Re: [OPE] Invention, Inventors, and the Productivity of Labor

I look forward to reading these books. Thanks Anders E.   1) Anders E.: “The market socialist debate in a von Mises versus Lange/Taylor/Lerner equilibrium, marginalist fashion is - like neo-classical economics - totally divorced from reality as precisely pointed out by Stiglitz in "Whither Socialism"”   It is a mistake to equate “marginalism” and “neoclassical economics”. Besides, Stiglitz’s "Whither Socialism" is a very poor guide to the controversy of economic calculation. He disappointingly bases his assessment of the controversy in secondary literature coming from the Arrow-Debreu model.   So that Stiglitz was not able to understand the Misean criticism and even less to discern the possibility of coherently combine marginalism and catallactic competition. This is the main hope of my PhD dissertation and my approach to socialist economics.   The equilibrium fashion can be attributed to Lange indeed, who by the way based his model in the reduction of “average costs” out of market competition. If I remember well, you Anders E. contended that my “marginal costs” should be substituted by average costs.   2) Anders E.: “The idea that the users are important innovators - and should have their part of the revenue stream is contrary to the "atomistic", "genius inventor deserves profit" ideology of our times.”   It could be contrary to the atomistic equilibrium fashion, but it is certainly in tune with the market(s) as the best way ever proved at grate scale to sharply adapt goods to preferences –with all the provisos concerning large inequalities, etc.   3) Anders E.: “That socialist innovation would also include conscious, systematic exploration of various ideas technologies; including rivalry to get funded/more funding etc. is clear. This is how a "research council" like the ESF, or the European Commission works today, but you don't need to be a capitalist to get such funds. That such "research councils"  could be much more open, democratic and efficient is obvious.”   Here applies all the problems arising from the decreasing returns to scale of the administration. With the current information technologies we could double and triple the amount of projects adjudicated by Research Councils. But how far can we go without experimenting these costs against the quality of the adjudication.   Besides, this way only favors technical advancements leaving out their commercialization. This is the real proof of usefulness.   Regards,A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Anders Ekeland <anders.ekeland@online.no> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: lunes, 3 de noviembre, 2008 13:14:48 Asunto: RE: [OPE] Invention, Inventors, and the Productivity of Labor Hi all, very interesting debate. There is a literature on "user-driven" innovation, f.ex. by Eric von Hippel, who's book from 2005 called "Democratizing innovation" has a series of interesting facts and observations related to this. Freely down loadable from http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ.htm. Hippel gives empirical underpinning to the "workerist view", i.e. that it is very often workers/engineers that make innovation - as individuals in some cases and as collectives - or as individuals in a collective - in "huge" technologies. This goes back to Adam Smith: Hippel writes (p. 24): Although most products and product modifications that users or others develop will be minor, users are by no means restricted to developing minor or incremental innovations. Qualitative observations have long indicated that important process improvements are developed by users. Smith (1776, pp. 1113) pointed out the importance of the invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labor, and enable one man to do the work of many. He also noted that a great part of the machines made use of in those manufactures in which labor is most subdivided, were originally the invention of common workmen, who, being each of them employed in some very simple operation, naturally turned their thoughts towards finding out easier and readier methods of performing it. Hippel also gives a lot of new references as to the importance of users in invention and innovation. There are several important points here for socialists: - Workers often innovate to save time, effort, so "profit" is not the single motive - leisure - or just doing  things more "rationally" - with less effort is a very strong motive. OK it is a kind of "profit", but not as this word is used in the ordinary economic dicsourse. - The neo-classical economists have a very hard time to digest the "free-revealing" of inventions/innovation (Open source being an obvious example, sports equipment another, there are many). That people does things togher - having just fun or feeling "human" making innovations together is hard for these ideological atomists to swallow, it is "irrational", but a stubborn empirical fact. - Even if you are a "capitalist" you cannot be *only* interested in "maximising profit", because in order to invent - you have to a) see a "problem" and b) have enough knowledge to search&find a solution. The pointed haired boss does not make inventions or innovations, Dilbert, Wally and Cathy do. Bill Gates was interested in computers (and still is) - not only money. - Collective, democratic innovation is absolutely feasible and more efficient than capitalist innovation. There are many "competition costs" - the hiding - not sharing of information, artificial product differentiation (which is not labour saving and/or product enhancing innovation). - Hippel lacks a view of the role of rational, democratic standards - just imagine the waste incurred by the fact that every mobile phone producer has several different charger types, same for lap-tops. That this is not a technical necessity is illustrated by the standard for stationary PCs. We should take democratic controll over the things and technologies that surrounds us. - The idea that the users are important innovators - and should have their part of the revenue stream is contrary to the "atomistic", "genius inventor deserves profit" ideology of our times. - That socialist innovation would also include conscious, systematic exploration of various ideas technologies; including rivalry to get funded/more funding etc. is clear. This is how a "research council" like the ESF, or the European Commission works today, but you don't need to be a capitalist to get such funds. That such "research councils"  could be much more open, democratic and efficient is obvious. That they should support cooperation to a much larger extent than today, although cooperative research is encouraged since obviously it is much more efficient and more fun, than "bellum omnium contra omnes". That enthusiasts will have "flame wars" debating various technological solutions I do not doubt. Socialism is technical&scientific debate, is democracy where you sometimes wins and sometimes loses - not harmonious boredom "well-behaved" boredom. (Ruptures, indivisbilities, enormous network effects etc. etc. - democratic creative destruction!) - The Internet gives fantastic possibilities for sharing ideas, experiences, looking for solutions etc. - these "communities of innovation" as Hippel calls them points clearly to a socialist way of making innovation  and hard to make sense of if your human arch-type is homo economicus. Homo Interneticus is much closer to reality! - Idea that you supply users with a toolkit - from which they can make the "thing" totally according to their needs also satisfying the anti-alienation need to create that is so deeply human. - The market socialist debate in a von Mises versus Lange/Taylor/Lerner equilibrium, marginalist fashion is - like neo-classical economics - totally divorced from reality as precisely pointed out by Stiglitz in "Whither Socialism" - and by a bunch of more heterodox critics of this kind of "celestial harmony" theory. The present financial debacle is good examples of how “optimal” these over-hyped “market mechanisms” are. The financial “innovations” made by the purest profit-seeking motivation has shown that being only interested in money leads to no real welfare creating innovations… to say the least. People who are only interested in and working with money do no real innovations! Innovation is a solution to a real need/problem where there is "Willingness to pay" (In many cases those willing to pay have too little money, but that's another discussion). Dilberts of the world – unite! Regards Anders Ekeland At 10:20 03.11.2008, you wrote: > ALexandro, whatever the issues relating to institutional design for socialism, the basic > point I was making is the inventions are largely made by salaried engineers not by > independent capitalists. Your example does not contradict this. > > Paul Cockshott > Dept of Computing Science > University of Glasgow > +44 141 330 1629 > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of Alejandro Agafonow > Sent: Mon 11/3/2008 9:09 AM > To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list > Subject: Re: [OPE] Invention, Inventors, and the Productivity of Labor > > Paul C.: "You can only produce many inventions relevant to modern technology as part of a collective > work team. You can only produce improvements to the fuel injection systems of jet engines > as part of a team already working on jet engines. The design of a modern gas turbine engine > is a vast undertaking involving hundreds of people." > > Team work doesn't go against rivalry and catallactic competition. > > It is true that many inventions have been produced within the monopoly of military complexes, like in USA for example. But even in this case intervene contractors that has to compete to gain projects or, when the cronyism of Republicans biases the adjudication of projects, huge profits that go to the contractors' pockets. > > I remember the movie The Aviator. Many of the advancements in modern aviation were achieved in military complexes, but private contractors intervened competing among them. For example, Transcontinental & Western Air (TWA) owned by Howard Hughes had to compete with Pan American Airlines (Panam) owned by Juan Trippe, developing airplanes able to travel transatlantic distances at huge heights to avoid turbulences, making the trip comfortable for commercial passengers. > > I'm not trying to deny that other inventions have been achieved outside rivalry, just for the sake of the humanity. And these altruistic inventors are almost always part of the equation within capitalist firms. > > My worry is about the institutional design that triggers inventions most efficiently and fastest in its "commercial" stage. Our goal as socialists is to replicate rivalry avoiding the harms of profits privately owned. > > Regards,A. Agafonow > > > > > ________________________________ > De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk> > Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > Enviado: domingo, 2 de noviembre, 2008 22:12:03 > Asunto: RE: [OPE] Invention, Inventors, and the Productivity of Labor > > > Paul Cockshott > Dept of Computing Science > University of Glasgow > +44 141 330 1629 > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of Alejandro Agafonow > Sent: Sun 11/2/2008 9:52 AM > To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list > Subject: Re: [OPE] Invention, Inventors, and the Productivity of Labor > > Why these salaried workers don't produce these inventions by their own? > > The lack of capital is not enough, since it is possible to borrow this capital. > > I think the answer comes from more subtle phenomena coming from the degree of risk averse of entrepreneurs. A low degree of risk averse is needed to embark on risky projects. > > We can't neglect this soft side of the problem if we want a socialist institutional design able to reach the rate of technological change of capitalism. > > Regards, A. Agafonow > > > > > ________________________________ > De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk> > Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > Enviado: domingo, 2 de noviembre, 2008 10:12:20 > Asunto: RE: [OPE] Invention, Inventors, and the Productivity of Labor > > I am basing my claim on the fact that most engineers are employed > as salaried workers. > I would content that only a small proportion are members of the capitalist class -- people whose > income derives primarily from property not the sale of their labour. > > Consider two key innovations, the two prime movers of our age, diesel power and > gas turbines. Whilst the original inventors, Diesel and Whittle were not wage > labourers, the great development of these technologies since then, which > has made them the prime movers of our age has occured under capitalist relations > with the improvements being made by salaried engineers of firms like Rolls Royce, > Pratt and Whitney, MAN, Wartsila etc. The progressive improvement in fuel > efficiency of these two prime movers has been the precondition for the > modern productive transprot network or super tankers, giant containerships, > turbofan jets etc. All this has been done not by the owners of Rolls Royce or > MAN, but by the engineers these companies employ. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of GERALD LEVY > Sent: Sat 11/1/2008 9:17 PM > To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list > Subject: RE: [OPE] Invention, Inventors, and the Productivity of Labor > > > > Who invents new and more productive technologies?> In large part it is done by wage labourers. > > Hi Paul C: > > I don't know about that. > > To begin with, we were talking about the productivity of labor. > For an invention to affect productivity, there must be *innovation* > (practical application of an invention).  Invention - while generally a > necessary precondition for technological change - is *not a sufficient > condition for increasing the productivity of labor*. > > Who the inventors are is not so straight forward. For instance, > one source says that > >    "Inventors are only those individuals who had 'inventive' input >      to the process, not those who merely carried out the direction >      and/or ideas of others. Therefore, colleague(s), technician(s), >      or student(s) who have been involved in or carried out the >      research may not necessarily be inventors (Colorado State >      University [CSU]Ventures) > > In any event, inventions are created by individual inventors and > within small businesses, private and public universities, public > institutions, and large corporations.  In relation to the latter, > no doubt there are wage-workers in R&D departments, but who > are the inventors and what role did the wage-workers play in > the 'inventive' process? > > Are you basing your claim that wage-workers "in large part" > are the ones who invent new productive technologies on any > particular empirical study or studies?  If so, which one(s)? > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ope mailing list > ope@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Nov 3 09:28:11 2008