Python training time (was)

John Ochiltree johnochiltree at blueyonder.co.uk
Sat Feb 1 12:17:01 CET 2003


<posted & mailed>

Alex Martelli wrote:

> Laura Creighton wrote:
>    ...
>>> > indeed between a whole nation's impoverishment and enrichment.
>>> 
>>> I hate to break it to you, but gratuitous complexity *maintains*
>>> relationships of power.  Consider lawyers, for instance.  On the open
>>> market, my C++ skills are worth more money to more people than your
>>> Python
>>> skills.  It's going to be quite some time before that picture changes.
>    ...
>> I think you are confusing 'getting paid' with 'creating wealth'.
> 
> I think Laura is right on the spot, as usual.  Let me elaborate
> in my own usual (i.e. verbose :-) way.
> 
> David Ricardo's "The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation"
> (not a _pleasant_ read IMHO -- I find Ricardo's style ponderous, the
> very opposite from the delightful, sparking English of e.g. Adam
> Smith -- but deep and important) goes into that quite well, IMHO.
> The whole book is available online, by the way:
> http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/ricardo/prin/
> 
> You'll find the distinctions between "value" on one side, and "wealth"
> or "riches" on the other (essentially the former meaning "value for
> exchange", the second "value for use") debated throughout the history of
> economics -- and often in much more brilliant language -- but never, IMHO,
> with deeper insight than Ricardo exhibits.  Chapter 20 of the book
> is entirely about this issue, and one key paragraph is:
> """
> It is through confounding the ideas of value and wealth, or riches that
> it has been asserted, that by diminishing the quantity of commodities,
> that is to say of the necessaries, conveniences, and enjoyments of
> human life, riches may be increased.
> """
> 
> I'm talking about "riches" aka "wealth" in Ricardo's terms -- the
> abundance of necessaries, coveniences and enjoyments of human life --
> and specifically about those of a *whole nation*.
> 
> Brandon seems to think that there is some relevance to this that,
> by creating or maintaining some scarcity, certain individuals can
> be enabled to capture more "value" ("more money").  Either he has
> not studied Ricardo, or he thinks _I_ haven't...
> 
> One of Ricardo's examples discusses the possibility of a scarcity
> of *water* -- in his times (1820's) a paradox, today anything but
> (usable water IS scarce and costly in many places in the world).
> 
> If you could create or maintain a scarcity of water, and control
> some of that scarce and therefore valuable resource, you, as an
> individual, might well profit for it, by diverting larger slices
> of the nation's wealth into your pockets; but the nation's wealth
> as a whole would inevitably diminish.  You'd get a larger slice
> (possibly even larger in absolute terms) of a diminishing cake.
> 
> Similarly, professionals since age immemorables have striven and
> often succeeded in creating an artificial scarcity of their own
> services by restricting entry and practice into the profession
> (invariably with the noblest of motives, of course -- ensuring
> the public's safety, the quality of professional services, and
> so on -- it is, no doubt, just a side effect that this kind of
> barriers to entry increases the income of those already in...;-).
> 
> Much the same goes for "programming productivity" -- it can be
> made artificially scarce, temporarily enriching those who can
> command it to the (greater) detriment of everybody else, and
> that will invariably be done for the noblest of motives.
> 
> Some of us are keener on *growing the pie* for everybody, than
> on appropriating larger slices thereof.  Admittedly, such an
> attitude is easier to hold when one has already enough saved
> resources set aside to live comfortably, and/or absolutely no
> doubt that, whenever more income should be needed, it will be
> relatively trivial to obtain it (perhaps by doing some spell at
> an unpleasant but highly remunerated skill one has).
> 
> But, it IS a choice each person needs to make on their own.  If
> you want to artificially maintain scarcity, impoverish everybody
> but possibly enrich yourself, then high-productivity tools such
> as Python may be seen as a threat to your prospects -- this may
> explain why some people get so venomonous in their attacks against
> such tools.  If you prefer to increase wealth and reduce poverty
> all around, then you should know that increasing the productivity
> of all factors of production (labour first and foremost) is really
> the only way -- thus, technological developments that lead to
> higher productivity, and in particular high-productivity tools
> such as Python, should be welcome, embraced, and evangelized.
> What kind of world we are going live in, will be in part determined
> by the choices made by everybody along this particular axis.
> 
> 
> Perhaps a more interesting question would be, what social
> arrangements (enforceable by law) would help Adam Smith's
> "Invisible Hand" work more expeditiously in ensuring that the
> wealth-increasing technologies are ALSO value-increasing in
> the not-too-long run (in the long run, we're all dead...:-).
> 
> Here, I know Laura and I partly differ.  I agree with Smith
> that what allows some groups to capture wealth by impoverishing
> everybody are mostly social arrangements that interfere with
> the free market: intellectual property laws, limited-liability
> corporations (allowing the creation of lumbering giants that
> can and do use all sort of tricks to maintain their privileged
> position to everybody's detriment), legal sanction of the status
> of privileged professional groups and castes.  What we think
> of, today, as a "free market", is anything BUT, and rereading
> Smith (besides being utterly pleasant;-) is a helpful reminder
> of that.  Others may believe that the best answer to the
> inevitable distortions of markets by such laws and regulations
> is, _MORE_ laws and regulations (the latter, by some unexplained
> magic, will NOT be captured and exploited by special interests
> and lobbying groups as all the previous ones have always been;-).
> But, this is admittedly quite a different issue, anyway.
> 
> 
> Alex
Alex
This is the most wonderfully off topic post I've come across. You are a 
genius to get from a debate about C++ & Python to a debate on value. I 
salute you.

BTW I think Marx deals with the topic with far greater clarity than Ricardo 
or Smith, though Smith's Law of the Cartel is not to be sniffed at.

Maestro

John




More information about the Python-list mailing list