#Resource allocation solutions

[costmastersindia]

Best Estimating and Costing Software - Cost Masters

Find reliable project cost estimation and optimization with Cost Masters – a trusted provider of estimating and costing software. Streamline your budgeting process with our precise and efficient tools. Eliminate errors and simplify cost management. Learn more about Cost Masters today.

[the-cosmic-gentle-giant]

Climate Change is obviously an issue...so totally crazy idea on how to combat this...STOP LAUNCHING SHIT INTO SPACE!!

[maxlearnmicrolearningplatform]

The Art of Crafting a Microlearning Solution

Microlearning has emerged as a powerful strategy for modern education and training, characterized by delivering content in small, focused bursts. As we navigate the complexities of creating an effective microlearning solution, the design elements play a crucial role. Deciding whether to use infographics, podcasts, animations, videos, or a blend of these tools depends largely on the context and how these elements can be integrated to achieve the learning objectives.

Understanding Microlearning

Microlearning is designed to meet the needs of learners who are often time-constrained and require concise, engaging content. It leverages various multimedia formats to cater to different learning preferences and enhance retention. The flexibility of microlearning makes it suitable for diverse environments, from corporate training to academic settings.

The Role of Design in Microlearning

Design is the backbone of any effective microlearning strategy. A well-designed microlearning module captures attention, sustains interest, and facilitates better understanding and retention of information. The design elements you choose—infographics, podcasts, animations, videos, or a combination—must align with the learning goals and the preferences of your audience.

Infographics

Infographics are visual representations of information, data, or knowledge. They can be highly effective in microlearning because they:

Simplify Complex Information: Infographics distill complex data into a digestible format, making it easier for learners to grasp key points quickly.

Enhance Visual Appeal: The use of colors, icons, and layout can make information more engaging and memorable.

Facilitate Quick Learning: Learners can absorb and retain information faster through visual storytelling.

When to use: Infographics are ideal when you need to present statistics, processes, or comparisons that can be visualized.

Podcasts

Podcasts are audio recordings that can be accessed on-demand. They offer several advantages for microlearning:

Flexibility: Learners can listen to podcasts anytime, anywhere—during a commute, workout, or break.

Engagement: The use of storytelling and conversational tones can make content more engaging.

Accessibility: Audio content is accessible to individuals with visual impairments or those who prefer auditory learning.

When to use: Podcasts are effective for delivering expert interviews, storytelling, or explaining concepts that benefit from a narrative approach.

Animations

Animations bring content to life through motion graphics. They are particularly effective in microlearning for the following reasons:

Illustrating Complex Concepts: Animations can simplify and visualize abstract or complex ideas that are hard to describe textually.

Engagement: The dynamic nature of animations captures and maintains learners' attention.

Versatility: They can be used to demonstrate processes, show cause-and-effect relationships, or visualize data.

When to use: Animations are best for explaining technical concepts, demonstrating processes, or when you want to add an element of fun to the learning experience.

Videos

Videos combine visual and auditory elements, making them a powerful tool for microlearning:

Rich Media: Videos can include visuals, audio, text, and interactivity, catering to various learning styles.

Narrative Power: They can tell a story, provide context, and create emotional connections.

Engagement: Well-produced videos can captivate learners and hold their attention longer than static content.

When to use: Videos are ideal for demonstrating procedures, showcasing real-world scenarios, or when a more in-depth explanation is needed.

Blending Multimedia Elements

The true strength of a microlearning solution lies in the strategic blend of different media types. This blend should be guided by the context of the learning environment and the specific objectives you aim to achieve.

Identify Learning Objectives: Determine what you want your learners to achieve. Clear objectives will guide the selection and combination of multimedia elements.

Understand Your Audience: Consider the preferences, backgrounds, and accessibility needs of your learners. Different audiences may respond better to different media types.

Content Mapping: Map out your content and decide which parts are best suited for each type of media. For example, use infographics for statistical data, podcasts for storytelling, animations for complex concepts, and videos for demonstrations.

Consistency and Cohesion: Ensure that the multimedia elements are consistent in style and tone. Cohesion across different media types helps maintain a seamless learning experience.

Feedback and Iteration: Gather feedback from learners and continuously iterate on your design. This helps you refine the blend of multimedia elements to better meet the learning objectives.

Practical Applications and Examples

To illustrate the effective use of multimedia in microlearning, consider the following examples:

Example 1: Corporate Training on Cybersecurity

Infographics: Present statistics on cyber threats and data breaches.

Podcasts: Feature interviews with cybersecurity experts discussing best practices.

Animations: Demonstrate how phishing attacks work and how to avoid them.

Videos: Provide step-by-step tutorials on setting up security protocols.

Example 2: Academic Module on Climate Change

Infographics: Show the impact of climate change with charts and maps.

Podcasts: Include narratives from scientists and activists.

Animations: Explain the greenhouse effect and carbon cycle.

Videos: Document real-world effects of climate change and mitigation efforts.

Challenges and Considerations

While multimedia elements enhance microlearning, there are challenges to consider:

Resource Intensive: Creating high-quality multimedia content requires time, expertise, and financial resources.

Technical Issues: Learners may face technical issues such as compatibility, bandwidth limitations, or accessibility barriers.

Content Overload: Too much multimedia can overwhelm learners. It’s important to balance the use of different elements to avoid cognitive overload.

Conclusion

Launching a microlearning solution becomes significantly easier when you have a clear design strategy. The choice between infographics, podcasts, animations, and videos—or a combination of these—depends on the context and how well you integrate these elements to serve the learning objectives. By understanding your audience, mapping your content effectively, and maintaining consistency, you can create engaging and effective microlearning experiences that meet the needs of modern learners. The iterative process of gathering feedback and refining your approach ensures that your microlearning solution remains relevant and impactful.

[gilspvtltd]

Leveraging IaaS for Efficient Workforce Management

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is rapidly becoming a cornerstone for efficient workforce management in the manpower supply industry. With its flexible and scalable IT infrastructure, IaaS offers transformative benefits that streamline operations, enhance scheduling, provide real-time analytics, and automate processes. At Gils Pvt Ltd, an ISO 9001-2015 certified company established in 1998, we are leveraging IaaS to revolutionize our services and meet the complex, ever-changing needs of leading Indian and global corporate houses.

What is IaaS? Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is a cloud computing model that provides virtualized computing resources over the internet. Companies can rent servers, storage, and networking components on a pay-as-you-go basis from cloud service providers like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform. This model offers significant advantages, including cost savings, scalability, and flexibility, which are particularly beneficial in the manpower supply sector.

How IaaS is Revolutionizing Workforce Management

Enhanced Scheduling and Resource Allocation Effective scheduling is critical in the manpower supply industry, where timely and precise workforce deployment is essential. IaaS provides robust scheduling tools that allow companies to allocate resources efficiently. By using cloud-based platforms, Gils Pvt Ltd can manage schedules in real-time, ensuring that the right personnel are deployed to the right locations at the right times. This not only improves operational efficiency but also reduces downtime and enhances client satisfaction.

Interactive Question: How has scheduling inefficiency affected your business operations in the past?

Real-Time Analytics for Informed Decision-Making Real-time analytics is a game changer for workforce management. IaaS platforms offer powerful analytics tools that provide insights into workforce performance, client needs, and market trends. At Gils Pvt Ltd, we use these tools to monitor key performance indicators (KPIs), track employee productivity, and forecast staffing requirements. Real-time data allows us to make informed decisions quickly, ensuring that we remain agile and responsive to our clients' needs.

Interactive Question: What types of data do you think are most valuable for optimizing workforce management in your organization?

Automation of Manual Processes Automation is one of the most significant benefits of IaaS in workforce management. Manual processes, such as timesheet entries, payroll processing, and compliance reporting, are time-consuming and prone to errors. By leveraging cloud-based automation tools, Gils Pvt Ltd can streamline these processes, reducing administrative burdens and minimizing errors. Automation also frees up valuable time for our HR team, allowing them to focus on strategic initiatives rather than routine tasks.

Interactive Question: Which manual processes in your organization could benefit the most from automation?

Scalable Solutions for Growing Demands The manpower supply industry often experiences fluctuating demands, requiring scalable solutions that can adapt quickly. IaaS offers the flexibility to scale IT resources up or down based on demand. This is particularly beneficial during peak periods or when taking on large projects. Gils Pvt Ltd utilizes IaaS to scale our infrastructure seamlessly, ensuring that we can handle increased workloads without compromising service quality.

Interactive Question: How does your organization handle fluctuating demand, and what challenges do you face in scaling resources?

Improved Collaboration and Communication Effective collaboration and communication are essential for managing a dispersed workforce. IaaS provides cloud-based collaboration tools that facilitate real-time communication, file sharing, and project management. At Gils Pvt Ltd, we use these tools to ensure that our teams, spread across various locations in India and overseas, remain connected and coordinated. This enhances teamwork, improves project outcomes, and ensures that our clients receive consistent and high-quality services.

Interactive Question: What collaboration tools do you currently use, and how effective are they in managing your workforce?

Real-World Examples of IaaS Benefits Case Study 1: Optimized Scheduling

A leading global corporate house faced challenges in scheduling their housekeeping staff across multiple locations. By implementing our IaaS-powered scheduling platform, Gils Pvt Ltd optimized their workforce allocation, reducing scheduling conflicts and improving service efficiency. This resulted in higher client satisfaction and more efficient use of resources.

Case Study 2: Enhanced Analytics for Strategic Decisions

An Indian conglomerate partnered with Gils Pvt Ltd to manage their technical manpower. Using our cloud-based analytics tools, we provided real-time insights into workforce performance and client needs. This allowed the conglomerate to make data-driven decisions, improving their overall project management and resource utilization.

The Future of IaaS in Workforce Management As the manpower supply industry continues to evolve, the adoption of IaaS is expected to increase. Companies will rely more on cloud-based infrastructure to enhance their operational efficiency, streamline processes, and improve service delivery. At Gils Pvt Ltd, we are committed to staying at the forefront of this technological revolution, continuously leveraging IaaS to provide exceptional services to our clients.

Conclusion Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is transforming workforce management in the manpower supply industry by offering scalable, flexible, and cost-efficient IT solutions. At Gils Pvt Ltd, we have embraced IaaS to enhance our scheduling, provide real-time analytics, automate manual processes, and improve collaboration. As we continue to expand our services across India and overseas, we remain dedicated to leveraging the latest technology to meet the complex and ever-changing business needs of our clients.

[askagamedev]

Hello, can I ask how difficult is for developers to add accessibility features to games? I am aware it probably varies by type. Recently, I asked if a sound only minigame in one video game could be reworked to add visual cues, as I am deaf. Lot of other fans harped on me its too much work for little gain, too difficult, that it takes away precious developers time, etc. So now I wonder how complicated such thing actually is and how devs view it. Thank you.

They're not wrong in that building such things isn't free. However, you're also right in that we on the dev side should be thinking about better ways of doing this - there isn't only one solution to these problems. Whatever final solution we implement doesn't have to be the most expensive means of doing so. It's actually up to us to think of better/more efficient ways of doing the things we want to do. Adding accessibility options is often a worthy goal, not only to the players who need those options to be able to play, but also for general quality-of-life. If we're making changes after the fact, of course they're super expensive. If accessibility options are a production goal that we plan for, they're much cheaper because we don't have to redo work - we do it with accessibility in mind in the first place.

For example - let's say that we're working on UI and we have this system:

Let's say that we want to improve things for colorblind players. If we wanted to make this more accessible, instead of just using color to differentiate the choices, we could also add different border visuals to provide additional context.

In such a situation, the difference in choices is still obvious if you're colorblind and it helps legibility for non-colorblind players as well.

These kinds of UX changes can be expensive if we decide to do it after the fact, but if it's something we decide is important to us from the jump we can compensate for those costs by creating efficient and smart solutions early. Remember, the cost of any change in game development is directly proportional to how close that change is to shipping the game. The earlier the change is made, the cheaper it is. Furthermore, we make resource allocation choices based on our goals. If we want to make a game more accessible, we will figure out a way to do so that fits within our budget and provides a good player experience. Players don't really have a say in how we allocate our resources and that kind of armchair producer talk isn't particularly constructive anyway. Telling us what's important to you and why (including accessibility requests) is really the best kind of feedback we can hope for. Don't sweat coming up with the solutions or fretting about where we spend resources, that's our job.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[probablyasocialecologist]

In some of the work you’ve done on data centers, you talk about how AI is presented as a climate solution, even as it requires resource-intensive data centers and computing to power it. What do you think is the risk of presenting resource-intensive AI as a solution to climate change? This is something that’s already happening, which is basically the imposition of ecological visions of a few, especially in the Global North with private interests, onto the rest of the world. We can see this operating not only when it comes to data centers, but also lithium extraction. Lithium is used for rechargeable batteries, which is a key component of so-called transition technologies, such as electric vehicles. If we want to design a transition towards new forms of energy or less carbon-intensive energies, we need to cooperate with these communities and a very important actor are the ones that are participating in the AI value chain. Companies have a big interest in hiding this value chain, in making sure that these communities don’t have a voice in the media, in regulatory discussions, and so on, because this is crucial for their business model and for the technical capacities that they need. There is a big interest in silencing them. This is why they don’t provide information about what they do. It’s also very important that as we discuss AI governance or regulation, we ask how we can incorporate these communities. If you look at what’s happening in Europe, there is upcoming regulation that is going to request that companies provide some transparency when it comes to energy use. But what about something more radical? What about incorporating these communities in the very governance of data centers? Or if we really want more just technologies for environmental transition, why not have a collective discussion, incorporating actors from different contexts and regions of the world to discuss what will be the most efficient — if you want to use that word — way of allocating data centers. In the case of indigenous communities in the Atacama Desert, water is sacred. They have a special relationship with water. One of the few words that they still have is uma, which stands for water. So how do we make sure that these companies respect the way these communities relate to the environment? It’s impossible to think of any kind of transition without considering and respecting the ecological visions of these groups. I don’t really believe in any technologically intensive form of transition that’s made by technocrats in the Global North and that ignores the effects that these infrastructures are having in the rest of the world and the visions of these communities.

[novlr]

Do you have advice on writing a character who is in a rush?

For example : Character wakes up late (but not too late) and needs to do a couple of things fast.

How to Write Characters Who Are in a Rush

Writing characters who are in a rush requires a deft hand to capture the frenetic energy and urgency of the moment without losing sight of the character’s motivations and personalities. Whether your characters sleep through their alarms, are racing against the clock to meet a deadline, or are late to catch a flight, there are plenty of techniques you can use to convey a sense of haste and urgency. Here are some ways you can write characters who are always on the go:

Behaviour

Constantly checking their watch or the time

Moving quickly, with a sense of urgency

Speaking quickly and directly, skipping pleasantries

Ignoring distractions and focusing only on the task at hand

Making abrupt decisions without much thought or consideration

Multi-tasking, trying to accomplish multiple things at once

Showing signs of impatience, like tapping their feet or sighing

Taking shortcuts and looking for the fastest route

Communicating in short, concise sentences to save time

Prioritising tasks and eliminating non-essential activities

Engaging in risky behaviour, like running or jaywalking, to save time

Being forgetful or absent-minded

Interactions

Interrupting mid-conversation

Asking for help or assistance in a direct and urgent manner

Being curt or impatient when interacting with others

Requesting immediate action or cooperation

Repeatedly apologising

Giving share instructions without enough detail

Refusing to engage in small talk or personal conversations

Making quick, decisive requests or demands

Cutting off discussions or debates that could potentially delay progress

Expressing frustration or impatience if others can’t keep up

Moving on swiftly and not lingering when conversations end

Body language

Fidgeting or tapping fingers and feet

Pacing back and forth

Avoiding prolonged eye contact

Stiff stance, ready to move at any moment

Quick, sharp gestures

Tense or clenched muscles

Rapid and heavy breathing

Furrowed brow

Sighing and groaning

Rapid hand gestures while speaking

Quick, purposeful strides

Attitudes

Scatter-brained

Impatient

Willing to cut corners or take risks to save time

Low tolerance for distractions or delays

Rude and abrupt

Demanding

Stressed

Frustrated

Neglects details

Ignoring others’ opinions

Anxious

Single-minded focus

Action-oriented

Irritable

Positive outcomes

More efficient and better at prioritising

Can think quickly and come up with creative solutions

Eliminate distractions and maintain a laser-like focus

Allocate time more wisely and make the most of limited resources

Make decisions more swiftly and assertively

Increased adaptability

Learn to perform under pressure

Negative outcomes

Increased stress and anxiety

Decreased attention to detail

Poor decision-making

Strained relationships

Increased risk of accidents or injury

Overlook or miss important opportunities

Burnout and exhaustion

Incomplete or subpar work

Others see them in a negative way

[magz]

Ending Water Apartheid In Palestine.

Article Date: April 8, 2024.

Article Excerpt:

According to Euro-Med Monitor, those in the Gaza Strip have access to just 1.5 liters of water per person per day for all needs, including drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene. The established international emergency water threshold is 15 liters per person per day—ten times what Gazans have now. At least 20 people have already died of dehydration and malnutrition, a number that will continue to rise as diarrheal disease spreads due to lack of clean water, leaving many unable to retain what few calories they ingest.Despite significant investment in water and wastewater infrastructure in Palestine from institutions like the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Palestinian per capita water consumption continues to fall. While the water crisis in Gaza is now catastrophic, the Palestinian struggle to access water long predates the current onslaught and is an issue in the West Bank, too.

[...]

The root cause of Palestine’s water crisis is not a lack of investment but the political reality that Israel, as an occupying power, manages water in a way that denies Palestinians fair access. Experts and rights groups call this “water apartheid.” They say that recent Israeli tactics in Gaza, such as cutting off water to the enclave, are just the latest examples of its weaponization of the vital resource.

“Water apartheid describes a form of segregation that results in unequal access to water, where policies and practices ensure that water resources are disproportionately allocated to privileged groups while marginalized communities face scarcity and denial of access,” explains Saker El Nour, a sociologist and co-founder of Water Justice for Gaza, a collective of researchers and activists that publishes a newsletter on water in Palestine.

[...]

In Gaza, as early as 2017, UNICEF estimated that 96% of the water from the enclave’s sole aquifer was unfit for consumption due to untreated wastewater and seawater pollution. Still, before Israel’s October 2023 invasion, the aquifer provided over 80% of Gaza’s water, with three desalination stations and three pipes from Israeli company Mekorot providing the remainder.

[...]

“There is a segregationist thing of investing in water infrastructure for the settler population, allowing them to dig deeper wells to pull out more water, and constraining the Palestinian population, not letting them invest in improvements in their water infrastructure,” explains Michael Mason, director of the Middle East Center at the London School of Economics.

[...]

“Development aid is just a band-aid put on to make things look good, but it does not necessarily offer a sustainable solution,” she says. “The United Nations or USAID, for example, could spend a hundred million pounds to build a big water treatment plant, but then it gets bombed and that’s it—nothing is protected.”What is needed instead, Zaqout says, is an end to Israel’s control over Palestinian resources and its attacks on infrastructure and autonomy for Palestinian decision-makers to “think about their water needs, design their own infrastructure, and manage and decide on how they want to allocate funds.”

Mason says that the political pressure needed to push governments like those of the United States and the United Kingdom toward withholding support for Israel’s occupation could come from international courts and rights groups. Many of these are already spotlighting Israel’s weaponization of water.

[dailyanarchistposts]

I.1.2 Is libertarian communism impossible?

In a word, no. While the “calculation argument” (see last section) is often used by propertarians (so-called right-wing “libertarians”) as the basis for the argument that communism (a moneyless society) is impossible, it is based on certain false ideas of what prices do, the nature of the market and how a communist-anarchist society would function. This is hardly surprising, as Mises based his theory on a variation of neo-classical economics and the Marxist social-democratic (and so Leninist) ideas of what a “socialist” economy would look like. So there has been little discussion of what a true (i.e. libertarian) communist society would be like, one that utterly transformed the existing conditions of production by workers’ self-management and the abolition of both wage-labour and money. However, it is useful here to indicate exactly why communism would work and why the “calculation argument” is flawed as an objection to it.

Mises argued that without money there was no way a socialist economy would make “rational” production decisions. Not even Mises denied that a moneyless society could estimate what is likely to be needed over a given period of time (as expressed as physical quantities of definite types and sorts of objects). As he argued, “calculation in natura in an economy without exchange can embrace consumption-goods only.” His argument was that the next step, working out which productive methods to employ, would not be possible, or at least would not be able to be done “rationally,” i.e. avoiding waste and inefficiency. The evaluation of producer goods “can only be done with some kind of economic calculation. The human mind cannot orient itself properly among the bewildering mass of intermediate products and potentialities without such aid. It would simply stand perplexed before the problems of management and location.” Thus we would quickly see “the spectacle of a socialist economic order floundering in the ocean of possible and conceivable economic combinations without the compass of economic calculation.” [“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”, pp. 87–130, Collectivist Economic Planning, F.A. von Hayek (ed.), p. 104, p. 103 and p. 110] Hence the claim that monetary calculation based on market prices is the only solution.

This argument is not without its force. How can a producer be expected to know if tin is a better use of resources than iron when creating a product if all they know is that iron and tin are available and suitable for their purpose? Or, if we have a consumer good which can be made with A + 2B or 2A + B (where A and B are both input factors such as steel, oil electricity, etc.) how can we tell which method is more efficient (i.e. which one used least resources and so left the most over for other uses)? With market prices, Mises’ argued, it is simple. If A cost $10 and B $5, then clearly method one would be the most efficient ($20 versus $25). Without the market, Mises argued, such a decision would be impossible and so every decision would be “groping in the dark.” [Op. Cit., p. 110]

Mises’ argument rests on three flawed assumptions, two against communism and one for capitalism. The first two negative assumptions are that communism entails central planning and that it is impossible to make investment decisions without money values. We discuss why each is wrong in this section. Mises’ positive assumption for capitalism, namely that markets allow exact and efficient allocation of resources, is discussed in section I.1.5.

Firstly, Mises assumes a centralised planned economy. As Hayek summarised, the crux of the matter was “the impossibility of a rational calculation in a centrally directed economy from which prices are necessarily absent”, one which “involves planning on a most extensive scale — minute direction of practically all productive activity by one central authority”. Thus the “one central authority has to solve the economic problem of distributing a limited amount of resources between a practically infinite number of competing purposes” with “a reasonable degree of accuracy, with a degree of success equally or approaching the results of competitive capitalism” is what “constitutes the problem of socialism as a method.” [“The Nature and History of the Problem”, pp. 1–40, Op. Cit., p. 35, p. 19 and pp. 16–7]

While this was a common idea in Marxian social democracy (and the Leninism that came from it), centralised organisations are rejected by anarchism. As Bakunin argued, “where are the intellects powerful enough to embrace the infinite multiplicity and diversity of real interests, aspirations, wishes, and needs which sum up the collective will of the people? And to invent a social organisation that will not be a Procrustean bed upon which the violence of the State will more or less overtly force unhappy society to stretch out?” Moreover, a socialist government, “unless it were endowed with omniscience, omnipresence, and the omnipotence which the theologians attribute to God, could not possibly know and foresee the needs of its people, or satisfy with an even justice those interests which are most legitimate and pressing.” [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 268–9 and p. 318] For Malatesta, such a system would require “immense centralisation” and would either be “an impossible thing to achieve, or, if possible, would end up as a colossal and very complex tyranny.” [At the Café, p. 65]

Kropotkin, likewise, dismissed the notion of central planning as the “economic changes that will result from the social revolution will be so immense and so profound … that it will be impossible for one or even a number of individuals to elaborate the social forms to which a further society must give birth. The elaboration of new social forms can only be the collective work of the masses.” [Words of a Rebel, p. 175] The notion that a “strongly centralised Government” could ”command that a prescribed quantity” of a good “be sent to such a place on such a day” and be “received on a given day by a specified official and stored in particular warehouses” was not only “undesirable” but also “wildly Utopian.” During his discussion of the benefits of free agreement against state tutelage, Kropotkin noted that only the former allowed the utilisation of “the co-operation, the enthusiasm, the local knowledge” of the people. [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 82–3 and p. 137]

Kropotkin’s own experience had shown how the “high functionaries” of the Tsarist bureaucracy “were simply charming in their innocent ignorance” of the areas they were meant to be administrating and how, thanks to Marxism, the socialist ideal had “lost the character of something that had to be worked out by the labour organisations themselves, and became state management of industries — in fact, state socialism; that is, state capitalism.” As an anarchist, he knew that governments become “isolated from the masses” and so “the very success of socialism” required “the ideas of no-government, of self-reliance, of free initiative of the individual” to be “preached side by side with those of socialised ownership and production.” Thus it was essential that socialism was decentralised, federal and participatory, that the “structure of the society which we longed for” was “worked out, in theory and practice, from beneath” in by “all labour unions” with “a full knowledge of local needs of each trade and each locality.” [Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 184, p. 360, p. 374–5 and p. 376]

So anarchists can agree with Mises that central planning cannot work in practice as its advocates hope. Or, more correctly, Mises agreed with the anarchists, as we had opposed central planning first. We have long recognised that no small body of people can be expected to know what happens in society and plan accordingly (“No single brain nor any bureau of brains can see to this organisation.” [Issac Puente, Libertarian Communism, p. 29]). Moreover, there is the pressing question of freedom as well, for “the despotism of [the ‘socialist’] State would be equal to the despotism of the present state, increased by the economic despotism of all the capital which would pass into the hands of the State, and the whole would be multiplied by all the centralisation necessary for this new State. And it is for this reason that we, the Anarchists, friends of liberty, we intend to fight them to the end.” [Carlo Cafiero, “Anarchy and Communism”, pp. 179–86, The Raven, No. 6, p. 179]

As John O’Neill summarises, the “argument against centralised planning is one that has been articulated within the history of socialist planning as an argument for democratic and decentralised decision making.” [The Market, p. 132] So, for good economic and political reasons, anarchists reject central planning. This central libertarian socialist position feeds directly into refuting Mises’ argument, for while a centralised system would need to compare a large (“infinite”) number of possible alternatives to a large number of possible needs, this is not the case in a decentralised system. Rather than a vast multitude of alternatives which would swamp a centralised planning agency, one workplace comparing different alternatives to meet a specific need faces a much lower number of possibilities as the objective technical requirements (use-values) of a project are known and so local knowledge will eliminate most of the options available to a small number which can be directly compared.

As such, removing the assumption of a central planning body automatically drains Mises’ critique of much of its force — rather than an “the ocean of possible and conceivable economic combinations” faced by a central body, a specific workplace or community has a more limited number of possible solutions for a limited number of requirements. Moreover, any complex machine is a product of less complex goods, meaning that the workplace is a consumer of other workplace’s goods. If, as Mises admitted, a customer can decide between consumption goods without the need for money then the user and producer of a “higher order” good can decide between consumption goods required to meet their needs.

In terms of decision making, it is true that a centralised planning agency would be swamped by the multiple options available to it. However, in a decentralised socialist system individual workplaces and communes would be deciding between a much smaller number of alternatives. Moreover, unlike a centralised system, the individual firm or commune knows exactly what is required to meet its needs, and so the number of possible alternatives is reduced as well (for example, certain materials are simply technically unsuitable for certain tasks).

Mises’ other assumption is equally flawed. This is that without the market, no information is passed between producers beyond the final outcome of production. In other words, he assumed that the final product is all that counts in evaluating its use. Needless to say, it is true that without more information than the name of a given product it is impossible to determine whether using it would be an efficient utilisation of resources. Yet more information can be provided which can be used to inform decision making. As socialists Adam Buick and John Crump point out, “at the level of the individual production unit or industry, the only calculations that would be necessary in socialism would be calculations in kind. On the one side would be recorded the resources (materials, energy, equipment, labour) used up in production and on the other the amount of good produced, together with any by-products… . Socialist production is simply the production of use values from use values, and nothing more.” [State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management, p. 137] Thus any good used as an input into a production process would require the communication of this kind of information.

The generation and communication of such information implies a decentralised, horizontal network between producers and consumers. This is because what counts as a use-value can only be determined by those directly using it. Thus the production of use-values from use-values cannot be achieved via central planning, as the central planners have no notion of the use-value of the goods being used or produced. Such knowledge lies in many hands, dispersed throughout society, and so socialist production implies decentralisation. Capitalist ideologues claim that the market allows the utilisation of such dispersed knowledge, but as John O’Neill notes, “the market may be one way in which dispersed knowledge can be put to good effect. It is not … the only way”. “The strength of the epistemological argument for the market depends in part on the implausibility of assuming that all knowledge could be centralised upon some particular planning agency” he stresses, but Mises’ “argument ignores, however, the existence of the decentralised but predominantly non-market institutions for the distribution of knowledge … The assumption that only the market can co-ordinate dispersed non-vocalisable knowledge is false.” [Op. Cit., p. 118 and p. 132]

So, in order to determine if a specific good is useful to a person, that person needs to know its “cost.” Under capitalism, the notion of cost has been so associated with price that we have to put the word “cost” in quotation marks. However, the real cost of, say, writing a book, is not a sum of money but so much paper, so much energy, so much ink, so much human labour. In order to make a rational decision on whether a given good is better for meeting a given need than another, the would-be consumer requires this information. However, under capitalism this information is hidden by the price.

Somewhat ironically, given how “Austrian” economics tends to stress that the informational limitations are at the root of its “impossibility” of socialism, the fact is that the market hides a significant amount of essential information required to make a sensible investment decision. This can be seen from an analysis of Mises’ discussion on why labour-time cannot replace money as a decision-making tool. Using labour, he argued, “leaves the employment of material factors of production out of account” and presents an example of two goods, P and Q, which take 10 hours to produce. P takes 8 hours of labour, plus 2 units of raw material A (which is produced by an hour’s socially necessary labour). Q takes 9 hours of labour and one unit of A. He asserts that in terms of labour P and Q “are equivalent, but in value terms P is more valuable than Q. The former is false, and only the later corresponds to the nature and purpose of calculation.” [“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”, Op. Cit., p. 113]

The flaw in his argument is clear. Assuming that an hour of socially necessary labour is £10 then, in price terms, P would have £80 of direct labour costs, with £20 of raw material A while Q would have £90 of direct labour and £10 of A. Both cost £100 so it hard to see how this “corresponds to the nature and purpose of calculation”! Using less of raw material A is a judgement made in addition to “calculation” in this example. The question of whether to economise on the use of A simply cannot be made using prices. If P, for example, can only be produced via a more ecologically destructive process than Q or if the work process by which P is created is marked by dull, mindless work but Q’s is more satisfying for the people involved than Q may be considered a better decision. Sadly, that kind of information is not communicated by the price mechanism.

As John O’Neill points out, “Mises’ earlier arguments against socialist planning turned on an assumption about commensurability. His central argument was that rational economic decision-making required a single measure on the basis of which the worth of alternative states of affairs could be calculated and compared.” [Ecology, Policy and Politics, p. 115] This central assumption was unchallenged by Taylor and Lange in their defence of “socialism”, meaning that from the start the debate against Mises was defensive and based on the argument that socialist planning could mimic the market and produce results which were efficient from a capitalist point of view.

Anarchists question whether using prices means basing all decision making on one criterion and ignoring all others is a rational thing to do. As O’Neill suggests, “the relative scarcity of items … hardly exhaust the full gamut of information that is distributed throughout society which might be relevant to the co-ordination of economic activities and plans.” [The Market, p. 196] Saying that a good costs £10 does not tell you much about the amount of pollution its production or use generates, under what conditions of labour it was produced, whether its price is affected by the market power of the firm producing it, whether it is produced in an ecologically sustainable way, and so forth. Similarly, saying that another, similar, good costs £9 does not tell you whether than £1 difference is due to a more efficient use of inputs or whether it is caused by imposing pollution onto the planet.

And do prices actually reflect costs? The question of profit, the reward for owning capital and allowing others to use it, is hardly a cost in the same way as labour, resources and so on (attempts to explain profits as an equivalent sacrifice as labour have always been ridiculous and quickly dropped). When looking at prices to evaluate efficient use for goods, you cannot actually tell by the price if this is so. Two goods may have the same price, but profit levels (perhaps under the influence of market power) may be such that one has a higher cost price than another. The price mechanism fails to indicate which uses least resources as it is influenced by market power. Indeed, as Takis Fotopoulos notes, ”[i]f … both central planning and the market economy inevitably lead to concentrations of power, then neither the former nor the latter can produce the sort of information flows and incentives which are necessary for the best functioning of any economic system.” [Towards an Inclusive Democracy, p. 252] Moreover, a good produced under a authoritarian state which represses its workforce could have a lower price than one produced in a country which allowed unions to organise and has basic human rights. The repression would force down the cost of labour, so making the good in question appear as a more “efficient” use of resources. In other words, the market can mask inhumanity as “efficiency” and actually reward that behaviour by market share.

In other words, market prices can be horribly distorted in that they ignore quality issues. Exchanges therefore occur in light of false information and, moreover, with anti-social motivations — to maximise short-term surplus for the capitalists regardless of losses to others. Thus they distort valuations and impose a crass, narrow and ultimately self-defeating individualism. Prices are shaped by more than costs, with, for example, market power increasing market prices far higher than actual costs. Market prices also fail to take into account public goods and so bias allocation choices against them not to mention ignoring the effects on the wider society, i.e. beyond the direct buyers and sellers. Similarly, in order to make rational decisions relating to using a good, you need to know why the price has changed for if a change is permanent or transient implies different responses. Thus the current price is not enough in itself. Has the good become more expensive temporarily, due, say, to a strike? Or is it because the supply of the resource has been exhausted? Actions that are sensible in the former situation will be wrong in the other. As O’Neill suggests, “the information [in the market] is passed back without dialogue. The market informs by ‘exit’ — some products find a market, others do not. ‘Voice’ is not exercised. This failure of dialogue … represents an informational failure of the market, not a virtue … The market … does distribute information … it also blocks a great deal.” [Op. Cit., p. 99]

So a purely market-based system leaves out information on which to base rational resource allocations (or, at the very least, hides it). The reason for this is that a market system measures, at best, preferences of individual buyers among the available options. This assumes that all the pertinent use-values that are to be outcomes of production are things that are to be consumed by the individual, rather than use-values that are collectively enjoyed (like clean air). Prices in the market do not measure social costs or externalities, meaning that such costs are not reflected in the price and so you cannot have a rational price system. Similarly, if the market measures only preferences amongst things that can be monopolised and sold to individuals, as distinguished from values that are enjoyed collectively, then it follows that information necessary for rational decision-making in production is not provided by the market. In other words, capitalist “calculation” fails because private firms are oblivious to the social cost of their labour and raw materials inputs.

Indeed, prices often mis-value goods as companies can gain a competitive advantage by passing costs onto society (in the form of pollution, for example, or de-skilling workers, increasing job insecurity, and so on). This externalisation of costs is actually rewarded in the market as consumers seek the lowest prices, unaware of the reasons why it is lower (such information cannot be gathered from looking at the price). Even if we assume that such activity is penalised by fines later, the damage is still done and cannot be undone. Indeed, the company may be able to weather the fines due to the profits it originally made by externalising costs (see section E.3). Thus the market creates a perverse incentive to subsidise their input costs through off-the-book social and environmental externalities. As Chomsky suggests:

“it is by now widely realised that the economist’s ‘externalities can no longer be consigned to footnotes. No one who gives a moment’s thought to the problems of contemporary society can fail to be aware of the social costs of consumption and production, the progressive destruction of the environment, the utter irrationality of the utilisation of contemporary technology, the inability of a system based on profit or growth-maximisation to deal with needs that can only be expressed collectively, and the enormous bias this system imposes towards maximisation of commodities for personal use in place of the general improvement of the quality of life.” [Radical Priorities, pp. 190–1]

Prices hide the actual costs that production involved for the individual, society, and the environment, and instead boils everything down into one factor, namely price. There is a lack of dialogue and information between producer and consumer.

Moreover, without using another means of cost accounting instead of prices how can supporters of capitalism know there is a correlation between actual and price costs? One can determine whether such a correlation exists by measuring one against the other. If this cannot be done, then the claim that prices measure costs is a tautology (in that a price represents a cost and we know that it is a cost because it has a price). If it can be done, then we can calculate costs in some other sense than in market prices and so the argument that only market prices represent costs falls. Equally, there may be costs (in terms of quality of life issues) which cannot be reflected in price terms.

Simply put, the market fails to distribute all relevant information and, particularly when prices are at disequilibrium, can communicate distinctly misleading information. In the words of two South African anarchists, “prices in capitalism provided at best incomplete and partial information that obscured the workings of capitalism, and would generate and reproduce economic and social inequalities. Ignoring the social character of the economy with their methodological individualism, economic liberals also ignored the social costs of particular choices and the question of externalities.” [Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt, Black Flame, p. 92] This suggests that prices cannot be taken to reflect real costs any more that they can reflect the social expression of the valuation of goods. They are the result of a conflict waged over these goods and those that acted as their inputs (including, of course, labour). Market and social power, much more than need or resource usage, decides the issue. The inequality in the means of purchasers, in the market power of firms and in the bargaining position of labour and capital all play their part, so distorting any relationship a price may have to its costs in terms of resource use. Prices are misshapen.

Little wonder Kropotkin asked whether “are we not yet bound to analyse that compound result we call price rather than to accept it as a supreme and blind ruler of our actions?” [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 71] It is precisely these real costs, hidden by price, which need to be communicated to producers and consumers for them to make informed and rational decisions concerning their economic activity.

It is useful to remember that Mises argued that it is the complexity of a modern economy that ensures money is required: “Within the narrow confines of household economy, for instance, where the father can supervise the entire economic management, it is possible to determine the significance of changes in the processes of production, without such aids to the mind [as monetary calculation], and yet with more or less of accuracy.” However, “the mind of one man alone — be it ever so cunning, is too weak to grasp the importance of any single one among the countlessly many goods of higher order. No single man can ever master all the possibilities of production, innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make straightway evident judgements of value without the aid of some system of computation.” [Op. Cit., p. 102]

A libertarian communist society would, it must be stressed, use various “aids to the mind” to help individuals and groups to make economic decisions. This would reduce the complexity of economic decision making, by allowing different options and resources to be compared to each other. Hence the complexity of economic decision making in an economy with a multitude of goods can be reduced by the use of rational algorithmic procedures and methods to aid the process. Such tools would aid decision making, not dominate it as these decisions affect humans and the planet and should never be made automatically.

That being the case, a libertarian communist society would quickly develop the means of comparing the real impact of specific “higher order” goods in terms of their real costs (i.e. the amount of labour, energy and raw materials used plus any social and ecological costs). Moreover, it should be remembered that production goods are made up on inputs of other goods, that is, higher goods are made up of consumption goods of a lower order. If, as Mises admits, calculation without money is possible for consumption goods then the creation of “higher order” goods can be also achieved and a record of its costs made and communicated to those who seek to use it.

While the specific “aids to the mind” as well as “costs” and their relative weight would be determined by the people of a free society, we can speculate that it would include direct and indirect labour, externalities (such as pollution), energy use and materials, and so forth. As such, it must be stressed that a libertarian communist society would seek to communicate the “costs” associated with any specific product as well as its relative scarcity. In other words, it needs a means of determining the objective or absolute costs associated with different alternatives as well as an indication of how much of a given good is available at a given it (i.e., its scarcity). Both of these can be determined without the use of money and markets.

Section I.4 discusses possible frameworks for an anarchist economy, including suggestions for libertarian communist economic decision-making processes. In terms of “aids to the mind”, these include methods to compare goods for resource allocation by indicating the absolute costs involved in producing a good and the relative scarcity of a specific good, among other things. Such a framework is necessary because “an appeal to a necessary role for practical judgements in decision making is not to deny any role to general principles. Neither … does it deny any place for the use of technical rules and algorithmic procedures … Moreover, there is a necessary role for rules of thumb, standard procedures, the default procedures and institutional arrangements that can be followed unreflectively and which reduce the scope for explicit judgements comparing different states of affairs. There are limits in time, efficient use of resources and the dispersal of knowledge which require rules and institutions. Such rules and institutions can free us for space and time for reflective judgements where they matter most.” [John O’Neill, Ecology, Policy and Politics, pp. 117–8] It is these “rules and institutions need themselves to be open to critical and reflective appraisal.” [O’Neill, The Market, p. 118]

Economic decisions, in other words, cannot be reduced down to one factor yet Mises argued that anyone “who wished to make calculations in regard to a complicated process of production will immediately notice whether he has worked more economically than others or not; if he finds, from reference to the exchange values obtaining in the market, that he will not be able to produce profitably, this shows that others understand how to make better use of the higher-order goods in question.” [Op. Cit., pp. 97–8] However, this only shows whether someone has worked more profitably than others, not whether it is more economical. Market power automatically muddles this issue, as does the possibility of reducing the monetary cost of production by recklessly exploiting natural resources and labour, polluting, or otherwise passing costs onto others. Similarly, the issue of wealth inequality is important, for if the production of luxury goods proves more profitable than basic essentials for the poor does this show that producing the former is a better use of resources? And, of course, the key issue of the relative strength of market power between workers and capitalists plays a key role in determining “profitably.”

Basing your economic decision making on a single criteria, namely profitability, can, and does, lead to perverse results. Most obviously, the tendency for capitalists to save money by not introducing safety equipment (“To save a dollar the capitalist build their railroads poorly, and along comes a train, and loads of people are killed. What are their lives to him, if by their sacrifice he has saved money?” [Emma Goldman, A Documentary History of the American Years, vol. 1, p. 157]). Similarly, it is considered a more “efficient” use of resources to condemn workers to deskilling and degrading work than “waste” resources in developing machines to eliminate or reduce it (“How many machines remain unused solely because they do not return an immediate profit to the capitalist! … How many discoveries, how many applications of science remain a dead letter solely because they don’t bring the capitalist enough!” [Carlo Cafiero, “Anarchy and Communism”, pp. 179–86, The Raven, No. 6, p. 182]). Similarly, those investments which have a higher initial cost but which, in the long run, would have, say, a smaller environmental impact would not be selected in a profit-driven system.

This has seriously irrational effects, because the managers of capitalist enterprises are obliged to choose technical means of production which produce the cheapest results. All other considerations are subordinate, in particular the health and welfare of the producers and the effects on the environment. The harmful effects resulting from “rational” capitalist production methods have long been pointed out. For example, speed-ups, pain, stress, accidents, boredom, overwork, long hours and so on all harm the physical and mental health of those involved, while pollution, the destruction of the environment, and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources all have serious effects on both the planet and those who live on it. As green economist E. F. Schumacher argued:

“But what does it mean when we say that something is uneconomic? . .. [S]omething is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in terms of money. The method of economics does not, and cannot, produce any other meaning … The judgement of economics … is an extremely fragmentary judgement; out of the large number of aspects which in real life have to be seen and judged together before a decision can be taken, economics supplies only one — whether a money profit accrues to those who undertake it or not.” [Small is Beautiful, pp. 27–8]

Schumacher stressed that “about the fragmentary nature of the judgements of economics there can be no doubt whatever. Even with the narrow compass of the economic calculus, these judgements are necessarily and methodically narrow. For one thing, they give vastly more weight to the short than to the long term… [S]econd, they are based on a definition of cost which excludes all ‘free goods’ … [such as the] environment, except for those parts that have been privately appropriated. This means that an activity can be economic although it plays hell with the environment, and that a competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves the environment, will be uneconomic.” Moreover, ”[d]o not overlook the words ‘to those who undertake it.’ It is a great error to assume, for instance, that the methodology of economics is normally applied to determine whether an activity carried out by a group within society yields a profit to society as a whole.” [Op. Cit., p. 29]

To claim that prices include all these “externalities” is nonsense. If they did, we would not see capital moving to third-world countries with few or no anti-pollution or labour laws. At best, the “cost” of pollution would only be included in a price if the company was sued successfully in court for damages — in other words, once the damage is done. Ultimately, companies have a strong interest in buying inputs with the lowest prices, regardless of how they are produced. In fact, the market rewards such behaviour as a company which was socially responsible would be penalised by higher costs, and so market prices. It is reductionist accounting and its accompanying “ethics of mathematics” that produces the “irrationality of rationality” which plagues capitalism’s exclusive reliance on prices (i.e. profits) to measure “efficiency.”

Ironically enough, Mises also pointed to the irrational nature of the price mechanism. He stated (correctly) that there are “extra-economic” elements which “monetary calculation cannot embrace” because of “its very nature.” He acknowledged that these “considerations themselves can scarcely be termed irrational” and, as examples, listed ”[i]n any place where men regard as significant the beauty of a neighbourhood or a building, the health, happiness and contentment of mankind, the honour of individuals or nations.” He also noted that “they are just as much motive forces of rational conduct as are economic factors” but they “do not enter into exchange relationships.” How rational is an economic system which ignores the “health, happiness and contentment” of people? Or the beauty of their surroundings? Which, moreover, penalises those who take these factors into consideration? For anarchists, Mises comments indicate well the inverted logic of capitalism. That Mises can support a system which ignores the needs of individuals, their happiness, health, surroundings, environment and so on by “its very nature” says a lot. His suggestion that we assign monetary values to such dimensions begs the question and has plausibility only if it assumes what it is supposed to prove. [Op. Cit., p. 99–100] Indeed, the person who would put a price on friendship simply would have no friends as they simply do not understand what friendship is and are thereby excluded from much which is best in human life. Likewise for other “extra-economic” goods that individual’s value, such as beautiful places, happiness, the environment and so on.

So essential information required for sensible decision making would have to be recorded and communicated in a communist society and used to evaluate different options using agreed methods of comparison. This differs drastically from the price mechanism as it recognises that mindless, automatic calculation is impossible in social choices. Such choices have an unavoidable ethical and social dimension simply because they involve other human beings and the environment. As Mises himself acknowledged, monetary calculation does not capture such dimensions.

We, therefore, need to employ practical judgement in making choices aided by a full understanding of the real social and ecological costs involved using, of course, the appropriate “aids to the mind.” Given that an anarchist society would be complex and integrated, such aids would be essential but, due to its decentralised nature, it need not embrace the price mechanism. It can evaluate the efficiency of its decisions by looking at the real costs involved to society rather than embrace the distorted system of costing explicit in the price mechanism (as Kropotkin once put it, “if we analyse price” we must “make a distinction between its different elements”. [Op. Cit., p. 72]).

In summary, then, Mises considered only central planning as genuine socialism, meaning that a decentralised communism was not addressed. Weighting up the pros and cons of how to use millions of different goods in the millions of potential situations they could be used would be impossible in a centralised system, yet in decentralised communism this is not an issue. Each individual commune and syndicate would be choosing from the few alternatives required to meet their needs. With the needs known, the alternatives can be compared — particularly if agreed criteria (“aids to the mind”) are utilised and the appropriate agreed information communicated.

Efficient economic decision making in a moneyless “economy” is possible, assuming that sufficient information is passed between syndicates and communes to evaluate the relative and absolute costs of a good. Thus, decisions can be reached which aimed to reduce the use of goods in short supply or which take large amounts of resources to produce (or which produce large externalities to create). While a centralised system would be swamped by the large number of different uses and combinations of goods, a decentralised communist system would not be.

Thus, anarchists argue that Mises was wrong. Communism is viable, but only if it is libertarian communism. Ultimately, though, the real charge is not that socialism is “impossible” but rather that it would be inefficient, i.e., it would allocate resources such that too much is used to achieve specified goals and that there would be no way to check that the allocated resources were valued sufficiently to warrant their use in the first place. While some may portray this as a case of planning against markets (no-planning), this is false. Planning occurs in capitalism (as can be seen from any business), it is a question of whether capitalism ensures that more plans can be co-ordinated and needs meet by means of relative prices and profit-loss accounting than by communism (free access and distribution according to need). As such, the question is does the capitalist system adds additional problems to the efficient co-ordination of plans? Libertarian communists argue, yes, it does (as we discuss at length in section I.1.5).

All choices involve lost possibilities, so the efficient use of resources is required to increase the possibilities for creating other goods. At best, all you can say is that by picking options which cost the least a market economy will make more resources available for other activities. Yet this assumption crucially depends equating “efficient” with profitable, a situation which cannot be predicted beforehand and which easily leads to inefficient allocation of resources (particularly if we are looking at meeting human needs). Then there are the costs of using money for if we are talking of opportunity costs, of the freeing up of resources for other uses, then the labour and other resources used to process money related activities should be included. While these activities (banking, advertising, defending property, and so forth) are essential to a capitalist economy, they are not needed and unproductive from the standpoint of producing use values or meeting human need. This would suggest that a libertarian communist economy would have a productive advantage over a capitalist economy as the elimination of this structural waste intrinsic to capitalism will free up a vast amount of labour and materials for socially useful production. This is not to mention the so-called “costs” which are no such thing, but relate to capitalist property rights. Thus “rent” may be considered a cost under capitalism, but would disappear if those who used a resource controlled it rather than pay a tribute to gain access to it. As Kropotkin argued, “the capitalist system makes us pay for everything three or four times its labour value” thanks to rent, profit, interest and the actions of middle men. Such system specific “costs” hide the actual costs (in terms of labour and resource use) by increasing the price compared to if we “reckon our expenses in labour”. [Op. Cit., p. 68]

Moreover, somewhat ironically, this “economising” of resources which the market claims to achieve is not to conserve resources for future generations or to ensure environmental stability. Rather, it is to allow more goods to be produced in order to accumulate more capital. It could be argued that the market forces producers to minimise costs on the assumption that lower costs will be more likely to result in higher profits. However, this leaves the social impact of such cost-cutting out of the equation. For example, imposing externalities on others does reduce a firm’s prices and, as a result, is rewarded by the market however alienating and exhausting work or rising pollution levels does not seem like a wise thing to do. So, yes, it is true that a capitalist firm will seek to minimise costs in order to maximise profits. This, at first glance, could be seen as leading to an efficient use of resources until such time as the results of this become clear. Thus goods could be created which do not last as long as they could, which need constant repairing, etc. So a house produced “efficiently” under capitalism could be a worse place to live simply because costs were reduced by cutting corners (less insulation, thinner walls, less robust materials, etc.). In addition, the collective outcome of all these “efficient” decisions could be socially inefficient as they reduce the quality of life of those subject to them as well as leading to over-investment, over-production, falling profits and economic crisis. As such, it could be argued that Mises’ argument exposes more difficulties for capitalism rather than for anarchism.

Finally, it should be noted that most anarchists would question the criteria Hayek and Mises used to judge the relative merits of communism and capitalism. As the former put it, the issue was “a distribution of income independent of private property in the means of production and a volume of output which was at least approximately the same or even greater than that procured under free competition.” [“The Nature and History of the Problem”, Op. Cit., p. 37] Thus the issue is reduced to that of output (quantity), not issues of freedom (quality). If slavery or Stalinism had produced more output than free market capitalism, that would not make either system desirable This was, in fact, a common argument against Stalinism during the 1950s and 1960s when it did appear that central planning was producing more goods (and, ironically, by the propertarian right against the welfare state for, it should be remembered, that volume of output, like profitability and so “efficiency”, in the market depends on income distribution and a redistribution from rich to poor could easily result in more output becoming profitable). Similarly, that capitalism produces more alcohol and Prozac to meet the higher demand for dulling the minds of those trying to survive under it would not be an argument against libertarian communism! As we discuss in section I.4, while anarchists seek to meet material human needs we do not aim, as under capitalism, to sacrifice all other goals to that aim as capitalism does. Thus, to state the obvious, the aim for maximum volume of output only makes sense under capitalism as the maximum of human happiness and liberty may occur with a lower volume of output in a free society. The people of a society without oppression, exploitation and alienation will hardly act in identical ways, nor seek the same volume of output, as those in one, like capitalism, marked by those traits!

Moreover, the volume of output is a somewhat misleading criteria as it totally ignores its distribution. If the bulk of that volume goes to a few, then that is hardly a good use of resources. This is hardly an academic concern as can be seen from the Hayek influenced neo-liberalism of the 1980s onwards. As economist Paul Krugman notes, the value of the output of an average worker “has risen almost 50 percent since 1973. Yet the growing concentration of income in the hands of a small minority had proceeded so rapidly that we’re not sure whether the typical American has gained anything from rising productivity.” This means that wealth have flooded upwards, and “the lion’s share of economic growth in America over the past thirty years has gone to a small, wealthy minority.” [The Conscience of a Liberal, p. 124 and p. 244]

To conclude. Capitalist “efficiency” is hardly rational and for a fully human and ecological efficiency libertarian communism is required. As Buick and Crump point out, “socialist society still has to be concerned with using resources efficiently and rationally, but the criteria of ‘efficiency’ and ‘rationality’ are not the same as they are under capitalism.” [Op. Cit., p. 137] Under communist-anarchism, the decision-making system used to determine the best use of resources is not more or less “efficient” than market allocation, because it goes beyond the market-based concept of “efficiency.” It does not seek to mimic the market but to do what the market fails to do. This is important, because the market is not the rational system its defenders often claim. While reducing all decisions to one common factor is, without a doubt, an easy method of decision making, it also has serious side-effects because of its reductionistic basis. The market makes decision making simplistic and generates a host of irrationalities and dehumanising effects as a result. So, to claim that communism will be “more” efficient than capitalism or vice versa misses the point. Libertarian communism will be “efficient” in a totally different way and people will act in ways considered “irrational” only under the narrow logic of capitalism.

For another critique of Mises, see Robin Cox’s “The ‘Economic Calculation’ controversy: unravelling of a myth” [Common Voice, Issue 3]

[max1461]

I think there are three large classes of socialist concern, which are not reducible to each other and which require different types of solutions. I would describe them as follows:

Distributional concerns — Markets tend towards inequality, and thus even in times of abundance fail to allocate resources to people who need them.

Concerns over autonomy — Private control of resources, especially when it is highly concentrated, comes at the cost of the autonomy of those who don't control the resources. As a significant special case of this, private control of the means of production deprives workers of autonomy over their own work, which constitutes most of their waking lives. Concentration of property in the hands of the few leaves most people with no choice but to sell their labor, turning them into workers deprived of autonomy in the above sense.

Humanistic concerns — Markets optimize for specific outcomes and, furthermore, the desirable properties of market economies are predicated on the existence of firms which optimize for profit. In both cases these optimization procedures are premature; they do not factor in the full human condition and thus come at the cost of many things which people find desirable.

In my view, a successful socialist program must at least attempt to address all three of these concerns. Often when debating other socialists, I feel that they err by focusing on some of these concerns to the exclusion of the others.

I have listed these concerns in order of how difficult I believe them to be to solve. Concern (1) can, in fact, be solved relatively easily even within a liberal economic system, by implementing massive redistributive taxes that equalize wealth. I want to stress that this proposal is still radical by the standards of any nation on earth today, but a solution is easy to imagine. And all these problems are interrelated; solving (1), for instance, would go a long way towards remedying (2).

Concern (2) can also, I think, be solved or at least greatly mitigated under a market framework, though not a classical liberal one. Replacing private firms wholesale with worker co-ops would go along way towards addressing (2), and in combination with the above solution for (1) provides I think the easiest to conceptualize vision of what a workable socialist (socialist enough) economy might look like.

Concern (3) is by far the hardest to address—it is in essence just the alignment problem as applied to economic systems. Suffice it to say, the problem remains open.

A common theme I see in debates between certain (usually more liberal-leaning) practically-minded socialists and certain (usually more radical) utopian-minded socialists is that the practical socialist will propose some solution that aims to address (1) and (2), and the more utopian-minded socialist will respond with vague and often not particularly coherent accusations of insufficient radicalism. The practical socialist will often then reply by dismissing the utopian's criticisms as nothing but hot air, as unserious radical posturing. But I think this represents an unfortunate misunderstanding. That utopian is often pointing at something real, even if it is articulated in a way that offends more pragmatic sensibilities. Concern (3) touches on every part of human life, I think it's fair to say, and though the habit of incoherently blaming everything that goes wrong on capitalism is not that useful, it doesn't point at nothing.

The alignment problem is not solved in the general case, but there are things we can change about a system to try and make it more aligned with specific, known goals. So the job of a good socialist (or really, anyone interested in any kind of political reform) should then be to listen to the ways in which people are dissatisfied with their lives, even when articulated poorly, and try to accrue an understanding of the most recurrent and significant ways in which the present system fails to satisfy people. Then you can look for specific tweaks that will more readily accommodate the things people in fact seem to want. But crucially, this task in empirical—you cannot come upon the most desirable tweaks rationally. It's also empirical in a way that is difficult to approach with any kind of scientific rigor. You have to listen to people, and try to understand them on their own terms. You have to try to understand where people are coming from even if they phrase things in a way that you very much dislike, a way that irritates you or makes you feel threatened.

As I've said before, "listen to marginalized voices" is oft-misused, but not actually incorrect as a description of the practical obligations of anyone who wants to consider themself a leftist.

[rivensdefenseattorney]

Interplanetary Federation of Education (IFEd)

(WIP)

Mission Statement: IFEd is dedicated to fostering excellence in education, promoting collaboration among planets, and ensuring educational equity and community engagement.

Structure:

The IFEd is structured consists of a panel led by an experienced Chairperson and comprising representatives from participating planets, education experts, community leaders, and youth representatives. Policy advisors ensure alignment with interplanetary governance, while a dedicated Diversity and Inclusion Officer fosters equitable representation. The Secretary-General manages administrative tasks, committee chairs lead focused sub-committees on key aspects like charity assessment and resource allocation, and an advisory council, including seasoned educators, former members, and individuals with historical knowledge, provides valuable guidance.

Resource Allocation Committee

The Resource Allocation Committee (RAC) is tasked with overseeing the distribution of resources to schools based on their charitable contributions. This committee is responsible for evaluating and quantifying schools' public service, research contributions, and donations. It utilizes a weighted system, considering factors such as the size, quality, history, and prestige of each school to determine tiered contribution levels. The committee establishes a fair and dynamic framework, ensuring that schools with varying resources and capacities can actively engage in meaningful philanthropy. The RAC plays a crucial role in fostering equity, accountability, and continuous improvement within the interplanetary education system.

Quantifiable Metrics for Charitable Contributions:

Public Service

Volunteer Hours: The number of volunteer hours contributed by students and staff from elite schools to community service projects. This metric reflects the direct involvement of the school community in public service.

Community Impact Index: A standardized index that quantifies the tangible impact of community service projects initiated by schools.

Public Research

Research Publications: Research publications produced by schools that directly contribute to public knowledge, address societal challenges, or provide solutions to community issues.

Innovation Index: An innovation index that assesses the level of creativity and novelty in research projects undertaken by schools.

Public Charity

Monetary Donations: The total amount of monetary donations made by schools to charitable organizations, community projects, or public welfare initiatives. This provides a direct measure of financial support to the community.

Scholarship Funds: The establishment and contributions to scholarship funds that support underprivileged students or those with exceptional talent. This metric reflects a commitment to fostering educational opportunities within the broader community.

Material Contributions: The value and quantity of non-monetary donations made by schools. This includes items such as food, potions, elixirs, medicine, technology, and other tangible contributions that directly benefit the community.

Resource Impact Assessment: Evaluates the impact of non-monetary donations on the community. This assessment could consider the essential needs addressed, technological advancements shared, or improvements in the quality of life resulting from these donations.

Tiered Contribution Levels:

Tier 1 Contributors

Characteristics:

Size: Large student body and extensive facilities.

Quality: Renowned staff, state-of-the-art facilities, and high-achieving students.

History/Prestige: Long-standing history and high prestige within the interplanetary education system.

Contribution Requirement:

High contribution requirement due to the school's extensive resources and capacity for significant impact.

Tier 2 Contributors

Characteristics:

Size: Moderate to large student body with well-maintained facilities.

Quality: Competent staff, good facilities, and academically proficient students.

History/Prestige: Established history and a positive reputation.

Contribution Requirement:

Moderate contribution requirement, reflecting the school's capacity to make a substantial impact.

Tier 3 Contributors

Characteristics:

Size: Varied student body size with adequate facilities.

Quality: Capable staff, functional facilities, and engaged students.

History/Prestige: A decent history and a respectable reputation.

Contribution Requirement:

Moderate to low contribution requirement, considering the school's balanced resources and potential impact.

Tier 4 Contributors

Characteristics:

Size: Smaller student body with basic facilities.

Quality: Developing staff, basic facilities, and a growing student body.

History/Prestige: Limited history and reputation.

Contribution Requirement:

Low contribution requirement, recognizing the school's developing status and potential for growth.

Tier 5 Contributors

Characteristics:

Size: Small student body and limited facilities.

Quality: Novice staff, basic facilities, and entry-level students.

History/Prestige: Recently established with minimal reputation.

Contribution Requirement:

Minimal contribution requirement, acknowledging the school's entry-level status and the need for gradual growth.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

i hate this argument against the nordic model that it pushes women into places where support cant reach them. yeah if brothels close women go to apartments and hotels but… how do sex buyers find them? cant be that hidden can it? and if social workers and cops (who btw should have to do special sensitivity training to work with prostituted women) dont have to frequent brothels anymore theres more resources free to find women wherever they are being prostituted. also its not like hidden prostitution doesnt exist under legalisation either.

its all so fucking lazy, both from politicans and prostitution advocates. instead of fighting for the legal right to pay people to endure sex how about fighting for funds to be allocated to areas that actually make a change. for instance, exit benefits, job coaching and tailored training programs, language lessons, education, subsidies for companies who hire former prostitutes, etc.

in the end, it always comes down to the fact that „feminist“ prostitution advocates dont consider prostitution harmful, either because some women say they want it (never mind asking why), or because they think enduring unwanted sex is okay if someone „consented“. or they think its harmful and they want to reduce harm by professionaling brothels but fail to realise that enduring unwanted sex is the harm and that legalisation increases demand and „supply“ which in turn increases harm.

they also love to omit why its such an issue when prostitution is hidden. why is there more harm outside brothels? or more specifically, who is doing the harm? traffickers, pimps and sex buyers, thats who. do these people stop to exist when prostitution is legal? in those holy brothels, will the men who were harming prostituted women before just become non-violent? this argument is actually admitting that even prostitution advocates recognise the nature of sex buyers and all the men involved in prostitution as violent and waiting for a chance to exploit women, and prostitution as a means that allows them to do that. and their solution is to tell sex buyers they are entitled to enact violence, but only to the legally acceptable degree, which is whatever the prostitute agrees to for money, under financial duress.

[wumblr]

Anon from earlier that asked about energy sources. Thank you so much for the write-up; it was remarkable, and I'll be rolling it around in my head. I've believed nuclear power could be the best possible solution in the face of oncoming disaster, but your arguments are quickly changing my mind. For clarification's sake, I had no question about bombs. I'd already internalized that they're part-and-parcel with nuclear energy, either now or later. My hope was that it wouldn't be THAT steep, I'm not so hopeful of that anymore

no problem. i've always had lots to say about it because i'm still waiting on the RECA payout i'll never get and my mom died without ever coming around to the idea that she deserved to apply simply because of the sheer number of miscarriages she had, nevermind the cancer she beat

if you want more specifics on the link between reactors and bombs (contentious topic, someone took issue with me saying it on here as recently as a few weeks ago. lol) i would dig into the refinement production chain, the iranian nuclear scientist assassinations, subcritical testing at NNSS, or the ongoing project to replace minutemen with sentinels

almost nobody will state outright in the news that a reactor is the first part of the refinement production chain, which is why you have to dig into instructive examples and read between the lines, and i assume why people take issue with me saying it. but again, the funding that the biden admin has allocated for mining and refining is a) directly a result of pulling out of the largest disarmament project in history (megatons to megawatts), and b) essential so that his successor's successor can remain armed and keep the flow of resource extraction moving under the standoff of mutually assured destruction. the country quite literally can't function without it

[mariacallous]

In July last year, OpenAI announced the formation of a new research team that would prepare for the advent of supersmart artificial intelligence capable of outwitting and overpowering its creators. Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist and one of the company’s cofounders, was named as the colead of this new team. OpenAI said the team would receive 20 percent of its computing power.

Now OpenAI’s “superalignment team” is no more, the company confirms. That comes after the departures of several researchers involved, Tuesday’s news that Sutskever was leaving the company, and the resignation of the team’s other colead. The group’s work will be absorbed into OpenAI’s other research efforts.

Sutskever’s departure made headlines because although he’d helped CEO Sam Altman start OpenAI in 2015 and set the direction of the research that led to ChatGPT, he was also one of the four board members who fired Altman in November. Altman was restored as CEO five chaotic days later after a mass revolt by OpenAI staff and the brokering of a deal in which Sutskever and two other company directors left the board. Hours after Sutskever’s departure was announced on Tuesday, Jan Leike, the former DeepMind researcher who was the superalignment team’s other colead, posted on X that he had resigned.

Neither Sutskever nor Leike responded to requests for comment. Sutskever did not offer an explanation for his decision to leave but offered support for OpenAI’s current path in a post on X. “The company’s trajectory has been nothing short of miraculous, and I’m confident that OpenAI will build AGI that is both safe and beneficial” under its current leadership, he wrote.

Leike posted a thread on X on Friday explaining that his decision came from a disagreement over the company’s priorities and how much resources his team was being allocated.

“I have been disagreeing with OpenAI leadership about the company's core priorities for quite some time, until we finally reached a breaking point,” Leike wrote. “Over the past few months my team has been sailing against the wind. Sometimes we were struggling for compute and it was getting harder and harder to get this crucial research done.”

The dissolution of OpenAI’s superalignment team adds to recent evidence of a shakeout inside the company in the wake of last November’s governance crisis. Two researchers on the team, Leopold Aschenbrenner and Pavel Izmailov, were dismissed for leaking company secrets, The Information reported last month. Another member of the team, William Saunders, left OpenAI in February, according to an internet forum post in his name.

Two more OpenAI researchers working on AI policy and governance also appear to have left the company recently. Cullen O'Keefe left his role as research lead on policy frontiers in April, according to LinkedIn. Daniel Kokotajlo, an OpenAI researcher who has coauthored several papers on the dangers of more capable AI models, “quit OpenAI due to losing confidence that it would behave responsibly around the time of AGI,” according to a posting on an internet forum in his name. None of the researchers who have apparently left responded to requests for comment.

OpenAI declined to comment on the departures of Sutskever or other members of the superalignment team, or the future of its work on long-term AI risks. Research on the risks associated with more powerful models will now be led by John Schulman, who coleads the team responsible for fine-tuning AI models after training.

The superalignment team was not the only team pondering the question of how to keep AI under control, although it was publicly positioned as the main one working on the most far-off version of that problem. The blog post announcing the superalignment team last summer stated: “Currently, we don't have a solution for steering or controlling a potentially superintelligent AI, and preventing it from going rogue.” OpenAI’s charter binds it to safely developing so-called artificial general intelligence, or technology that rivals or exceeds humans, safely and for the benefit of humanity. Sutskever and other leaders there have often spoken about the need to proceed cautiously. But OpenAI has also been early to develop and publicly release experimental AI projects to the public.

OpenAI was once unusual among prominent AI labs for the eagerness with which research leaders like Sutskever talked of creating superhuman AI and of the potential for such technology to turn on humanity. That kind of doomy AI talk became much more widespread last year, after ChatGPT turned OpenAI into the most prominent and closely-watched technology company on the planet. As researchers and policymakers wrestled with the implications of ChatGPT and the prospect of vastly more capable AI, it became less controversial to worry about AI harming humans or humanity as a whole.

The existential angst has since cooled—and AI has yet to make another massive leap—but the need for AI regulation remains a hot topic. And this week OpenAI showcased a new version of ChatGPT that could once again change people’s relationship with the technology in powerful and perhaps problematic new ways.

The departures of Sutskever and Leike come shortly after OpenAI’s latest big reveal—a new “multimodal” AI model called GPT-4o that allows ChatGPT to see the world and converse in a more natural and humanlike way. A livestreamed demonstration showed the new version of ChatGPT mimicking human emotions and even attempting to flirt with users. OpenAI has said it will make the new interface available to paid users within a couple of weeks.

There is no indication that the recent departures have anything to do with OpenAI’s efforts to develop more humanlike AI or to ship products. But the latest advances do raise ethical questions around privacy, emotional manipulation, and cybersecurity risks. OpenAI maintains another research group called the Preparedness team which focuses on these issues.

[upismediacenter]

OPINION: STOP THE E-JEEP! #NoToJeepneyPhaseout

Commuter or not, every Filipino is familiar with jeepneys. Once dubbed “King of the Roads”, jeepneys are a symbol of Philippine culture and resourcefulness, as they were made from converted jeeps left by American troops after World War II. As the most popular public transport vehicle in our country for decades, these jeepneys are now at risk of disappearing, causing public uproar.

The controversy surrounding the phasing out of jeepneys first sparked in 2017 when the government launched the Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program (PUVMP). The program’s goal is to replace the old model jeepneys with modern electronic jeepneys (e-jeeps) that are claimed to guarantee cleaner emissions and improved safety. This has been met with several worries that could adversely affect the Filipino populace.

Public unrest over the jeepney phaseout has been going on for years. The consolidation deadline for Public Utility Vehicles (PUVs) which included jeepneys, UV Expresses, and Filcab units was extended three times. The first was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and multiple protests from transport groups, which affected the government’s original plan to consolidate PUVs in March 2020. As a result, it was rescheduled at the end of last year, December 31, 2023. The second extension was on January 31, 2024, to allow unconsolidated PUVs to ply their routes with the stipulation of being barred from joining cooperatives and corporations. The third and “final” deadline was on April 30, 2024—three months after the last deadline—to allow driver-operators one last time to consolidate, or else they would not be allowed to ply their routes. Amid these several deadlines, protests and strikes are unwavering as dissents push for the PUVMP to be suspended, arguing that imposing deadline extensions does not address the structural problems of the modernization program.

One day before the “final” deadline, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) declared that unconsolidated jeepneys have a 15-day leeway to continue their usual routes before they are impounded. Again, this is another smokescreen from the systemic issues brought by the modernization program. The PUVMP must be suspended, as it ostensibly presents more problems than solutions. If the PUVMP truly is for the people, why is there a persistent and contentious pushback by the public?

Enforcing deadlines and giving grace periods for jeepney drivers only delays—the government must suspend the PUVMP and reevaluate its effectiveness. Displacing and disenfranchising jeepney drivers from their livelihoods defeats the purpose of an inclusive and sustainable program as the PUVMP endorses itself to be.

Who are those affected?

Jeepney drivers are most affected by the modernization program. If they choose not to consolidate with cooperatives and corporations or cannot afford an e-jeep alone, their vehicles will be impounded, taking away their only source of income. Additionally, commuters, UP Diliman constituents, and other sectors also have to bear the cost of the PUVMP due to the policies and funds allocated to this program.

The transport group for jeepney drivers, Pagkakaisa ng mga Samahan ng Tsuper at Opereytor Nationwide, more commonly known as PISTON, is the leading opposition group against the PUVMP. First established in 1981, PISTON serves as an organization that aims to promote the welfare and democratic rights of jeepney drivers. In 2013, they launched a campaign against the oil price hike, directed at the country’s main petroleum companies, namely Petron, Shell, and Chevron. Since the government has revealed plans to phase out jeepneys over 15 years old, they have been organizing protests against the PUVMP, criticizing its anti-poor policies and prioritizing for-profit corporate consolidation.

The PUVMP pressures jeepney drivers to switch to e-jeeps or new combustion engine vehicles that meet Euro IV emission standards which only permit carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of 1.0g/km for gasoline and 0.5g/km for diesel vehicles. Units and parts that make up the e-jeep are imported from other countries, which is why they are priced as high as PHP 3 million. While the modernization program offers subsidies of PHP 160 thousand through loan programs by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to help offset the costs, this amount is only 5.7% of the total cost of a modern jeepney. Jeepney drivers state that they will need to make around PHP 3.5 thousand each day to pay off the debt from switching to an e-jeep, but at the moment, they only make around PHP 2 thousand a day.

The large amount of money that needs to be spent transitioning to modern e-jeeps is the main concern of dissent to this program. Replacing a huge fleet of jeepneys requires massive resources, taking away from vital sectors such as education and healthcare. Additionally, the PUVMP disproportionately affects low-income citizens—specifically, jeepney drivers who mostly come from low-income families and struggle to meet the high e-jeep cost. The debt burden forces them to work longer hours just to break even, negatively impacting their livelihood. Jeepney drivers worry that the transition to e-jeeps or new combustion engine vehicles will exacerbate their financial burdens and force them to work longer hours just to break even.

Furthermore, units from local manufacturing companies such as eFrancisco Motor Corporation and Sarao Jeepneys are still priced at around PHP 2.5 million, further putting jeepney drivers at odds with the financial burden of the PUVMP. With large corporations dominating the market and the PUVMP’s policy to consolidate driver-operators to cooperative-led fleets, this raises concerns of corporate takeover and the economic marginalization of jeepney drivers. Since large companies are the ones who have the capacity to fully adhere to the program, jeepney drivers are left disenfranchised because of their financial disadvantage.

Commuters are also affected heavily by this program. Modern jeeps usually charge higher fares because, aside from the initial cost of modernization, their maintenance and repair costs are higher than the traditional jeepneys’. This adds more financial problems to Filipinos already facing higher living expenses as a result of inflation rates. Moreover, unfamiliar technology could present a significant challenge for traditional drivers transitioning to modern jeepneys, leading to potential operational difficulties and increased maintenance expenses.

Constituents of UP Diliman (UPD) share similar concerns. The UP Transport Group (UPTG), which consists of jeepney drivers from all routes around the campus such as Ikot, Toki, UP-Pantranco, UP-Philcoa, and UP-Katipunan, organized a silent strike on December 13, 2023, in protest of the earlier December 31 deadline. Based on interviews with the UPD Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs Roehl Jamon, UP jeepney drivers may have to comply with the modernization. According to Jamon, the only two options they have are for the university to pay for the units themselves, which cost about PHP 1.4 to 3 million each, or for the university to partner with transport cooperatives that already own modernized units and invite them to service the campus, which is the less expensive option between the two. Although the latter is cheaper, this still gives way for corporations to take advantage of the modernization program.

Jeepneys are extensively used by UP college students and students of UP Integrated School (UPIS) for commuting to and from the university campus because they charge less than other PUVs. However, these fares could be completely changed by the PUVMP’s effect on jeepney availability and rates, possibly altering their daily commutes by making them spend more on transport alternatives or by forcing them to look for different routes. This might put additional financial burden as well as longer hours of travel in their everyday life, affecting not only their academic performance but also their general welfare.

Moreover, the PUVMP is taking attention and funding from other sectors that have more pressing needs. In particular, the Department of Education (DepEd) is significantly impacted by lack of funding. Classroom and teacher shortages have been notable areas of concern with an estimated 165,444 classrooms and nearly 90,000 teachers needed. According to DepEd, PHP 105 billion would be needed each year up until 2030 to address the classroom shortage, while PHP 5.6 billion would be needed to hire 20,000 teachers in the upcoming school year, as discussed in the Senate plenary deliberations on the proposed 2024 national budget. Aside from the education sector, the Department of Health (DOH) has been grappling with vaccine shortages, namely pertussis, which has led to 54 infant deaths since the beginning of the year. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), in 2022, the Philippines was among the top 5 contributors to the 18 million zero-dose children in the world. Despite this and multiple warnings from health authorities, the Philippines still hasn’t fully addressed this vaccine gap, leaving one million unvaccinated Filipino children vulnerable and susceptible to life-threatening diseases such as polio, measles, and tuberculosis. In light of these issues, resources should be prioritized in these matters instead of the PUVMP. Action must be taken immediately to address these pressing concerns and ensure the well-being of the Filipino people.

Are E-jeeps really the “better option”?

According to a study by the Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED), jeepneys only make up about 2% of the total registered vehicles in the nation and PUVs only contribute about 15% of the total particulate matter emissions in Metro Manila. If the PUVMP aims to transform our public transportation into becoming more sustainable and environmentally friendly, this number does not justify the relentless pressure on jeepney drivers to consolidate. The PUVMP will only contribute 2% to the country’s vehicles that cause pollution. This raises the question of the significance of its impact on saving the environment and reducing emissions in the long run. Additionally, modern jeepneys still run on fossil fuels, such as petroleum oil, defeating the purpose of the program’s goal of creating a more environmentally friendly public transport system. In the same study by CEED, it was argued that solely focusing modernization efforts on jeepneys to reduce air pollution would be negligible. Taking this into account, the government should instead consider upgrading traditional jeepneys to meet the proposed emission standards which would be cheaper for the program.

Furthermore, as said in a paper by the UP Center for Integrative and Developmental Studies, drawing from the current rate of assembly of modern jeepneys, it will take an estimated 270 years before all traditional jeepneys in the country are replaced. This begs the question of why the government keeps enforcing deadlines when it will take almost three centuries before all jeepneys are replaced with e-jeeps.

The PUVMP, while well-intentioned, presents a flawed solution. The environmental costs being too high, the unjust burden on the poor, and the uncertain consequences of such a drastic transition are strong arguments for reconsideration. The government should consider other options like rehabilitating existing jeepneys and using cleaner-burning fuels. One example that can be improved with the government’s help is the rehabilitated jeepney proposed by the Libmanan Transport Service Cooperative (LIBTRASCO). This model includes all government-specified features of the modernized jeepney—such as a side door, a higher ceiling, bigger windows, and even stabilizers to account for the increased height. Compared to e-jeeps, these rehabilitated models only cost around PHP 400 thousand to PHP 500 thousand, making them more affordable for jeepney drivers. Though the rehabilitated jeepney still uses the jeepney’s diesel engine, it can still be adapted to use a Euro 4 engine and even include air conditioning. If the government chooses to work with LIBTRASCO and retrofit the rehabilitated jeepney as an alternative, the Philippines can then improve its transport system while keeping its traditional jeepneys and people’s livelihoods by prioritizing affordability, inclusiveness, and a sustainable future.

Modernization shouldn’t be at the expense of the workers. The primary reason why many are aggressively opposing the program is that the welfare of jeepney drivers was not carefully considered when they should be the center of the solution. For the past years that the modernization program has been implemented, instead of listening to the pleas and concerns of jeepney drivers, commuters, and other constituents, the government has kept imposing the jeepney consolidation and resisting any demands by the public.

Taking all of this into account, we must request the government to prioritize policies that consider the money and power of all citizens, especially those from poor backgrounds. This includes subsidizing the move towards modern vehicles or examining other options that do not oppress marginalized communities. Instead of pushing jeepney drivers to consolidate and buy e-jeeps, the government should consider exploring and supporting initiatives that use cleaner-burning fuels and retrofitting existing jeepneys to meet emission standards to help maintain the environment in its sustainable state without overhauling the iconic jeepney fleet.

Above all else, this transition must be led by the workers—jeepney drivers whom the public has relied on for decades. Development must be made with the public in mind, not without.

// by Kela Alcantara & Xia Mentes

References:

Abarca, C. (2024, March 21). Calabarzon, Metro Manila top classroom shortage list – DepEd. INQUIRER.net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1921036/fwd-on-public-classroom-shortage#:~:text=The%20estimated%20total%20number%20of,country’s%20classroom%20shortage%20by%202030

Ansis, JC (December 14, 2015). "Piston: Continuing to fight for the transport sector". CNN Philippines. https://web.archive.org/web/20190131083905/http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/12/14/piston-protests-continuing-to-fight-for-transport-sector.html

Bautista, P., Moya, R. (2023, September 3). Jeepney modernization program: Drivers have a steep price to pay. Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/09/03/2293549/jeepney-modernization-program-drivers-have-steep-price-pay

CEED Office. (2018, November). Just Transition in the Philippines. CEED. https://ceedphilippines.com/just-transition-in-the-philippines/

Conde, M. (2019, November 16). Transport coop makes pitch for ‘affordable, safe’ rehabilitated jeepney. RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/nation/244909-camarines-sur-transport-cooperative-rehabilitated-jeepney/

Dimalanta, R. Atienza, J. Samonte E. (2023). Putting Transport Workers and Commuters First: The Route to Just Transition in Public Transport Modernization. UP CIDS Policy Brief. ISSN 2619-7286.

Gatarin, G. (2024), Modernising the ‘king of the road’: Pathways for just transitions for the Filipino jeepney. Urban Governance. 4(1). 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2023.11.002

Golez, P. (2024, January 24). Marcos extends jeepney consolidation deadline til April 30. POLITIKO. https://politiko.com.ph/2024/01/24/marcos-extends-jeepney-consolidation-deadline-til-april-30/daily-feed/

Latoza, G. (2023, December 15). What are UP’s plans for commuters amid PUVMP? Tinig ng Plaridel. https://www.tinigngplaridel.net/up-transport-puvmp/

Magramo, K. (2024, January 16). Philippines jeepneys: Will the loud, colorful vehicles soon disappear from the roads?. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/16/asia/philippines-jeepney-phase-out-strikes-intl-hnk/index.html

Mendoza, T. C. (2021, February). Addressing the “blind side” of the government’s jeepney “modernization” program. University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Developmental Studies. 1-69. ISSN 2619-7456.

Mondoñedo-Ynot, L. (2024, April 10). April 30 is final deadline for Puv Consolidation. SunStar Publishing Inc. https://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/april-30-is-final-deadline-for-puv-consolidation

Ombay, G. (2023, November 9). DepEd lacks nearly 90,000 teachers - Pia Cayetano. GMA News Online. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/887851/deped-lacks-nearly-90-000-teachers-pia-cayetano/story/

Pabustan, D. (2017, September 21). Euro 4, what does it mean and why do we need it?. AutoDeal.https://www.autodeal.com.ph/articles/car-features/euro-4-what-does-it-mean-and-why-do-we-need-it

Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2024, April 14). DOH’s Lack of Vaccine Urgency. INQUIRER.net. https://opinion.inquirer.net/172935/dohs-lack-of-vaccine-urgency

Presidential Communications Office. (2024, January 24). PBBM approves three-month extension of PUV Consolidation. https://pco.gov.ph/news_releases/pbbm-approves-three-month-extension-of-puv-consolidation/

RAC. (n.d.). Euro 1 to Euro 6 guide – find out your vehicle’s emissions standard. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/euro-emissions-standards/

Relativo, J. (2023, December 28). Unconsolidated jeepneys, UV Express “allowed to operate” until Jan. 31, 2024. Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/12/28/2321963/unconsolidated-jeepneys-uv-express-allowed-operate-until-jan-31-2024

Relativo, J. (2024, April 30). Unconsolidated jeepneys given “15-day leeway” after consolidation deadline. Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/04/30/2351543/unconsolidated-jeepneys-given-15-day-leeway-after-consolidation-deadline

Reyes, R. O. (2024, January 29). Jeepney drivers rejoice “partial victory” for phaseout extension. SunStar Publishing Inc. https://www.sunstar.com.ph/tacloban/jeepney-drivers-rejoice-partial-victory-for-phaseout-extension#:~:text=approved%20the%20extension%20for%20franchise

Rivas, R. (2023, March 7). In numbers: Why jeepney phaseout is anti-poor, will do little for environment. RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/business/numbers-why-government-phaseout-jeepneys-anti-poor-do-little-environment/

Santos, J. (2024, February 7). Consolidation extension is not what the protest demands. Philippine Collegian.https://phkule.org/article/1106/consolidation-extension-is-not-what-the-protest-demands

[lonestarflight]

Space Station Concepts: Power Tower

"It would provide maximized user viewing opportunities, a clear area for Shuttle dockings and versatility in Station growth. The design was also less sensitive to changes in mass caused by the addition of modules to the Station. The 'Power Tower' station's main structure was to be 122 meters tall with 75 kW solar panels sticking 41 meters to either side of the centerline.

"This is an artist's conception of the proposed 'Power Tower' space station configuration, shown with the Japanese Experiment Module attached. This model and several others were examined before deciding on the Space Station Freedom structure that was later abandoned in favor of the International Space Station. Date: June 19, 1985."

There were nine articulated attachments for external payloads dedicated to Earth and space observation. The initial Station would have had a crew of six working on 12-hour shifts, and feature two US-developed laboratory modules plus two habitation modules.

A maximum of 18 hours/week of EVA 'spacewalks' would be permitted per astronaut. International modules had not yet been incorporated in the design. The 'Power Tower' assembly schedule would have required 12 Shuttle flights over a three-year period, starting in April 1992. The Space Station would support research in a man-tended capability from April 1993 onwards. But the schedule was already starting to slip as the Office of Management and Budget reduced the Fiscal 1985 budget from $235 million to $150 million. The slight reduction increased the total cost to $8.1 billion at 1984 rates ($11.4 billion in current-year dollars).

Some observers were critical of the contractors' lack of independent involvement in the design process. They felt Station contractors did nothing but ape NASA's configurations in order to win the contract. In May 1987, former Space Station engineer Oliver Harwood testified in the Senate. 'Aerospace industry resources and capabilities were being squandered by 'rubber stamping' NASA designs instead of seeking independent and competitive solutions to system problems. Why were the artist's conceptions of eight major corporations so nearly identical? In a real competition seeking real answers there would be a different version for each of them.'

NASA allocated all Space Station definition work between four 'Work Packages' managed by its Johnson, Marshall, Goddard and Lewis Space Centers in July 1984. Work Package 4, led by the Lewis Research Center, would investigate Space Station power options. The two leading contenders were photovoltaic solar arrays and solar thermodynamic generators. Solar thermodynamic generators would use huge parabolic dishes to heat a fluid, which then powered electric generators. They were more efficient than traditional photovoltaic solar panels, had a longer lifetime and generated less atmospheric drag. But they also had to be pointed to within 1.5 degrees of the Sun to generate electricity, and the concept had never been tried before. NASA awarded contracts worth a combined $144 million to six contractor teams in April 1985, including $20 million to Work Package 4 contractors TRW and Lockheed. The agency still had not decided whether solar thermodynamic generators or photovoltaic arrays would be chosen. Another concept from the late 1980s would generate auxiliary power from the Earth's magnetic field by connecting a generator to a long electrically conducting tether. The other end was attached to the Space Station.

The McDonnell-Douglas 'Power Tower' Space Station crew modules were 10.7 meters long with docking ports at both ends. They would have been assembled end-to-end in a racetrack-like configuration. Some engineers felt this could have created dangerous dead-ends inside the Station if a module had to be depressurized. The contractors paid considerable attention to habitability issues since each crew would live and work on the Space Station for 90 days before returning to Earth. Rockwell's crew module proposal put all the equipment inside storage racks in the middle of the module rather than on the walls.

Article by Marcus Lindroos"

-Information from astronautix.com: link

NASA ID: 85-H-273

source, source, source

Mike Acs's Collection: link

NASA ID: C-1984-5784

SDASM Archives: 54059800