torsdag den 21. juni 2012

Drivkraften mangler


Teknologisk udvikling var og er en af de væsentligste drivkræfter i en kapitalistisk vækstøkonomi. Liberalisterne hævder som regel, at det er konkurrencen på markederne som driver værket her. Der er selvfølgelig noget om det, når det drejer sig om kontinuerlige små forbedringer eller udvikling af produkter, som man anser for at have chancer som salgsvare.

Hvis det dog kommer til ægte kvantespring, hvor der skal satses på lang sigt så kommer markedsøkonomien til kort:

Hvem ville hævde, at månelandingen ville have fundet sted i 1969[1] – eller nogensinde  - hvis den skulle have vært iscenesat på markedsvilkår?

Våben- og rumkapløbet var en af de helt afgørende drivkræfter i det 20. århundredes teknologiske landvindinger.

Kapløbet var et ideologisk strategisk kapløb – ikke et markedsøkonomisk. Siden er den kolde krig afviklet (heldigvis!) – og udviklingen er ved at gå i stå der – hvor markedet bestemmer alene.





National Science Board Report: US Losing Research and Development Jobs to Asia

Sunday, 22 January 2012

By Dave Johnson


The United States is losing ever more jobs and becoming ever less competitive as our universities are cut back and companies move R&D jobs to Asia. We lost 687,000 high-tech manufacturing jobs lost since 2000. Universities cut back 20% on public research. 85% of growth in R&D employment by American companies occurred abroad.

Jobs Lost
Product Design and Development News: U.S. High-tech Jobs Lost as Technological Lead Shrinks

The United States lost 28 percent of its high-technology manufacturing jobs over the last decade, as the nation’s rapidly shrinking lead in science and technology in the global marketplace was accompanied by a toll on U.S. high-tech jobs, according to a new study released today by the National Science Board (NSB), the policy making body for the National Science Foundation.

One of the most dramatic signs of this trend was the loss of 687,000 high-technology manufacturing jobs since 2000. U.S. multinational corporations also created research and development (R&D) jobs overseas at an unprecedented rate. Meanwhile, China became the world leader in high-technology trade and, for the first time, Asia matched the United States in R&D investments.

Companies Moving R&D
WSJ: US Loses Out as R&D Shifts to Asia,

The U.S. is rapidly losing high-technology jobs as American companies expand their research-and-development labs in China and elsewhere in Asia, the National Science Board said Tuesday.

[. . .] Since 2004, about 85% of the growth in R&D workers employed by U.S.-based multinational companies has been abroad, according to the National Science Board, a policy-making arm of the National Science Foundation, a U.S. agency. U.S. companies generally aren't closing labs at home but rather focusing their expansion abroad. The overseas portion of their R&D employment grew to about 27% in 2009 from 16% in 2004, the report said.

Universities Cutting Back, Too
At the same time, budget cuts are forcing our Universities to cut back on R&D.


States have cut funds for public research universities by 20 percent in constant dollars from 2002 to 2010, according to a report issued on Tuesday by the National Science Foundation.

The report, "Science and Engineering Indicators: 2012," is a compendium almost 600 pages long of scientific trends in the United States and around the world. The agency releases such data every two years.

The findings in this year's report demonstrate a continuing trend in scientific innovation. While countries like China and India have increased their spending on technology and education, the United States has found itself hamstrung by a weakened economy since 2008.

Other Findings
Other key findings in the report include:

Three countries—the United States, China and Japan—were responsible for more than half of the world’s $1.28 trillion in R&D spending in 2009. (China overtook Japan during the last decade to become the second-largest R&D-performing nation.)

Between 1999 and 2009, the United States’ share of R&D dropped from 38 percent to 31 percent; the EU’s share declined from 27 percent to 23 percent; and the Asian region grew from 24 percent to 32 percent.

Many Asian countries have increased their investment in R&D relative to their GDP, with China almost tripling its R&D/GDP ratio since 1996. The United States’ R&D/GDP ratio recently has edged upward, while that of the EU has remained steady.

The developed world’s lead in higher education has declined dramatically. In 2008, only 4 percent of the world’s engineering degrees were earned in the United States, while 56 percent were awarded in Asia, including one-third in China.

The number of natural sciences and engineering doctorates awarded by Chinese universities has more than tripled since 2000. At 26,000 awarded in 2008, the number of these Chinese doctorates now exceeds the number earned in the United States. And, unlike in China, a large share of these U.S. doctoral degrees are awarded to foreign students. In 2009, 44 percent of the 24,700 U.S. natural sciences and engineering doctorates were awarded to temporary visa holders. Some 57 percent of engineering doctorates were awarded to foreign students.

American industry, which historically has supported about 60 percent of U.S. R&D, reduced R&D funding by nearly 4 percent in 2009. (A rise in U.S. government R&D funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act partially offset the private-sector reduction.)

Job losses from the 2007–2009 recession were less severe for science and engineering workers than for the U.S. workforce as a whole. In 2010, the median income for workers in science and engineering jobs ($73,290) was more than double the median income of all U.S. workers ($33,840).

Chinas offical site on the gouvernements economic policy:
http://www.china-economy-policy.com/#chapter2









[1] Månelandingen 20. juli 1969 kl. 21:17 dansk tid[1] var en utrolig teknologisk bedrift, hvor man for første gang landsatte et bemandet fartøj på Månen. Den 21. juli kl. 03:56 dansk tid (20. juli kl. 21:56 Houstontid) trådte det første menneske sin fod på Månen.

søndag den 17. juni 2012

Dobbeltmoralens lovprisning


”Hvis moral er god må dobbeltmoral være dobbelt så god” fremstår som en meget ironisk forkastelse af dobbeltmoral i almindelighed.

Det er jo også næsten uudholdeligt at blive konfronteret med andres normkrav, som de tydeligvis ikke selv lever op til. Ta for eksempel en direktør som forklarer nødvendigheden af reallønsfald i Danmark generelt og for hans ansatte i særdeleshed for derefter glædeligt at tage imod en stor lønforhøjelse + bonus bevilliget af vennerne i bestyrelsen. Der kunne opremses et uendeligt antal af eksempler, hvor evt. læsere ville være enige med mig, at det simpelthen er en skandale at ….

Og dog .. ..
Moral som et mere overordnet normsæt for vores adfærd er en harsk søster at have:

Ingen løgne
Ingen fortielser for at skjule egne fejl
Intet skattesnyd
Intet utroskab
Ingen udskejelser i det hele taget
Intet hovmod
Ingen falsk beskedenhed …

Der er der da ingen som kan sige sig fri for at have trådt i spinaten  - og skulle der være nogen - så er de ikke til at holde ud at være sammen med.

Må vi så ikke kræve at politikerne ikke lyver for åben skærm?
Må vi så ikke kræve at folk ikke kører når de har drukket?
Må vi så ikke kunne gå ud fra, at et løfte er et løfte?
Må vi så ikke …

Jo vi må og skal. Meget af vores lovgivning er en stor bunke dobbeltmoral, udarbejdet og vedtaget af mennesker som ofte allerede ved vedtagelsen havde overtrådt deres egne lovkrav.

At kunne opretholde en vis grad af orden uden at forpeste vores tilværelse er en balancegang mellem moral og livsudfoldelse. Der har vi som kollektiv brug for ”dobbeltmoralen” for at bevare os fra kaos.

Hvad vi stiller op med dette dilemma hver for sig, er en anden sag.

"Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendI"


torsdag den 7. juni 2012

Gøglernes marked på nedtur


                professor Tribini       forskningschef i CEPOS Henrik Christoffersen 

”Finanskrisen er ikke et rent økonomisk spørgsmål – men involverer også vigtige aspekter af erkendelses- og informationsteori. Strømmen af informationer mellem individer er fuld af strukturelle fælder, der udgør motoren i kriser og kan udnyttes af kyniske spillere.”

Økonomistudiet, som en gang kunne love sine kandidater guld, grønne skove og fede stillinger kan i dag, lige som mange andre udpræget konjunkturbestemte, markedsorienterede uddannelser ikke afsætte kandidaterne[1].
Nu er økonomerne jo en ”delt branche”, hvor langt de fleste skal guide enkelte virksomheder eller organisationer igennem samfundets og markedets oprørte hav med bundlinjen som guideline mens makroøkonomerne udpeger kursen på samfundsplan for os alle sammen.
At drive et samfund som en butik er god skik, når man har ført nationerne ud dertil hvor lånemarkedet og ikke parlamenterne bestemmer den politik som skal føres.
Altså skal der ikke længere investeres i ting og aktiviteter som er samfundsgavnlige, men kun i det som vil give afkast i form af penge til investorerne.
For et være ganske konkret:
Mange vil i dag gå ind for, at vi på længere sigt skiller os af med en energisektor, som er baseret på fossil brændsel. Men kan man konsekvent arbejde frem imod dette mål i disse år? Nej – fordi: når krisen forsætter vil olie- og kulpriserne på grundlag af den faldende efterspørgsel igen komme ned i et mere ”realistisk” leje og derfor vil der ikke være afkast fra alternativ energiproduktion. Det bliver igen ”det eneste økonomisk fornuftige” at fyre kul og olie af – som vi plejer.
Så kunne det offentlige vel træde til og gennemføre den fornuftige omlægning af energisektoren alligevel – nej – der er ingen penge – dem har vi reddet bankerne med – som dog ikke er reddet endnu alligevel – og politikerne skider i bukserne hvis de overvejer at overhøre alle borgerlige makroøkomers ramaskrig: ”Offentlig styring af investeringerne (f.eks. i energisektoren) vil bringe os i samme situation som Grækerne...” - og det har de så ret i - fordi hvem vil låne penge til nogen som vil gøre det fornuftige, rigtige – i stedet for det som lover mest afkast?
Med lidt ”fleksibilitet” ville det på disse betingelser være bedst at omlægge dansk landbrug til valmue- og cocadyrkning – det skulle nok kunne betale sig og ville også passe fint til den almene mentale tilstand i de højere politiske luftlag, hvor fornuften skal holdes på afstand med illusionsnumre for at kunne tage sig selv og ens egne desperate armsving for ultimo ratio.

Der er dog andre end økonomerne som har noget at sige om vores økonomiske suppedas – også noget interessant – her er et bud: ”Nedtur” af Vincent F. Hendricks/Jan Lundorff Rasmussen (http://www.vince-inc.com/vincent/?p=1059

DOWNFALL!
The Financial Crisis and Philosophy
Vincent F. Hendricks/Jan Lundorff Rasmussen

english abstract:

A New Book on the Financial Crisis Philosophically Explained

A financial system consists of products and players. Thus, if it goes bad, as it has during the financial crisis, it may have something to do with products, but it may also have something to do with us and the way we reason – individually and collectively.
Only one species has configured a financial system and decided to live according to the principles such a system instils. The configuration and decision is particular to man. No such system among ants, dolphins or hippos. Although devised by rational man, man is not necessarily rational in that system – especially not when agents interact collectively.
Besides stocks, auctions, hedge funds, a financial market is characterized by group deliberation, decision and action. Central to deliberation, decision and action is information. Information acquisition and processing are essential fabrics in rational deliberation, decision and action, which in turn should amount to the rational interaction among members of a group or the financial system as such. Epistemology, information technology and computer science all of a sudden become acutely relevant to the study of a financial system.
The cement of any deliberating group or deciding body is the rational interaction among its members. Rational interaction between agents is determined by the knowledge they have, their preferences, the arguments they can muster for their opinions, decisions and actions in economic matters and elsewhere. Recent studies in philosophy, social psychology, social science, economics, computer science and jurisprudence show that concepts dear to collective thought since the Enlightenment, like rational decision, informed action, truthful justification, etc., are sensitive to the way in which agents or members of a group process their information in order to rationally interact.
Communication and intelligent information processing are needed to make informed decisions, carry out important actions, hold true beliefs, all of which are cornerstones in a sound financial system.
New empirical findings, especially from social psychology and economics, demonstrate that one may derail or manipulate otherwise rational agents in a democratic process or setting with exactly information.
Derailing deciding agents with too little information is referred to as pluralistic ignorance; derailing with too much information is known as informational cascades; using information selection may lead to belief polarization and finally information presentation may be responsible for framing effects. Thus, phenomena up until now primarily studied by social psychology may actually be classified as information phenomena characterized by the nature of information involved in manipulating agents.

Information phenomena                       Nature of information

Pluralistic ignorance         ... manipulation via ... too little information

Informational cascades   ... manipulation via ... too much information

Framing effects    ... manipulation via ... information presentation

Belief polarization ... manipulation via ... information selection


Such phenomena, and many others like them, are potentially dangerous to a financial system, since they may tap into the way in which “informed” agents make “rational” decisions, perform “rational” actions and hold “rational” beliefs.
By way of example, pluralistic ignorance among members of company boards have proved robust while for instance settling on which new sales strategy to implement. Everybody thinks that everybody else subscribes to a certain idea (say a particular sales strategy) or norm even though everybody privately rejects the norm or idea. A strategy may be implemented even though everybody privately thinks it’s a bad idea, but publically “believes” incorrectly that everybody else subscribes to the idea.
The reason is that when decision makers lack sufficient information to reach a qualified decisions it may be rational to imitate what others do. If everybody involved do so at the same time, all receive the information that there either is no problem or that all are in agreement. The truth may be that they all agree on the opposite, but nobody wants to flag so accordingly due to the social sanctions of a minority report. Similar reasoning may be involved in boom thinking about which stock to acquire next.


Echo-chambers and polarization effects have likewise been shown to be robust phenomena among board members or directors. While settling for acquisition premiums directors and chairmen tend to rely on previous experiences related to fixing the acquisition premium price. Prior to the board meeting the influential may have thought of arguments settling for a high acquisition prize based on their experience. Recent research in social psychology and management show that such arguments have unequal strong weight during deliberation. As a matter of fact, the arguments in favour of high premiums become even stronger during deliberation while the arguments against are marginalized. The same goes if starting out with low premiums prior to board meeting deliberation.
While pluralistic ignorance is the result of the quantity of information needed for proper decision, not enough information, polarization is the result of quality of the information; decision makers fix attention on certain information, and disregard other information. That is, manipulation via information selection.
A final example: Too much information may also be the source of manipulation and irrational group decision. Seeing many people doing or saying the same may be overwhelming evidence to the effect of disregarding one’s own point of view or assessment of the situation. That’s how bubbles come about in markets, they are based on informational cascades.


A host of other phenomena like the ones just described are part of the infostorm responsible for derailing otherwise rational agents while deliberating, deciding and acting in concert in financial matters. The reason for the financial crisis largely includes us, thus epistemology is a central player in understanding the Downfall! (in Danish, Nedtur!) The new book is exactly about systematically understanding and explaining the financial crisis from a philosophical perspective.






[1] De studerende jurister og økonomer er så bange for at blive arbejdsløse, at de overvejer at udskyde at blive færdige med deres uddannelse. Det viser en undersøgelse, som DJØF har foretaget blandt 700 kandidatstuderende på blandt andet Aalborg, Aarhus og København universitet.