All of the resource acquisition & division social systems can be bad (especially for a given value of "bad", but also in a general way).

Some just seem to be better aligned with certain actual characteristics of humankind than other ones in reference to their supposed ideals and goals.

For example, the socialist system in the USSR was supposed to rest on ideals and goals that were quite reasonable.

However, when added to the political system of particracy and associated lack of free speech and equality, it bred insane amounts of corruption and -- somewhat even more importantly -- lack of concern for the resources.

Stealing from the workplace was ... well... it was THE norm. Because stealing from the State is quite different from stealing from a private owner. In case of private owner, there is somebody who is directly interested in stopping you from stealing. In case of state-owned everything, your boss is in the same boat as you and would be much more persuadable to allow you to continue to steal... as long as you gave him a cut.

As was remarked by some economist(I think) -- one of the main differences between national economies based on natural resources and those on services/industry is that in natural resources economies the good life is for those who operate and control access to the resource. Everybody else in the country is an expense item. In a manufacturing/services-oriented country people are the value.

This, imo, goes a long way to explain why so *few* natural-resource heavily oriented countries are providing quality of life to their population (compared to the income they generate from those resources).

And state-owned resources are like a natural resources in that respect.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Dabiskie resursi vienmēr ir nesaraujami saistīti ar industriju, tas ir viens. Otrkārt paklalpojumindustrijā cilvēks ir tāda pati baigā vērtība kā rūpniecībā, respektīvi, amplitūdā no nekāda līdz pat ļoti kāda atkarīgā no tā cik bagāta valsts un cik daudz tiesību sev spējuši izkarot darbaļauži.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> Dabiskie resursi vienmēr ir nesaraujami saistīti ar industriju, tas ir viens.

Un?

> tāda pati baigā vērtība kā rūpniecībā, respektīvi, amplitūdā no nekāda līdz pat ļoti kāda atkarīgā no tā cik bagāta valsts un cik daudz tiesību sev spējuši izkarot darbaļauži.

Un kā darbaļauži lai spētu sev izkarot tiesības, ja viņus nevienam nevajadzētu (kā dabas resursu industrijā)?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

What happens to those for whom there is no demand? I guess we are finding out.

Of course in the context of a nation state, welfare is paid for by borrowing and by taxation (partly direct to welfare payments, partly to pay interest in treasury bonds). So useful for the parasitic class too.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Everybody has always been finding it out at all times. It is just that the particulars of who is the out-of-demand class/profession have shifted.

But my rambling point was rather that there is a disincentive for [the elites of] a petrol state to improve the lives of their citizens, as the primary source of income [for those countries and ipso facto elites] does not come from them, so improving their citizens' welfare just means less of a pie to divide amongst themselves.

I am afraid I am thinking of Russia too much in this respect, but I trust similar patterns could be found in other countries which have economy based mostly on natural resource export.

And a socialist system essentially converts all of the land and factories from property to a natural resource -- something atop of which to put managers, who will tap it and direct the flow from it.

But the incentives present in owned property management and natural resource management are quite different.

Kind of a similar situation to what, if I am not mistaken, was official in a number of countries some 300+ years ago -- France, GB, others(?) -- where you could (and were expected to) buy state appointments to important positions. Which would then allow you to gain money by exercising the privileges of the appointment.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Agree completely. Was it Doora who linked to an anarchistic video about exactly that? I will try and find it later.

As for the state appointments, that could very well be the case. I am pretty sure that the real starting point of the British Empire was not just Elizabeth 1st and the occulted John Dee, but the use of the navy by capital brought into being by the Central Bank (ex-nihilo? ) after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 - what did Patterson say? "The bank hath the benefit of interest on all monies it createth out of nothing"? Something like that. So all this capital lent out as debt to discoverers, looters, capitalist forces that could reap rewards and pay it back. I guess the state appointments were a more formalised way of doing this kind of business once the Empire was logistically more sound.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

''Un?''
'' ja viņus nevienam nevajadzētu (kā dabas resursu industrijā)?''

Un tas, ka nav tādas atsevišķas ekonomiskas sistēmas ''based on natural resources'', jo šie resursi tiek iegūti ar industrijā strādājošo cilvēku rokām. Bez šiem cilvēkiem resursa īpašnieks nevar tos realizēt, bet tas nekā nekorelē ar šo cilvēku ''vērtīgumu'' darba devēja acīs. Tāpēc jau mums bija ''džungļu kapitālisms''.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Jā, protams. Tāpēc, ka industrijā vajag tikai X cilvēkus, bet valstī ir X*miljons == ir vienmēr no kā paņemt jaunus cilvēkus.

Savukārt tur, kur nevar sēdēt uz gāzes vai naftas adatas, "resurss" ar kuru vara var iegūt sev labumus, ir izkliedētāks cilvēkos.

Tev ir nevis X cilvēki kuri tev nodrošina 90% bagātības un miljons * X, kuri ražo kopsummā 10% no tā, kas valstij ienāk, bet gan miljoni X, kuri katrs ražo nelielu daļiņu.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Es vienkārši to neredzu realitātē. Latvijā nav dabas resursu un mēs neko neražojam. Tajā pašā laikā pēc cilvēkiem pakalpojumu sfērā nav tik liela pieprasījuma tā vai tā, vismaz skatoties uz nabadzības sliekšņa algām un darba ņēmēju niecīgo ''leverage'' attiecībā pret darba devēju.
Varbūt es vienkārši pārprotu kādu tavu punktu.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Es īsti laikam nepiekristu. Atvainojos, varbūt nedaudz nesakarīgi, bet:

Dabas resursa lomu mums pilda ES fondi patlaban.
Un pašvaldības/valsts iestādes bieži vien uztver tām iekrītošo naudu (gan ES fondus, gan budžeta) kā dabas resursu.

par tām nabadzības sliekšņa algām ... tur kaut kā jāskatās, kas ar ko līmējas kopā.
oficiālajā statistikā, es domāju, algas ir zemākas nekā realitātē, jo daudz kur tomēr maksā naļikā.

visādā ziņā tīri tā "on anecdotal level" mans personiskais iespaids ir, ka auto skaits vismaz Rīgā ir pēdējos 2 gados dubultojies. no bada uzpūšas cilvēki laikam.

un darba devēji visu laiku sūdzas, ka nav, kas strādā.

savukārt par "leverage", jā. vēsturiski PSRS laikos izrūnītās arodbiedrības, kuras pēcpadomju gaisotnē bieži vien vēl saglabā pensijas kundzīšu dvaku, kuras, vienīgais, ko spēj, ir par biedru naudām organizēt biedriem ceļojumus uz brālīgām republikām... kārtīgas arodbiedrības mums te pietrūkst.

bet citādi, ciktāl cilvēkam ir oficiāls līgums, darba devējam ar viņu ir dieeezgan jāņemās. tas, ka darbinieki baidās dot darba devējam pa muti par cūcībām ir drīzāk audzināšanas rezultāts, nekā kaut kāda iedzimta sistēmas sastāvdaļa.


un tas kā valsts un valdība reaģē uz cilvēku sūdzībām, protams, ir ik pa brīdim gaismas gadu atpaliekoši no R-eiropas. Bet tomēr mums tas atbildības līmenis ir drusku augstāks nekā nekāds. Tas pats gadījums ar VDEĀK nupatās, kur Zīvers(?) iesniedza atlūgumu -- nav arī tā, ka ir galīgs bespreģels.

(Reply to this) (Parent)