King Louis XIV (by Cecilia Acosta)

Timeline Louis Xiv

View more OpenOffice presentations from Simud.

Conclusions to Forum 4: New technologies, positive or negative?

We’re closing our Forum 4 and it’s time to attempt to draw some conclusions. I noticed that most opinions were coincident about the double nature of technologies. Technologies, most of you agreed, have advantages and disadvantages. Something that has passed unnoticed in the discussion was perhaps the inevitability of technologies. No matter how reluctant we had been to accept computers or cellphones, it’s most probably we had finally been drawn by the force of change. We could ask ourselves, for instance, whether we could keep good contact with friends if we refused to carry cell phones. Some suggested that this would mean displacing face-to-face communication. Contrary to what we usually think, studies on adolescents are showing that new technologies have enhanced personal interaction:

“Friends play an expanded role in the lives of young people. When they come home from school, college or work, socialising does not stop as it used to, it just goes online. Kids and young people are now connected constantly.” (Andrew Davidson, cited here)

Our class could be an example of this. We interact, send doubts and comments and read ourselves online; however this doesn’t mean that we don’t have things to do or say personally. On the contrary, new technologies expand our class, they take our class beyond the institute, but they don’t (and they can’t) replace it.

Of course there are very clear drawbacks to new technologies, and you mentioned many during the forum discussions. But, as Robert put it, “there have always been two sides, one positive and one negative, in relation to these new technologies and pastimes.” Whenever new things appear there are always conflicting views. This is the case for computers and television, but it has also been the same for calculators and even books. New technologies have always been a topic for debate, although, as history teaches us, they have always come to stay. So, if new technologies are unavoidable, perhaps the wisest thing to do would be to get to know them; only through knowledge and experience can we develop a critical relationship with them, being able to exploit their potentials and avoid their dangers.

Finally, as a conclusion to this conclusion, let me invite you to read Reactions to technology: past and present, a post from If I may say so… which I wrote last year after a heated discussion on these same issues. And don´t forget we’re still discussing Do we live in democracy? Don’t miss your chance to participate there as well.

The ideology of maps

Below is The Blue Marble, a famous photograph taken by Apolo 17 on its way to the moon. As you'll notice, the South is up. In reality, there's no up nor down in space, so why is it that all the maps we study always show the North up? As you'll imagine, this picture was turned upside-down before being published. Does this action carry any ideology? This is one of the things we tried to debate last year. As a consequence of that discussion, I wrote an article in If I may say so... I'm sure you'll find it of interest. Click here.

On Capital Market Liberalization and Flexibility of the Labour Market (By Nestor Cevasco)

One of the most interesting reflections by Anup Shah in his article ‘Structural Adjustment: A Major cause of Poverty’, is connected with the idea that the IMF and the World Bank assist some countries financially, but apply neoliberal measures as a pre-requisite for loans. Some of these pre-conditions are listed below:

• Liberalization of the economy or capital Markets.
  
• Flexibility of the labour market.
  
• The role of the state should be minimized.
  
• Privatization should be encouraged.
  

As regards the liberalization of capital markets, the concept may be better worked out as a market where capitals circulate with less restrictive control from state regulations. Hence, the circulation of cash flow into and out from a nation, which may be destined to inversions, is carried out without too much restriction, being in this sense more liberalized. Nevertheless, the effect of this action to the economy of a country seems to be rather negative, as it is observed by Anup Shah in the next paragraph.

‘Capital market liberalization. According to Palast, Stiglitz describes the disastrous capital flows that can ruin economies as being “predictable,” and says that “when [the outflow of capital] happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.’ [‘Structural Adjustment: A Major Cause of Poverty’, subtitle: ‘What is the IMF/ World Bank prescription?’ Anup Shah, October 2008].

In the previous paragraph, Shah introduces Joseph Stiglitz, recognized economist and Nobel Prize in Economy, who argues about the disastrous but ‘predictable’ consequences that the flow of capitals may produce to the economy of a nation. This ‘out flow of capitals’ has somewhat been explained in the previous lines and denotes the taking away of funds from a country, becoming such cash flow as volatile. Interestingly, a nation undergoing such a particular situation is suggested to increase its interest rates up to 30%, 50% and 80%, seducing the so called speculators to return back to a particular nation its capitals again. These increments in the interests rates are both attracting to speculators carrying here and there their assets and to some small savers, people that may or not be interested in increasing their incomes by depositing their small capitals in banks.

The previous context, that for some people is so positive, swears off as soon as the ‘out flow of capitals’ starts again. As a consequence, those small savers who see themselves in risk remove all their assets at once from banks, leading this to a complete bankruptcy. For this reason, protectionist measures are taken, like that one known as ‘The Corralito’, adopted during the economical collapse of Argentina 2001. However, this decision arose from people a huge level of criticism and skepticism, especially from those who had savings in banks, and had not expected that variables like the ‘outflow of capitals’ could have produced so terrible consequences.

As regards the ‘Flexibility of labor market’, the nineties period of Argentina provides for a suitable food for thought. Our representatives, deputies and senators agreed to modify and change our ‘Labor Law’, introducing a concept known as ‘flexibilization,’ which brought new changes to the labor market. Some of the most significant changes are listed below:

• The test period for a factory owner to contract a worker was extended from 3 months to 1 year. This meant that it would take 1 year for a boss to decide whether one would be fit for a job or not. Passed this period, if the worker did not reach to the ‘standards’, he or she was returned to an agency from where had been contracted as an ‘eventual worker’, and was replaced immediately be another one. Thus, the factory owner would be always supplied in time and form by workers. However, it was clear that some workers this system was inappropriate, since they had to wait a year time to be part of the staff or a company.
  
• Creation of agencies for eventual work. These agencies positioned workers in factories, firms or multinational companies, but which only required labor hand for an eventual or transitional period of time regulated according to parameters like production. Thus, agency workers were contracted for 3 or 4 months, but then returned back to the huge staff of unemployed people again, provided they had not been positioned permanently in a firm.