feelings as commodities: brands. Less developed areas continue producing traditional labour-based products for our consumption. It's a pattern of uneven development engendered by the relations of capitalism.

Computers have had an effect, but I would argue that it's simply a contemporary version bureaucratic rationalisation. The bureaucratic 'revolution', which happened in the 1920s/1930s, is assumed to be one of the main drivers behind the drive to late-capitalism. I would say computers have accelerated this process, but not brought about something entirely new.

You're also incorrect to say that free markets existed in the 19th century. States actually intervened greatly in the market right from the beginning, and trade barriers were extremely high. The 'free-trade myth' derives from the trade that occurred within the British Empire, which, as we know, was built through blood and iron. Very interventionist.

Wealth concentrates at the top under globalisation because the powerful have found a way to fix the rules of the game to allow themselves to do so. We allow these powerful interests to do so because we're indoctrinated into a culture-ideology in which we think this is the natural way of things. Discontented as we are, we choose to do nothing because we reckon the hassle of fixing things isn't worth it. It's similar logic to going for the biggest bag of popcorn in the cinema. States are not becoming less powerful - they're essential for corporations in setting the official rules of the game which serve their interests against the world's population.

I don't believe that 'the market' is a realm of democracy. It's just a metaphor for extraordinarily complex human interactions. But by becoming naturalised in people's minds, we serve 'it' without knowing quite what or who 'it' is. I believe that democracy is democracy. And people make up democracy. And people agree suitable democratic institutions which actually work. And any market is subordinate to that.

silverharp

Quote - think you're confusing and conflating a lot of stuff there. So-called 'developed markets' are prioritising 'immaterial labour' over 'physical labour' - that's not just a 'knowledge economy', but also an economy based on producing feelings as commodities: brands. Less developed areas continue producing traditional labour-based products for our consumption. It's a pattern of uneven development engendered by the relations of capitalism.
Computers have had an effect, but I would argue that it's simply a contemporary version bureaucratic rationalisation. The bureaucratic 'revolution', which happened in the 1920s/1930s, is assumed to be one of the main drivers behind the drive to late-capitalism. I would say computers have accelerated this process, but not brought about something entirely new.-Quote


Here is how I see it, the late 19th C and 1st half of the 20th C was dominated by large industry, think the car and steel industry in the US for example. Given that the companies had a significant fixed cost investment, this meant that organised labour could extract a premium over their true “worth”. The microchip has allowed knowledge based companies to become footloose and fancy free, they are not wedded to particular countries anymore and their “knowledge” isn’t bound up in fixed plant and equipment.
Development across the globe is uneven partly due to the fact that there is not free trade in the areas that the developing world can compete like agriculture and partly because of the way the US steamrollers over developing markets.



Quote - You're also incorrect to say that free markets existed in the 19th century. States actually intervened greatly in the market right from the beginning, and trade barriers were extremely high. The 'free-trade myth' derives from the trade that occurred within the British Empire, which, as we know, was built through blood and iron. Very interventionist.-Quote

It’s a matter of degree, on the one hand gov. was smaller and didn’t run railroads, canals etc. I guess trade was never “free” and there has always been a mercantilist strand to the Dutch, French, British and now US empires. However trade became less free in the 1920’s and 30’s and then rolled back in the latter half of the 20th C. Wasn't Argentina an example of a country that prospered in the 19th C and went backwards in the 20th because of trade barriers (among other things)

DadaKopf

Here is how I see it, the late 19th C and 1st half of the 20th C was dominated by large industry, think the car and steel industry in the US for example. Given that the companies had a significant fixed cost investment, this meant that organised labour could extract a premium over their true “worth”. The microchip has allowed knowledge based companies to become footloose and fancy free, they are not wedded to particular countries anymore and their “knowledge” isn’t bound up in fixed plant and equipment.
Development across the globe is uneven partly due to the fact that there is not free trade in the areas that the developing world can compete like agriculture and partly because of the way the US steamrollers over developing markets.

The microcomputer only accelerated the process. Telecommunications (and other technological developments) combined more broadly with new political-economic regimes like GATS and the WTO paved the way for globalisation. IMHO.

Edit: well, it was more complex than that. Obviously technological developments made new things possible that weren't before. Taking a bird's eye view of things, the new technologies were used in ways that continued what went before than necessarily altering the direction of everything. Broadly speaking, things are just happening faster.

It’s a matter of degree, on the one hand gov. was smaller and didn’t run railroads, canals etc. I guess trade was never “free” and there has always been a mercantilist strand to the Dutch, French, British and now US empires. However trade became less free in the 1920’s and 30’s and then rolled back in the latter half of the 20th C. Wasn't Argentina an example of a country that prospered in the 19th C and went backwards in the 20th because of trade barriers (among other things)

Maybe so, but I'm just saying that 'free trade' is a myth. The glorious golden age of 'free trade' is a myth. The 'Asian Tigers' getting rich on free trade is a myth. Free trade exists only in economists' minds.

ciaran2008

If anyone found any of that interesting I HIGHLY HIGHLY reccomend the following zeitgeistmovie.com/

Akrasia

I think the most interesting aspect of game theory is that the optimum outcome for everyone is usually cooperation and trust, its just when people act individualistically that trust becomes a liability.

In capitalism, individualism is rewarded and trust and cooperation are heavily punished (and in some cases, banned completely)

A competitive orientated society will produce jungle politics.

The whole point of the 'What happened to our dream of democracy' documentary is that we are becoming too individualist, too selfish, too isolated and too hostile towards the idea of mutual aid and solidarity and that this almost designed by a deliberate political philosophy and an elite of global policy makers who are manipulating the rules of the game and using psychological devices to influence people and control them