Mike S.

Well, believe it or not, if your work is producing a good (a cabinet) then you are a part of the manufacturing sector not the service sector. Just because the methods have changed for producing the good over the past 30 years does not change the fact that it is still being produced. We have draftsmen and detailers where I work and without someone doing their job no work could be done and likewise without us creating and assembling their plans they would have no job. It is a symbiotic relationship but we are all working towards building something.

A totally service based economy does not produce any goods, obviously the US is nowhere near that stage yet. The scary thing (for Americans anyways) is that many people in America believe that such an economy is desirable and sustainable and such gibberish has infected the minds of so many. During America's rise to prominance as the worlds number one power and it's best real economic period for average people (WWII era to ~1970) the majority of families were supported by one man with a job in manufacturing. Now it seems the education system and most everyone else looks on anyone who gets their hands a little dirty at work with disdain. Like that person must have failed in some way to have to be stuck with such a career. It is a poor message to send about what has always been the lifeblood of any strong economy for the past 100+ years.

Koyaanisqatsi

Everyone seems to be missing the key component to all of this, which is that our corporations (in tandem with our government, of course) have been systematically programming our citizens to want a service oriented economy ever since Reagen yanked school funding. That would be great if we were ruled by a caring, generative ideological basis to our economy, such as Holland, but we aren't. We have a kill or be killed ideology; Capitalism, which means that shifting to a service economy will benefit only the top five/two percent (with a marginallization and disparity of the top fifteen to make them almost paupers in comparison).

We have been selling the voters on the idea of feudalism over and over and over, throughout the last fifty years at least, if not since the inception of our nation. The reason it's finally coming clear is (as Bill allluded to), because it's finally coming to fruition. It can't be hidden anymore.

We just instigated a war for no legitimate reason; two things that are/were ideologically anathema to the "American Ideal;" instigating a war and providing no legitimate reason for it. Granted, this has happened probably throughout our existence as a nation, obfuscated by the same kind of propaganda we've seen of late, but, again, the difference is that our own economic shift recently has hit the areas that are most likely to turn around and bite the ass of the hand that feeds it; the middle-to upper managers.

The American middle class are the most dangerous in such a move, since they are going to be the ones closest to the brass rings and not be allowed to touch them anymore, unless there is a fundamental white collar revolt, which is unlikely, but approaching.

At least, we'd all better hope so, otherwise the fiddling will begin as D.C. burns with another four years.

America is being seen by those who are currently ruling it, IMO, as a bloated deadweight of ungrateful slaves, so what does a slave owner do (if he can't beat them or just outright kill them....yet)? He buys new, younger slaves; slaves eager to be bought.

We saw it happening here first, of course, throughout the seventies, eighties and early nineties, with older middle-management types being replaced by younger middle-management types and now that all of them are older (and made way too much money under Clinton's reprise) and our education system has been thoroughly destroyed (against the Clinton reprise), the slaveowners have finally justified their use of cheaper slave labor. All that was necessary was a restructuring of the upper-management on down to remove the final profit drain, and voila! The "Bridge to the Twenty First Century" was mined and detonated (with the blame all conveniently going to "terrorists" so the military can make their final curtain call, too).

By the way, if anyone's uncomfortable with my use of the term "slave" just insert the word "wage" right before it and you'll get the same impact.

Mining is a perfect example, since the way it works is:

1. Wealthy industrialist seeks out natural resources
2. Hires wage slaves to physically retrieve and refine it
3. Hires middle-management types to oversee the day-to-day operation
4. Hires upper management to oversee day-to-day profiteering
5. Becomes wealthy enough to diversify company holdings and company products
6. Merges with other companies to expand empire
7. Drains region of natural resources, seeking them elsewhere
8. Restructures corporation to get rid of profit drains
9. Fires original wage slaves and middle-management types since there aren't anymore resources in the region anymore
10. Becomes a member of the board
11. Approves of another merger that will end up wiping out original upper-management types
12. Retires even more wealthy than when he or she started

Fairly simple. Of course, what it all leaves behind is a hole in the ground and a lot of unemployed workers wondering where they can find another hole to dig and the people to pay them to do it.

That's the way large corporations work, which, again, would be just fine iff these same wealthy industrialists had the mindset of sharing their wealth and insuring retirement and profit sharing benefits. In other words, a, dare I type it, "welfare" system; solvent and inviolate, but, most importantly, ideaologically entrenched.

But we have precisely the opposite in America's corporate ideology, finally laid bare by a Republican controlled Congress, White House and Supreme Court (not to mention our intelligence community and armed forces).

The only reason we're seeing it so clearly is that there is no more place or reason for them to hide; hiding in plain sight is their only option left, which, hopefully means, Rome is just about dry enough to burn.

Britain is already feeling the flames from across the Atlantic and that's, ironically, where Washington will burn from first, with Tony Blair as the kindling. We made our intentions painfully clear to the U.N. and the world and we did it like a f*cking John Wayne movie, only this time the world saw that Wayne was just an actor (probably gay) and everything else was just a movie set.

The EU will grow stronger and stronger in order to shrink America back down to its rightful size and, hopefully yet again, our middle and upper management types will be the ones who shoot their masters, so that over the next twenty years we can rebuild that painfully simple bridge.

This is a land war, where no land is taken. We already fought that war in Vietnam (Korea, first) and we lost painfully, but for some desperate reason that will (here it is again) hopefully die its much deserved death with the physical deaths of the cold war dinosaurs right now flexing their last viagra induced erection--something that would (no pun intended) not have happened had Gore been allowed to rightfully be President--those in power cannot see that a land war without land is unwinnable for the nation as a whole (on either side). Big money for the hawks and their constituents (read: "corporations"), but psychological death for the ideology of a country; what makes that country strong to begin with.

Clinton was a direct threat to the top five/two percent, because he represented what any American could do and he infected middle to upper management with the taste of that caviar and the old guys said, "who are all these punks messing up my golf game with all that loud music?"

Last chance for the cold war undead to make their final grab for their own brass rings, not realizing that they've been used to pierce their granddaughter's labia already.

Four more years of Bush will mean the unquestionable death of America as any kind of world economic power, which means baaaaad news for all us working folk for a long goddamned time. But see, that doesn't matter to the top five/two percent and here's why (not what you might think from the tone this rant is taking ): the top five/two percent are the bank owners and the brokerage firm owners. They are the only ones who make money even when nobody else in the country is. Whether a transaction goes up or does down, the bank gets paid. It's the exact same logic as credit cards. Credit card companies don't want you to pay off your balance. They never want you to pay off your balance. In fact, they want you to get into as much debt as you can possibly get into, because whether or not you pay off the twenty thousand in ten years or twenty or never, you're paying them interest on it every month you're alive (and float the debt).

Since there are millions (if not hundreds of millions) of card holders, your twenty thousand, hell your two hundred thousand dollar debt if defaulted on, is just another way for them to make money through loopholes and writeoffs and government subsidies, etc., so it pleases them to no end that you ruin your life. Literally. Think about how that psychology effects a community consciousness, whether outright stated or laying dormant under the radar, it states to every citizen literally ever second of the day, "your humanity is an irrelevant consideration."

Again, granted, this is nothing new under the sun and that's the problem. It's not new in the slightest and history records what has always happened in light of the givens we've all been discussing of late. Rome burns; the Armada sinks; the Acropolos crumbles.

The only truly terrifying thing to me is that it's happening right now and few seem to see it or do anything about it. The ants just keep marching in, but without the "huraahs!"

I need to move to Canada. Or Amsterdam . It's just too depressing to watch it happen up close like this. There's only one other hope that I can see in all of this and that is the cold war/neocon faction had enough humanity left in them to plan a four year grab and then turn it back over to those with broader vision so that their grandkids don't get too screwed, but then, those grandkids are either worthless already and out of the will or so rich off the inheritance that it doesn't matter, so I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Maybe the greedfest and bloodlust has been satiated (having been kept at bay for so long by that punk Clinton and his "hollywood crowd") that Bush's puppetmasters will try and inflate him into a Domestic Leader now and let slip the dogs of economy, but something tells me it will just be another f*cking John Wayne movie (only this time the "Indians" will all be saying, "We don't talk that way, act that way, believe that way. F*ck off!")

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Mike S.
Well, believe it or not, if your work is producing a good (a cabinet) then you are a part of the manufacturing sector not the service sector.

No--none of the 5 of us produce or design cabinets.

A totally service based economy does not produce any goods, obviously the US is nowhere near that stage yet.

True. Consider, though, if nanotechnology actually produces what's been hyped for it--goods will consist of a fabricator and raw materials. Just about everything else will be simply information.

Ruy Lopez

Koyanisqaatsi;

You did dish out the above rant in another thread, if I'm not mistaken. I did not read properly the previous one but read the above. Have only one problem with your prose--too American in imagery and expressions. Have a problem understanding certain passages but don't change on my account. Fortunately, I'm a bit familiar with the ideas you're saying.

What you're saying, unfortunately, is valid in general. But the way you express it arrives as too sweeping and so devilishly conceived ab initio by the ruling elite giving the impression you wish to generate hatred. I don't think it was planned this way from the beginning and that the overwhelming majority of your honchos have the premeditated intentions you are attributing.

When economic trends of the 70s unfolded and was validated further by the 80s, America's 2/5 % had a change of mind. I could agree that a very small faction of this 2/5%, people like Dick C. etc, had it figured out from the beginning. They succeeded in convincing many others.

My reasons for taking some exceptions to your presentation is my cursory understanding of US economic history after WWII ended. The 50s, 60s and part of the 70s permitted one breadwinner to support an American family. Corporations were truly profitable from operations and looked forward to steady healthy growth. This state of mind was dashed during the 70s. The 80s did not return to the good old days but was mediocre and many companies saw themselves as possibly obsolete. This uninspiring less profitable period led the US and other elites, who had access to mountains of cash, to mine the financial paper markets instead--thus the bubbles.

The 80s state of mind can now be easily connected to the "conspiracy" that you explain especially when there is a core group dedicated to the neocon ideology to provide leadership.

Not all giant US companies are sold on this mass enslavement plot. Some might appear to be instituting corporate policies that appear to mimic neocon methods but the real reasons could simply be market exigencies. You might be surprised if I assert that oil majors like Shell or ExxonMobil do not subscribe to the plot--maybe other oil cos. but not these two. I have been following their moves over time and I do not see indications.

In my country the devilish plot described by Koy has been taking place for about two decades. Ethnic Spanish, Filipino and American owned corporations have been losing out to businessmen of Chinese origin. A large ethnic Chinese- owned corporation does not have a platoon of middle managers from which future top executives come from. The owners and their extended family work hard round the clock to run their companies. They just need lowly paid Filipino supervisors (slaves), who are permanent employees, and an army of temporary help paid hourly with a tenure of 6 months(more slaves). Employers can afford platoon substitution every 6 months because of a horde of unemployed.

This is very different from the Exxon affiliate I worked for. As early as age 24, I had an expense account that I could use to treat my small staff to lunch or dinner once or twice a week. Name a Manila restaurant of some reputation, we've been there. Benefits include pension, nearly interest-free housing, nearly free medical, company car and 4 to 5 star hotels when we travel. These benefits still exist as of three months ago except for the expense accounts. Advertising was also cut almost totally. Lower profitability slashed the perks but not the social benefits of employees. Check Shell and Exxon in the US, I think you'll find the same condition.

Just trying to be more realistic. People might get the wrong ideas. But listen to the point Koy is making; it is basically true.

Edited to add more depressing news:
Koy's enslavement plot by the elite would tend to prosper and reach new highs in the next several years because the conditions that gave occasion to them would probably worsen--economic stagnation.

Mike S.

Hmm, you hinted that the job done by craftsman is now being done by you and some engineers implying that your work is essential to the production of the cabinets. If the cabinets can not be made without the work you do being done then you are producing a good from raw materials and thus in the manufacturing sector. Even if your job is completely unrelated to the cabinet-making process (such as installing word processors for the office staff or fixing e-mail clients) your paycheck is still dependant upon goods production. Either way, an economy that encourages all goods to come from foreign countries potentially hurts you and most everyone else too which is the point I was trying to make.

Hype is all that is, nanotechnology is never realistically viewed as a means to produce goods. Theoretically the most they could possibly do is the very simplest of tasks such as removing impurities in materials. Any complex tasks such as construction and assembly would require a means for them to communicate and coordinate. Such systems would cause the idea to go from being cheap, disposable nanobots to hugely expensive, inefficient microbots. That isn't to say that they won't have a great effect if they ever come to fruition (pollution reduction, water purification, etc.) but the future you envision simply will not happen.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Mike S.
Hmm, you hinted that the job done by craftsman is now being done by you and some engineers implying that your work is essential to the production of the cabinets. If the cabinets can not be made without the work you do being done then you are producing a good from raw materials and thus in the manufacturing sector.

We do not make or design cabinets. We design and create (whether in software or hardware, sometimes both) many of the tools they use to make the cabinets.
Since I am an employee I do agree I am in manufacturing. If I were an independant, though, my work would certainly be classed as service sector. Much of their work also would thus be classified as service.

Farren

Mike s.

You're projecting contemporary macroscopic engineering principles on future nano/microscopic engineering in a prejudicial way.

Organic chemistry produces humans, rats, fish and trees based on an arguably cheap form of microengineering. Given the diversity of living organisms, the economy of the common material (cells) used to produce them is extraordinary.

There's no reason to believe a similar design can't be utilised to create a massive range of large, complex inorganic products using the same kind of fractal logic. Obviously in this scenario programmers would become manufacturers.

I recommend Brian Goodwin's "How the Leopard Changed its Spots". It is both a challenge to the too-narrow neo-darwinian biology of Dawkins and a good illustration of the fractal nature of organic chemistry.

The specific issue pertinent to this thread that he discusses is the fact that DNA is not a "homunculus" or blueprint of the final organism, but a simple catalyst for a fractal growth formula that ends up as a particular organism, the same way a very short formula can generate an astonishingly complex curve.

Mike S.

Loren, I understand now. I thought you meant you actually worked at a cabinet-making plant of some sort.

Farren, my argument against nanotechnology in goods production is not one against the technical possibility of it happening but rather against the economic feasibility. Consider that most components to the majority of consumer items nowadays are produced in fractions of seconds with brute force tools and relatively cheap labour what is the cost benefit of having billions of interconnected micro-computers slowly rearrange microscopic chunks of material into the finished good?

Farren

Mike

I'm not being sarcastic or patronising (honestly), but... do you have a good grasp of how fractals or embryology works? I suspect if you did you'd see that the cost effectiveness of the fractal generative process I was talking about would of necessity be more cost effective.

I don't want to take this topic to far OT, but if you want me to I'll PM you with a lengthy elaboration of the reasons. Or perhaps we could start another thread in Sci/Tech

pariah

and what the FUCK do you propose that I, as an individual, do about it? b/c thats who your post is adressed to--individuals.

you know how I can fix the problems with my country? maybe you should tell me how--whats the password so I can convince people to get our industries back up and running? mind telling me how I can talk to the president of car companies, and convince them how to make their cars? maybe I should walk up to the whitehouse and have tea with the president.

you have problems with my country? good for you. but can you just tell me, what the fuck was the point of your post?