(no subject)

[go_team]

So I just got done reading an interesting article which I think is a transcript of a speech given at the Museum of Natural History in New York by Jared Diamond, the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, which if you haven't read it is a very interesting book about the geographical and cultural coincidences that have shaped the course of human history. (It's not without its problems, but it's definitely a worthwhile read.) Anyway, the article is called "How to Get Rich", although of course that's just a catchy title and if you read it you can draw your own conclusions as to what it's really about. I'd summarize it as a discussion of the social, cultural, and historical factors that shape the course of human economies and technological development, and speculation about what level of organization works best for organizing groups of people (in particular, groups of people producing things, so think companies).

Anyway, I was motoring through it just fine, a little annoyed that it was comparing the relative efficiencies of various industries without ever defining efficiency, and then I stumbled across the sentence "...the German beer industry suffers from small-scale production." Oops, what now? I'd much sooner say the U.S. beer industry suffers from large-scale production! While I understand it's inefficient for everybody to produce everything they need on their own, beer included, at a certain point you get efficient to the point of producing Budweiser and Coors, and really, who wants that? Likewise, a little later Diamond says "...chicken in Japan costs $25 a pound. The reason the Japanese can get away with that is that Japanese chicken producers are not exposed to competition with super-efficient American chicken producers." Dude. If by "super-efficient American chicken producers" he means factory farms where the birds are pumped full of hormones and don't have room to move, count me on the side of the inefficient. Diamond also mentions the fact that beef is really expensive in Japan, but not the fact that it's so cheap in the U.S. because it's highly subsidized by the government, so that annoyed me as well. Anyway... it was a thought-provoking piece, but it's kind of long, so consider yourselves warned.

Updated to add: Oh, and tonight's successful culinary experiment of sorts is: If you've got some granola that's gone a little chewy from sitting out too long, you can bring back the crunch by putting it on a baking sheet and toasting it in the oven for a bit (I just put mine in the toaster oven, set to toast medium-lightly). It'll be soft when you get it out of the oven, but crunchy when it cools! Yay!

Comments

'efficiency'

[thrasymachos.livejournal.com]

The problem with economic efficiency is that it tends to be defined as the quickest path to profit. Certainly, this can be a good strategy; for example, if one deals in a time-sensitive market, one would do well to maximize profits in the short term. When it comes to production and distribution of commodities like food, the fastest path is not necessarily best, for a variety of reasons. The author of the book in question would do well to realize that the reason chicken costs so much in Japan is because that's what people are willing to pay. For this reason alone, it is innacurate to characterize the Japanese method of chicken production 'inneficient' or even 'less efficient.' Clearly, a different business model is at work here, and it appears to be working. 'Efficient' can also be defined as the most stable, sustainable path to profit. It seems that all to often, multinationals are taking advantage of the market rather than supporting it, reaping (raping) enormous profits in the short-term, but making little to no provisions for the future. Personally, I'm a bit baffled by this approach. Corporations have legal person-hood; I would think they would act in their best interests. Since a well-run corporation will outlive any of its constituent members, it would seem to follow that they would do something to ensure their continued existence. Then again, maybe that's what frivolous lawsuits and government subsidy are for... After all, the most 'efficient' way to pay the bills is to have someone else pay them for you.

Re: 'efficiency'

[cubetime.livejournal.com]

Corporations have legal person-hood; I would think they would act in their best interests. Since a well-run corporation will outlive any of its constituent members, it would seem to follow that they would do something to ensure their continued existence.

I see that as the root of the problem. Legal person-hood aside, the corporation itself has no true advocate. The corporation can easily outlive its Board of Directors and its investors. Selfish¹ people alive today don't really care what happens to their corporations in 100 years, much less what happens to the planet. These people are parasites, taking their profits, killing the host corporation, and moving on to do it again.

I'm really despising corporations more and more. I just don't see how these things can be fixed.

¹not in the Rand sense

[goteam.livejournal.com]

Yay! The whole article makes more sense (or less) when you consistently apply that first definition of "efficiency"! Of course, I prefer the "stable, sustainable path to profit" model, but that makes parts of the article sound really dumb. Is anybody out there even doing economic modeling based on the idea of longterm stability and sustainability (financial, environmental, and otherwise) or is that just wishful thinking on my part? And why can't I hear economics from people willing to point out that corporate personhood basically boils down to enslavement of imaginary immortal entities for the benefit of their stockholders at the expense of longterm stability and sustainability? There's got to be someone doing this, but I can't imagine it's a very popular point of view.