"Un vaccin réduisant les risques d'infection par le virus VIH, le virus a l'origine du Sida, a été testé sur 16.000 volontaires en Thailande. Financé par l'armée américaine, le vaccin permet de réduire les risques d'infection de plus de 30%. La nouvelle a été accueillie avec satisfaction par les militants de la lutte contre le Sida." BBC News September 24, 2009
The Experiment:
The assumption rests in the idea that the vaccine will ward off HIV in those who are positive with AIDS.
The Contenders:
American Army
16,000 HIV-infected Thai volunteers
The Result:
The militants administering the test welcome the vaccine with satisfaction. Critics of the vaccine voice that the vaccine is a step in the wrong direction; that such a "progressive" vaccine could encourage the behavior, or strip the consequences from the behavior that led to contracting AIDS in the first place. Still others say that such vaccine and subsequent results reveal our progression in understanding the disease and its outliers.
The oddity of it all is the context for the experiment. An american army, an american budget, 16,000 AIDS-positive Thai, and all of which are covered in French news. I could not find this story headlining any where else.
lundi 28 septembre 2009
jeudi 24 septembre 2009
What he says/ What I read
"...the impersonal forces of world markets, integrated over the postwar period more by private enterprise in finance, industry and trade than by the cooperative decisions of governments, are now more powerful than the states to whom ultimate political authority over society and economy is supposed to belong."
WIth a nations men drawn to war, it is precisely war that draws up a subsequent reorganization of the labor force. Is it the division of labor or the deviance of war that permits Susan Strange to stake 'informal relations' as partial reasoning for the change in politics.
"the declining authority of states is reflected in a growing diffusion of authority to other institutions and associations, and to local and regional bodies, and in a growing asymmetry between the larger states with structural power and weaker ones without it."
Was such a system of work such as "The Government" created to eventually in some ways or most, work itself out of business? Might ever the people generate so much interest in the topic of control and government that every citizen crosses hands in politics? Would such interest take the (near future form) of lobby groups? Would we lobby our way out of present day politics?
"The need for a political authority of some kind, legitimated either by coercive force or by popular consent, or more often by a combination of the two, is the fundamental reason for the state's existence."
Public goods such as drains, water supplies, infrastructures for transport and communications" are anything but exciting fields now with modern distractions. Cover a society where a public demonstration of drainage testing was as riveting as sitting spectator to ballistic missile testing or of this, and I will show you a society working its way out of a collective, overriding government and into an entrepreneurial polity based not on a constitution, but on innovation and pleasure. Within the range of practicality, the aforementioned society might work on a standard of policing by economic penalties and stratification of sustainability.
"...technological change in products and processes, driven by profit, will not continue to accelerate in future...it goes a long way to explain both political and economic change."
[ But consider that the approach The United States takes with the war in Iraq has to be wired differently in strategy when staging foreign forces on Afghan grounds. In other words, the beginning may look awfully similar, but in reality, by stripping both starts (that of the enthusiastic society and that of the United Nations) of their differences may and in all likelihood with our past to serve as our judge and jury, strip the potential from both comparative forms above. ]
WIth a nations men drawn to war, it is precisely war that draws up a subsequent reorganization of the labor force. Is it the division of labor or the deviance of war that permits Susan Strange to stake 'informal relations' as partial reasoning for the change in politics.
"the declining authority of states is reflected in a growing diffusion of authority to other institutions and associations, and to local and regional bodies, and in a growing asymmetry between the larger states with structural power and weaker ones without it."
Was such a system of work such as "The Government" created to eventually in some ways or most, work itself out of business? Might ever the people generate so much interest in the topic of control and government that every citizen crosses hands in politics? Would such interest take the (near future form) of lobby groups? Would we lobby our way out of present day politics?
"The need for a political authority of some kind, legitimated either by coercive force or by popular consent, or more often by a combination of the two, is the fundamental reason for the state's existence."
Public goods such as drains, water supplies, infrastructures for transport and communications" are anything but exciting fields now with modern distractions. Cover a society where a public demonstration of drainage testing was as riveting as sitting spectator to ballistic missile testing or of this, and I will show you a society working its way out of a collective, overriding government and into an entrepreneurial polity based not on a constitution, but on innovation and pleasure. Within the range of practicality, the aforementioned society might work on a standard of policing by economic penalties and stratification of sustainability.
"...technological change in products and processes, driven by profit, will not continue to accelerate in future...it goes a long way to explain both political and economic change."
[ But consider that the approach The United States takes with the war in Iraq has to be wired differently in strategy when staging foreign forces on Afghan grounds. In other words, the beginning may look awfully similar, but in reality, by stripping both starts (that of the enthusiastic society and that of the United Nations) of their differences may and in all likelihood with our past to serve as our judge and jury, strip the potential from both comparative forms above. ]
vendredi 11 septembre 2009
Capitalism and Ruling Elitists (stream'd)
Capitalism and rational elitist rulers act on ground marked by outside influences, and neither are plausible in their most romantic independent forms. I will quote three resources at great length to present the argument.
1.) Immanuel Wallerstein, "The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy", p. 57
2.) Ayn Rand, various works cited accordingly
3.) an excerpt from G. Hossein Razi "An alternate Paradigm to State Rationality in Foreign Policy: The Iran-Iraq War" p. 690
"Suppose there really existed a world market in which all the factors of production were totally free, as our textbooks in economics usually define this--that is, one in which the factors flowed without restriction, in which there were a very large number of buyers and a very large number of sellers, and in which there was perfect information (meaning that all sellers and all buyers knew the exact state of all costs of production). In such a perfect market, it would always be possible for the buyers and to bargain down the sellers to an absolutely minuscule level of profit (let us think of it as a penny). and this low level of profit would make the capitalist game entirely uninteresting to producers, removing the basic social underpinnings of such a system."
(My inevitable remark and question to such a passage is that I don't understand. If a free-market would dissuade the interest for producers in a Capitalist market, wherein lies our status with "down-grading" where every firm has an equal footing--until one makes it cheaper or more attractive and comes out on top--would not a free-marker promote the innovative infrastructure that the government sets forth and towards.
"When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism--with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." (Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 33.
" Economically, leaving individuals free to pursue their own interests implies in turn that only a capitalist or free market economic system is moral: free individuals will use their time , money, and other property as they see fir, and will interact and trade voluntarily with others to mutual advantage." From: here)
"Furthermore, it (the assumption of rationality) allows one to consider all decision-makers to be alike. If they follow the rules, we need know nothing more about them. In essence, if the decision-makers behave rationally, the observer, knowing the rules of rationality, can rehearse the decision process in his own mind and, if he knows the decision-maker's goals, can both predict the decision and understand why the particular decision was made." (Verba 1961/1969: 225)
(in either case I think (therefore I am..) that both capitalists and "decision-makers" have every reason and vital fact at their finger tips and that it is precisely the use of such facts that will encourage innovative capitalists and just leaders--that both sustain a powerful position in the present, and encourage the desired outcome of the future.)
"One such virtue is rationality: having identified the use of reason as fundamentally good, being committed to acting in accordance with reason is the virtue of rationality.
Another virtue is productiveness: given that the values one needs to survive must be produced, being committed to awareness of the facts is the virtue of honesty." Again, here.
1.) Immanuel Wallerstein, "The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy", p. 57
2.) Ayn Rand, various works cited accordingly
3.) an excerpt from G. Hossein Razi "An alternate Paradigm to State Rationality in Foreign Policy: The Iran-Iraq War" p. 690
"Suppose there really existed a world market in which all the factors of production were totally free, as our textbooks in economics usually define this--that is, one in which the factors flowed without restriction, in which there were a very large number of buyers and a very large number of sellers, and in which there was perfect information (meaning that all sellers and all buyers knew the exact state of all costs of production). In such a perfect market, it would always be possible for the buyers and to bargain down the sellers to an absolutely minuscule level of profit (let us think of it as a penny). and this low level of profit would make the capitalist game entirely uninteresting to producers, removing the basic social underpinnings of such a system."
(My inevitable remark and question to such a passage is that I don't understand. If a free-market would dissuade the interest for producers in a Capitalist market, wherein lies our status with "down-grading" where every firm has an equal footing--until one makes it cheaper or more attractive and comes out on top--would not a free-marker promote the innovative infrastructure that the government sets forth and towards.
"When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism--with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." (Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 33.
" Economically, leaving individuals free to pursue their own interests implies in turn that only a capitalist or free market economic system is moral: free individuals will use their time , money, and other property as they see fir, and will interact and trade voluntarily with others to mutual advantage." From: here)
"Furthermore, it (the assumption of rationality) allows one to consider all decision-makers to be alike. If they follow the rules, we need know nothing more about them. In essence, if the decision-makers behave rationally, the observer, knowing the rules of rationality, can rehearse the decision process in his own mind and, if he knows the decision-maker's goals, can both predict the decision and understand why the particular decision was made." (Verba 1961/1969: 225)
(in either case I think (therefore I am..) that both capitalists and "decision-makers" have every reason and vital fact at their finger tips and that it is precisely the use of such facts that will encourage innovative capitalists and just leaders--that both sustain a powerful position in the present, and encourage the desired outcome of the future.)
"One such virtue is rationality: having identified the use of reason as fundamentally good, being committed to acting in accordance with reason is the virtue of rationality.
Another virtue is productiveness: given that the values one needs to survive must be produced, being committed to awareness of the facts is the virtue of honesty." Again, here.
jeudi 10 septembre 2009
The Modern World-System as a Capitalist World-Economy
-Immanuel Wallerstein-
We begin with a few definitions. First, the world-economy is a geographic zone in which secures a division of labor. Essential goods, capital, and labor move through the geographic zone and between the people. It is important to note that the fractures of a governing body within a world economy are more loosely related than those within the governed populace.
Upon reading this observation, I recalled a subject I read about a year ago in my study of the Iraq War. If you are familiar with the American invasion of Iraq, you are familiar with the "Green Zone" that American armed forces created upon our arrival in Baghdad. It was a secure base which distinguished the Americans from the non-Americans, the Arab from the non-Arab, the United States military from the war zone. In addition to cement walls, chain-link fences, and security guards on sight, the base held an eclectic variety of Western comforts. The base secured both a theoretical and actual division of reality and wartime reality.
Next, Wallerstein offers a "geoculture" to his reader. The "geoculture" is a general body of people who are neither culturally nor politically homogeneous in sect, but who share "common cultural patterns". The shared umbrella over top Wallerstein's idea of a "geoculture" is the organization, or division of labor.
The world-economy both requires and secures the viability and longevity of capitalism (a system of people and firms who accumulate capital in order to accumulate ever the more capital). This idea led me to think of the rationale behind naming our era, "post-modern"--a pigeon-holed term that refers to having a foot in an era after today. Like the term "post-modern", Wallerstein claims that the world-economy and capitalist system are long-withstanding, and the two act as a duo that will always share a foot in the future, today.
What remains unclear to me is how a modern man used historically failed world economies and military empires to aid in his construction of a self-sustaining, intricate web of interelational existence.
A familiar face in this multi-faceted reality is the institution labeled "market" and defined as "a magnet for all producers and buyers, whose pull is a constant political factor in the decision-making of everyone--the states, the firms, the households, the classes, and the status-groups".
Wallerstein then goes on to illustrate how to beat the system when a firm hosts a monopoly. Namely, competing companies can fight through the local political system of a restricted capitalist society by asking political officials to level the playing ground and remove the advantages of their leading competitor. Or, the smaller company can look to the international market for support. Other states can draw on their political power to deny the monopolistic company in favor of competition, generally and the small competition, in particular. In the event that the smaller producer cannot beat the system, "one must remember that bankruptcy, or absorption by a more powerful firm, is the daily bread of capitalist enterprises."
Denying capitalists and outside (or indirect) critics their romantic view of a free-trade capitalist system, Wallerstein articulated a very important point:
"Suppose there really existed a world market in which all the factors of production were totally free, as our textbooks in economics usually define this--that is, one in which the factors flowed without restriction, in which there were a very large number of buyers and a very large number of sellers, and in which there was perfect information (meaning that all sellers and all buyers knew the exact state of all costs of production). In such a perfect market, it would always be possible for the buyers to bargain down the seller to an absolutely minuscule level of profit (let us think of as a penny), and this low level of profit would make the capitalist game entirely uninteresting to producers, removing the basic social underpinnings of such a system."
Following markets, the next institution that Wallerstein goes on to explain is the firm. He lists that strong firms are responsible for eating the smaller fish in the pond of capitalism. However, the time may come when a large firm eats too much and struggles with a new found margin for error and failure.
...Error and failure, high unemployment, and wage decrease are several characteristics used to describe the world's condition today. In such case, Wallerstein prescribes the condition as a "reversal of the cyclical curve of the world-economy". Competing producers bend and shape to stay in line with the world market by displacing unemployment from state to state and by drawing on smaller companies who are looking to sell off a harvest of over-produced goods. So far, however, capitalism has exceeded the occasional stress-marks put forth by a stagnation or recession.
We begin with a few definitions. First, the world-economy is a geographic zone in which secures a division of labor. Essential goods, capital, and labor move through the geographic zone and between the people. It is important to note that the fractures of a governing body within a world economy are more loosely related than those within the governed populace.
Upon reading this observation, I recalled a subject I read about a year ago in my study of the Iraq War. If you are familiar with the American invasion of Iraq, you are familiar with the "Green Zone" that American armed forces created upon our arrival in Baghdad. It was a secure base which distinguished the Americans from the non-Americans, the Arab from the non-Arab, the United States military from the war zone. In addition to cement walls, chain-link fences, and security guards on sight, the base held an eclectic variety of Western comforts. The base secured both a theoretical and actual division of reality and wartime reality.
Next, Wallerstein offers a "geoculture" to his reader. The "geoculture" is a general body of people who are neither culturally nor politically homogeneous in sect, but who share "common cultural patterns". The shared umbrella over top Wallerstein's idea of a "geoculture" is the organization, or division of labor.
The world-economy both requires and secures the viability and longevity of capitalism (a system of people and firms who accumulate capital in order to accumulate ever the more capital). This idea led me to think of the rationale behind naming our era, "post-modern"--a pigeon-holed term that refers to having a foot in an era after today. Like the term "post-modern", Wallerstein claims that the world-economy and capitalist system are long-withstanding, and the two act as a duo that will always share a foot in the future, today.
What remains unclear to me is how a modern man used historically failed world economies and military empires to aid in his construction of a self-sustaining, intricate web of interelational existence.
A familiar face in this multi-faceted reality is the institution labeled "market" and defined as "a magnet for all producers and buyers, whose pull is a constant political factor in the decision-making of everyone--the states, the firms, the households, the classes, and the status-groups".
Wallerstein then goes on to illustrate how to beat the system when a firm hosts a monopoly. Namely, competing companies can fight through the local political system of a restricted capitalist society by asking political officials to level the playing ground and remove the advantages of their leading competitor. Or, the smaller company can look to the international market for support. Other states can draw on their political power to deny the monopolistic company in favor of competition, generally and the small competition, in particular. In the event that the smaller producer cannot beat the system, "one must remember that bankruptcy, or absorption by a more powerful firm, is the daily bread of capitalist enterprises."
Denying capitalists and outside (or indirect) critics their romantic view of a free-trade capitalist system, Wallerstein articulated a very important point:
"Suppose there really existed a world market in which all the factors of production were totally free, as our textbooks in economics usually define this--that is, one in which the factors flowed without restriction, in which there were a very large number of buyers and a very large number of sellers, and in which there was perfect information (meaning that all sellers and all buyers knew the exact state of all costs of production). In such a perfect market, it would always be possible for the buyers to bargain down the seller to an absolutely minuscule level of profit (let us think of as a penny), and this low level of profit would make the capitalist game entirely uninteresting to producers, removing the basic social underpinnings of such a system."
Following markets, the next institution that Wallerstein goes on to explain is the firm. He lists that strong firms are responsible for eating the smaller fish in the pond of capitalism. However, the time may come when a large firm eats too much and struggles with a new found margin for error and failure.
...Error and failure, high unemployment, and wage decrease are several characteristics used to describe the world's condition today. In such case, Wallerstein prescribes the condition as a "reversal of the cyclical curve of the world-economy". Competing producers bend and shape to stay in line with the world market by displacing unemployment from state to state and by drawing on smaller companies who are looking to sell off a harvest of over-produced goods. So far, however, capitalism has exceeded the occasional stress-marks put forth by a stagnation or recession.
Inscription à :
Commentaires (Atom)
